3 January 2013, Oxford Farming Conference

Source: www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/

I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.

When I first heard about Monsanto’s GM soya I knew exactly what I thought. Here was a big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us. Mixing genes between species seemed to be about as unnatural as you can get – here was humankind acquiring too much technological power; something was bound to go horribly wrong. These genes would spread like some kind of living pollution. It was the stuff of nightmares.

These fears spread like wildfire, and within a few years GM was essentially banned in Europe, and our worries were exported by NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to Africa, India and the rest of Asia, where GM is still banned today. This was the most successful campaign I have ever been involved with.

This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it.

…

What really threw me were some of the comments underneath my final anti-GM Guardian article. In particular one critic said to me: so you’re opposed to GM on the basis that it is marketed by big corporations. Are you also opposed to the wheel because because it is marketed by the big auto companies?

So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

I’d assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.

I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.

…

And this is the challenge that faces us today: we are going to have to feed 9.5 billion hopefully much less poor people by 2050 on about the same land area as we use today, using limited fertiliser, water and pesticides and in the context of a rapidly-changing climate.

The full 51 minute presentation can be seen at: www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/

Source: The Guardian

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/02/genetic-modification-breakthrough-golden-rice

After 30 years, is a GM food breakthrough finally here?

Golden rice, a new strain that boosts vitamin A levels and reduces blindness in developing countries, is about to be sown in the Philippines – and is the new battleground crop.

Scientists say they have seen the future of genetically modified foods and have concluded that it is orange or, more precisely, golden. In a few months, golden rice – normal rice that has been genetically modified to provide vitamin A to counter blindness and other diseases in children in the developing world – will be given to farmers in the Philippines for planting in paddy fields.

Thirty years after scientists first revealed they had created the world’s first GM crop, hopes that their potential to ease global malnutrition problems may be realised at last. Bangladesh and Indonesia have indicated they are ready to accept golden rice in the wake of the Philippines’ decision, and other nations, including India, have also said that they are considering planting it.

“Vitamin A deficiency is deadly,” said Adrian Dubock, a member of the Golden Rice project. “It affects children’s immune systems and kills around two million every year in developing countries. It is also a major cause of blindness in the third world. Boosting levels of vitamin A in rice provides a simple, straightforward way to put that right.”

Recent tests have revealed that a substantial amount of vitamin A can be obtained by eating only 60g of cooked golden rice. “This has enormous potential,” said Dubock.

But scientists’ satisfaction over the Golden Rice project has been tempered by the fact that it has taken an extraordinarily long time for the GM crop to be approved. Golden rice was first developed in 1999, but its development and cultivation has been opposed vehemently by campaigners who have flatly refused to accept that it could deliver enough vitamin A, and who have also argued that the crop’s introduction in the developing world would make farmers increasingly dependent on western industry. The crop has become the cause célèbre of the anti-GM movement, which sees golden rice as a tool of global capitalism.

This view is rejected by the scientists involved. “We have developed this in conjunction with organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a way of alleviating a real health problem in the developing world,” says Dubock. “No one is going to make money out of it. The companies involved in developing some of the technologies have waived their licences just to get this off the ground.”

This view is shared by Mark Lynas, an environmental campaigner and one of the founders of the anti-GM crop movement. He has publicly apologised for opposing the planting of GM crops in Britain. “The first generation of GM crops were suspect, I believed then, but the case for continued opposition to new generations – which provide life-saving vitamins for starving people – is no longer justifiable. You cannot call yourself a humanitarian and be opposed to GM crops today.”

Golden rice was created by Peter Beyer, professor for cell biology at Freiburg University in Germany, and Ingo Potrykus of the Institute of Plant Sciences in Switzerland, in the late 1990s. They inserted genes for a chemical known as beta-carotene into the DNA of normal rice. In this way they modified the rice genes so that the plants started to make beta-carotene, a rich orange-coloured pigment that is also a key precursor chemical used by the body to make vitamin A.

By 2000 the plant was ready for trials. However, it took another five years before test fields were grown, such was the resistance to the idea of introducing GM plants in many countries. These trials showed golden rice could stimulate vitamin A uptake but at a low level. New research was launched to create varieties that would provide enhanced amounts of the vitamins.

“All the time, opponents to golden rice insisted, year after year, that it would not be able to produce vitamin A in those who ate it,” said Beyer, golden rice’s co-creator. “For example, it was alleged by Greenpeace that people would have to eat several kilograms of the stuff to get any benefit.”

Two studies, both published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, demolished this claim. The first, in 2009, was based on a group of healthy adult volunteers in the US and showed that golden rice’s beta-carotene was easily taken up into the bloodstream. The second trial was carried out by American and Chinese researchers and published last year. It was carried out on Chinese children, aged between six and eight, and showed that a bowl of cooked golden rice, between 100g and 150g, could provide 60% of the recommended intake of vitamin A for young people. The study also revealed that golden rice is better than spinach at providing vitamin A.

“Given that normal rice has no vitamin A to speak of, that shows the importance of what has been achieved,” said Dubock.

Source:  www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/21/1217927109.abstract.

An international team of researchers has succeeded in genetically modifying wheat seeds to prevent gluten production in subsequent plants. The researchers focused their work on an enzyme that activates the group of genes responsible for the production of gluten. Using genetic engineering techniques, they managed to suppress the enzyme by 85.6 percent which then reduced by 76.4 percent the production of gluten in wheat seeds.

The team, with researchers from China, Germany and the United States, says that flour made from the altered seeds appears to be suitable for making bread, and that the next level of their work will determine if these grains can be used in foods for people suffering from celiac disease.

Source: www.capitalpress.com/content/mw-GM-potatoes-013113-art

KENNEWICK, Wash. — A University of Idaho researcher says he’s optimistic efforts to develop GM potatoes will resurface.

Joseph Guenthner, a UI professor in Moscow, Idaho, said he believes it’s possible the organic industry or environmental organizations may one day accept GM potatoes developed using traits from other potato plants.

Efforts to develop GM potatoes date back to the 1980s, Guenthner said. Efforts failed due to export market concerns or political pressure by groups like Greenpeace, he said.

“Four decades of scientific and economic activity and we don’t have a commercial GM product on the market now,” he said.

Simplot continues to be involved in developing genetically modified potatoes, Guenthner said.

“It’s not just Simplot who is working on GM potatoes,” Guenthner said. “There are people at universities and other agribusinesses who are developing products I think would be great for producers and consumers.”

He and a graduate student surveyed industry representatives for the company to determine the likelihood GM potatoes would find acceptance in the marketplace.

His study determined there was potentially more support for GM potatoes using traits from other potato plants than using traits from other species.

Farmers are most interested in traits that increase yields and water and nutrient efficiency, but consumers are interested in traits that improve nutrition and have cancer-fighting properties.

The study also found more potential acceptance if processors have strict guidelines for growing and handling GM potatoes. That includes fields and equipment designated for GM use only, planting and harvesting GM crops last and delivering potatoes directly to the buyer from the field to avoid mixing them with non-GM potatoes in storage.

Trucks carrying GM potatoes would be tarped to avoid potential potatoes falling off and mixing with non-GM potatoes.

Two other scenarios were also considered. In one, growers would make their own decisions on keeping GM and non-GM potatoes separate. The third scenario had elements of both of the others.

Guentner noted that the stricter scenarios held a potential for a range of less than 1 percent to 2 percent contamination. His goal is for less than 2 percent contamination. Most foreign markets are tolerant of up to 5 percent contamination.

U.S certified organic programs have a tolerance of roughly 5 percent contamination.

In a related story:

Source: www.examiner.com/article/basf-stops-seeking-approval-for-gm-potato-europe-but-continues-business-us

On Tuesday, BASF the German chemical company, said that it has given up seeking approval for GM potatoes in Europe after concerted opposition from consumers, farmers and lawmakers. Environmental activists have destroyed GM crops on fields in Europe because they believe that they might harm health and erode biological diversity. BASF said that, “…continued investment cannot be justified due to uncertainty in the regulatory environment and threats [over the destruction of crops].”

BASF will continue its GM crop business in the United States, however, and has even added GM corn as one of its target crops even though the company has stopped its research and development activities into nutritionally enhanced corn in the US “as part of a continuous review of the project portfolio.”

10 January 2013. Source: Science Daily

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130110075358.htm

Research Revisiting the Safety of GM Weevil-Resistant Peas in Mice Contradicts Previous Risk Assessment Findings

Researchers at the Medical University of Vienna have conducted feeding trials with mice to investigate the allergenicity of genetically modified (GM) weevil-resistant peas. Development of the peas was discontinued in 2005 when a risk assessment conducted by the CSIRO and Australian National University showed negative reactions in mice to the peas (Prescott et al 2005).

Field peas are an important rotation crop, which can be devastated by pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) infestation. Unlike peas, beans are not attacked by pea weevils as they contain a protein called α-amylase inhibitor (αAI) that causes the weevils feeding on beans to starve before they cause any damage.

The MedUni Vienna-team investigated immune responses in mice fed several varieties of beans, non-transgenic peas and the transgenic peas, expressing the bean or the transgenic versions of the α-amylase inhibitor. The mice showed similar levels of immune response no matter which food they consumed.

Dr. Michelle Epstein, the lead researcher said, “We observed that the immune response in mice was the same no matter whether the inhibitor came from beans, where it naturally occurs, or from peas genetically modified to express the inhibitor and even in non-transgenic peas.” “These results demonstrate that αAI transgenic peas are no more allergenic than beans or non-transgenic peas in mice” Dr. Epstein added.

The Prescott study is regularly cited by those on both sides of the GM debate as an example of either the inherent dangers of genetically modified foods or the effectiveness of pre-market studies in identifying potential risk factors. Rodent studies for genetically modified organism (GMO) safety have recently been in the news. Seralini et al. showed untoward effects in rats fed GM corn but these studies were fraught with problems and add to the controversy of using rodents to study GMO safety (see EFSA report).

“The study is important because it illustrates the significance of repeating experiments in independent laboratories” Dr. Epstein said. “It is also vital that investigators are aware of potential unexpected crossreactive allergic responses upon the consumption of plant products, as we found in the non-transgenic peas.” Dr. Epstein questions the utility of rodents for evaluating biotech crops and points out that the MUV results highlight the importance of a careful case-by-case evaluation of GM crops, and the role science can play in decision-making around the introduction of GMOs into the food system.

This research was conducted at the Medical University of Vienna as part of the European Commission Framework 7-funded GMSAFOOD project.

AUS – ANTI-GM LEGAL THREATS

Threats prompt GM rethink

Source: The Land, by Colin Bettles

12 December, 2012

http://beta.theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/cropping/general-news/threats-prompt-gm-rethink/2638189.aspx?storypage=0

LITIGATION threats are forcing biotechnology campaigner Bill Crabtree to rethink his approach to the controversial topic, and call for greater backing and public advocacy from leading farm lobby groups.

Mr Crabtree is one of several individuals and organisations to have received defamation threats from the Safe Food Foundation (SFF) and scientist Dr Judy Carman in recent months.

The threats are in relation to varying claims, seeking differing levels of financial damages and potential legal costs, however, each case is underpinned by escalating common conflict between the different camps over genetically modified (GM) cropping technology.

In 2005, the West Australian government funded $92,000 to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER) in Adelaide to conduct animal feeding trials of GM canola, headed by Dr Carman.

Dr Carman has been criticised by Mr Crabtree and other outspoken biotechnology campaigners for failing to publicly report or publish the results of the IHER study in peer reviewed scientific journals, despite repeated requests.

The issue flared up again in September when Dr Carman was linked to claims GM wheat may cause a strain of liver damage that especially endangers the lives of young children.

The claims were contained in a media statement from the SFF which quoted Dr Carman as an expert scientific opinion.

The SFF and its director Scott Kinnear are also central to another high profile anti-GM campaign, over the alleged contamination of Kojonup organic farmer Steve Marsh’s wheat crop from GM canola growing on the farm of his neighbours, Mick and Zanthe Baxter.

Mr Marsh is being represented in his legal challenge by Slater and Gordon Lawyers with backing from Mr Kinnear’s organisation and other anti-GM groups.

Speaking to Fairfax Agricultural Media, Mr Kinnear confirmed having sent letters threatening defamation against various groups and individuals.

But he said, “I do not have any comment as to the precise nature of who and what they contained”.

For the complete article, see: http://beta.theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/cropping/general-news/threats-prompt-gm-rethink/2638189.aspx?storypage=0

SA says no to GM until 2019

Thursday, 20 December 2012

www.kondiningroup.com.au/StoryView.asp?StoryID=9644040

THE South Australian government has taken a tough stance on genetically modified crops by banning farmers from growing them for the next seven years.

State Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Minister Gail Gago said while SA had always been against growing GM crops, the federal government recently reviewed its Gene Technology Act and asked states with GM moratoria that had not been reviewed in the last three years to commit to reviewing them by the end of 2014.

She said a review would not take place because allowing GM crops to be grown would have a negative impact on the marketing of the state’s food and wine in key export destinations around the world.

SA‘s initial four-year prohibition was extended in 2008 over concerns non-GM production could be altered, with the ban in place until September 1, 2019.

Gago said the GM ban would not be lifted unless there were compelling reasons to do so.

“I have written to the federal government and told them that we will not be doing this [review],” she said.

“South Australia’s clean green food bowl gives us a competitive edge in the market.

“Our non-GM crops attract greater market prices and the exceptional quality of SA’s food bowl is synonymous with the state.

“We will not be doing anything to jeopardise this.”

Gago said community and market consultation would be listened to carefully to guide the future of GM in the state.

“There also continues to be concerns within the community about the long-term impacts of genetically modified foods and we are listening to these concerns,” she said.

“South Australia remains firmly committed to maintaining its GM bans.”

USA – GM SALMON SAFE FOR ENVIRONMENT

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-26/pdf/2012-31118.pdf

The US Food and Drug Administration has released its Draft Environmental Assessment for a GM variety of salmon for a public comment period. The FDA assessment found the GM salmon had “no significant impact” on the environment.

The public comment period closes on 25 February 2013.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Draft Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact Concerning a Genetically Engineered Atlantic Salmon; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency) is announcing the availability for public comment of the Agency’s draft environmental assessment (EA) of the proposed conditions of use specified in materials submitted by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., in support of a new animal drug application (NADA) concerning a genetically engineered (GE) Atlantic salmon. Also available for comment is the Agency’s preliminary finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for those specific conditions of use.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the Agency’s draft EA and preliminary FONSI by February 25, 2013.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is given that a draft EA prepared by FDA in support of an NADA associated with AQUADVANTAGE Salmon, a GE Atlantic salmon containing the opAFP– GHc2 recombinant DNA construct is being made available for public comment. FDA is also making available for comment the Agency’s preliminary FONSI for those specific conditions of use. In the event of an approval of the application, the approval would only allow AQUADVANTAGE Salmon to be produced and grown-out in the physically contained freshwater culture facilities specified in the sponsor’s NADA.

To encourage public participation consistent with regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the Agency is placing the draft EA and the preliminary FONSI that are the subject of this notice on public display at the Division of Dockets Management (see DATES and ADDRESSES) for public review and comment for 60 days.

Dated: December 20, 2012.

Scientists crack difficult wheat genome

29 November 2012. Source: www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/29/3643435.htm?topic=tech&WT.svl=healthscience2

The genome of the bread wheat, whose DNA is notoriously complex, is close to being completed, according to an international team of scientists.

Publishing in the journal Nature, they say they had analysed between 94,000 and 96,000 genes in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum).

According to the paper, the plant’s genome is nearly five times as big as humans.

The genes exist in what is in fact a triple genome, reflecting bread wheat’s legacy as the 8000-year-old offspring of three species of grasses.

Gene sequencing will help plant breeders in their search for strains that offer higher yields and are better able to tolerate floods, droughts and salty soils, the researchers said.

Wheat today accounts for a fifth of the world’s calorific intake, and this importance can only grow, given the world’s rising population and the impact of climate change on food production, say experts.

“This work moves us one step closer to a comprehensive and highly detailed genome sequence for bread wheat, which along with rice and maize is one of the three pillars on which the global food supply rests,” says co-author Jan Dvorak, a professor of plant sciences at the University of California at Davis.

“The world’s population is projected to grow from seven to nine billion by 2050,” says Dvorak.

“It is clear that, with no new farmable land available to bring into cultivation, we must develop higher-yielding varieties of these three cereals to meet the growing global demand for food.”

A complete, “polished” version of the genome may still lie several years away, says Neil Hall of the University of Liverpool, England, which led the research.

Although the genome has not been fully decoded, we now have instrumentation that can read DNA hundreds of times faster than the system that were used to sequence the human genome,” which was published in 2001, he says.

SCIENTISTS CRACK PEAR’S GENOME

19 November 2012. Source: www.genomics.cn/en/news/show_news?nid=99287

Scientists from Nanjing Agricultural University, Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI), and other institutions reported in Genome Research journal, the completion of the first genetic sequence of the pear. The pear genome will help scientists produce better pear varieties. Comparative genomics and evolution studies using the pear’s genome led to the discovery that pear, apple, and strawberry shared an ancient whole-genome duplication event that occurred 140 million years ago. It is expected that more discoveries on the pear’s genetic evolution will be known now that the genome is completely sequenced.

The scientists used BAC-by-BAC strategy and advanced sequencing techniques to crack pear’s genome. According to Zhiwen Wang of BGI, thte BAC-by-BAC strategy is fit for genomes with high heterozygosity.

INT- SCIENTISTS CALL FOR RETRACTION

Science journal urged to retract Monsanto GM study

Source: Reuters.

http://news.yahoo.com/science-journal-urged-retract-monsanto-gm-study-183006302.html

LONDON (Reuters) – The publisher of a much-criticised study suggesting genetically modified corn caused tumours in rats has come under heavy pressure from scientists to retract the paper and explain why it was ever printed.

The calls follow a report by Europe’s food safety watchdog this week dismissing the study’s findings.

Reed Elsevier, which published the study in its Food and Chemical Toxicology journal in September, said on Friday it was considering the criticisms and would let readers know if it concluded it needed to change the way it checked research.

In a statement on its website, the journal said “the paper was published after being objectively and anonymously peer reviewed, with a series of revisions made by the authors and the corrected paper then accepted by the editor.”

Hundreds of scientists from around the world have questioned the research, which was written by French researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and said rats fed on Monsanto’s GM corn suffered tumours and multiple organ failure.

Genetically modified crops are deeply unpopular in Europe but are common in the United State where they have been grown and consumed for more than 15 years.

A day after the study was published, Seralini defended his work, saying it was the most detailed study on the subject to date.

But more than 700 scientists have signed an online petition calling on Seralini to release all the data from his research.

The petition, addressed directly to Seralini, says: “Only a full disclosure of the data can quell any uncertainties over the results you published.”

EU – SERALINI STUDY FLAWED: EFSA

Seralini et al. study conclusions not supported by data, says EU risk assessment community 28 November 2012. Source: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm?utm_source=feed&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=prwns

Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603. These are the conclusions of separate and independent assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and six EU Member States following publication of the paper in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology on 19 September 2012.

EFSA today delivered its final evaluation of the paper by Séralini et al. which raised concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate. In particular, it suggested a link between exposure to these substances and an increased incidence of tumours in rats. The Authority’s final review reaffirmed its initial assessment that the authors’ conclusions cannot be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design, reporting and analysis of the study as outlined in the paper. Consequently, it is not possible to draw valid conclusions about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested. Based on the information published by Séralini et al., EFSA finds there is no need to re-examine its previous safety evaluations of NK603 or to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate.

Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said: “EFSA’s analysis has shown that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper mean it is of insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. In addition, several national organisations were independently mandated by Member States to assess this study. These reviews have demonstrated a consensus among a significant part of the EU risk assessment community that the conclusions of Séralini et al. are not supported by the data in the published paper. We believe the completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the issue.”

Broad consensus EFSA’s final statement considered the independent assessments of the paper by organisations of six EU Member States: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Full copies of these evaluations can be found in the annex of EFSA’s statement. EFSA noted the emergence of a broad European consensus, with the reviewed Member State assessments finding the conclusions of Séralini et al. were not supported by the data presented in the study. Four of the national evaluations found the paper did not provide scientific information that would indicate the necessity to reopen the risk assessment of NK603 or glyphosate. The exceptions were France’s High Council of Biotechnology and Italy, whose assessments did not examine this issue. Member States also identified many of the same weaknesses in the methodology and design of the paper as raised by EFSA. Unclear study objectives, the low number of rats used in each treatment group, a lack of detail on the feed and treatment formulation, key information missing on the statistical methods employed and incomplete endpoint reporting were all highlighted by Member State organisations. Inadequate sample size In the course of the review process, EFSA had requested Séralini et al. to provide further information on their study documentation. No such material had reached the Authority before publication of this statement. However, on 9 November 2012, Séralini et al. published a general reply to the reactions from across the globe to their paper.

After carefully examining the publication, EFSA concluded it provided only a limited amount of relevant information which failed to address the majority of the outstanding questions raised in the Authority’s first statement. In their ‘Answer to critics’ document, Séralini et al. stated the sample size of their treatment groups was too small to allow them to draw conclusions with regard to long-term carcinogenicity and mortality. EFSA noted this acknowledgement from the authors is inconsistent with the overall conclusions they made in the paper regarding the tumours and mortality. EFSA’s evaluation of the Séralini et al. article was in keeping with its mission to review all relevant scientific literature for GMO risk assessment. The Authority remains committed to monitoring relevant literature on an ongoing basis to ensure the advice it provides is up to date.

EU – EFSA TO RELEASE SERALINI REVIEW SOON

30 October 2012. Source: EFSA

www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121030.htm

EFSA to finalise review of Séralini et al. publication by mid-November

EFSA is due to publish in mid-November its second and final assessment of the Séralini et al. publication on the potential toxicity of GM maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate.

EFSA has extended the publication date of its second statement from the end of October until mid-November to allow it to fully consider the assessments of the Séralini et al. publication already carried out by EU Member States including Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and The Netherlands.

Upon publication of its initial statement on 4 October, EFSA also requested additional information from the study’s authors related to experimental design, reporting and analysis of findings in order to help inform the Authority’s final assessment.

New GM canola variety on way

24 Oct, 2012

Source: http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/oilseed/new-gm-canola-variety-on-way/2630453.aspx

BAYER is about to launch its first Roundup Ready canola variety in Australia, a hybrid called IH50RR – developed at Horsham, in Victoria’s Wimmera – and company officials are upbeat about its prospects.

With a dizzying array of canola varieties on the market, Bayer will have to hit the ground running to attract acres, but is confident it can do so, with strong hybrid vigour boosting the package.

The variety is the product of strong Bayer investment in canola in Australia.

Andrew Loorham, marketing manager – Seeds and Traits at Bayer CropScience, said the package of early vigour, solid yields and good blackleg resistance stacked up well, as did a compact plant, meaning lodging is unlikely to be an issue.

The new IH50RR Bayer variety currently has a provisional rating of resistant-moderately resistant (R-MR) in the independent Canola Association of Australia (CAA) rating scheme.

17 October 2012

Source: www.canberratimes.com.au/world/of-mice-and-mines-20121016-27owj.html#ixzz2AkOReWGC

Genetically modified mice could be the answer to clearing deadly landmines.

Scientists have genetically modified mice to enable them to sniff out landmines. They hope the GM mouse, known as MouSensor, could one day become a useful tool to help deal with the dangerous legacies of past wars.

More than 70 countries are contaminated by unexploded landmines, a constant reminder of previous conflicts.

”Long after wars have ended, communities are still impeded from going back to their normal, daily activities because of all these mines affecting their land,” says Charlotte D’Hulst of Hunter College, New York, who led the team that developed the MouSensor.

One approach to clearing landmines is to use HeroRats, giant pouched rats that are trained to sniff out landmines by the Belgian NGO, Apopo.

Two of these, with a human handler, can clear an area of 300 square metres in less than a few hours. It would take two people about two days to do the same. One disadvantage of the HeroRats system, however, is that the rats need about nine months of training before they’re ready for landmine detection.

D’Hulst wanted to improve on the HeroRats concept by creating a genetically modified ”supersniffer” mouse, sensitive to the specific odour of the explosives in landmines, TNT.

Scientists recently found a receptor in the mouse’s olfactory bulb (the collection of neurons in the nose that detects smells) that specifically recognises a chemical called DNT – a less explosive but similar-smelling version of TNT. D’Hulst modified a mouse’s genes to give it a much larger proportion of DNT receptors in its nose compared with the nose of a normal mouse.

In a normal mouse’s olfactory bulb, there are some 10 million neurons in total, with about 4000 specialised for a particular odour. D’Hulst’s GM mouse has 10,000 to 1 million neurons specialised for DNT, increasing the animal’s ability to detect the smell of the explosives 500-fold. She will present the latest results from her work this week at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans.

So far, the mouse has not been tested in the field and D’Hulst has yet to work out the best landmine-clearing protocol for her MouSensors. She says one approach might be to take advantage of the fact that the mouse would probably change its behaviour when it came across a landmine.

Given its extreme sensitivity to TNT, the mouse would probably have some sort of seizure when it sniffed explosives, D’Hulst says, because so many neurons in its olfactory bulb be firing at once. And that seizure might be detectable by some device implanted into the mouse.

”We are thinking along the lines of implanting a chip under the skin of these animals that would wirelessly report back to a computer when the animal’s behaviour is changing upon being triggered by a TNT landmine,” D’Hulst says. Once the location of a landmine had been identified, a bomb-disposal expert could go in and neutralise it in the normal way. The mouse itself would be safe from the landmine, since it would be too small to trigger an explosion.

The head of the International Committee of the Red Cross’ Weapon Contamination Unit, Ben Lark, says biosensors such as the GM mice would only be one way of detecting landmines and only in certain situations.

”They wouldn’t replace other means,” Lark says. ”There are three different types of approach: the manual approach, which is people with detectors; machines, such as a flail; and then you have biosensors – which are traditionally dogs. You never use one means on its own.

”The other thing is, the moment you have a minefield you have lots of mines together. If you have too many it saturates an area. I would assume if the mouse had such super-rodent powers it would be overwhelmed fairly quickly.”

Developing the MouSensor technology to detect landmines is a proof of concept for D’Hulst. GM mice could be created to detect a range of other odours, too, she says, for example to diagnose tuberculosis by sniffing compounds on the breath of sick individuals.

The bacteria that cause TB emit compounds that can be sniffed out in saliva samples, she says. Though developing a GM mouse that could detect them would not be a trivial task – researchers would first have to identify the neurons in the mouse’s olfactory bulb that detected the tuberculosis odour in question and then identify and modify the correct parts of the genome to create their desired biological sensor.

As for the landmine-detecting mouse, D’Hulst says she will need to carry out more tests and work with the NGOs involved in landmine disposal to work out the best way to develop the technology. ”If we have to put a time on [testing in the field], we hope it will be within five years,” she says.

The Guardian