In
This Issue:
SOCIETY OF
TOXICOLOGY BACKS GM SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE
The Society
of Toxicology says that the risks associated with GM plants "are
not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding
practices for plant, animal, or microbial enhancement, and are already
familiar to toxicologists. It is therefore important to recognize
that it is the food product itself, rather than the process through
which it is made, that should be the focus of attention in assessing
safety. On this basis it backs the principle of substantial equivalence,
through which GM plants are evaluated in comparison to their non-GM
equivalents".
The Society
of Toxicology has just adopted a position paper, "The Safety
of Genetically Modified Foods Produced Through Biotechnology".
It says that to establish substantial equivalence, extensive comparative
studies of the chemical composition, nutritional quality, and levels
of potentially toxic components in both the engineered and conventional
crop or animal are conducted. Notable differences between the existing
and new organism would require further evaluation to determine whether
the engineered form presents a higher level of risk.
The Society
concludes that at present, "no verifiable evidence of adverse
health effects" of biotechnology-derived (BD) foods has been
reported, "although the current passive reporting system probably
would not detect minor or rare adverse effects or a moderate increase
in effects with a high background incidence such as diarrhea." It
notes that future genetic engineering projects might cause more substantial
and complex changes in a foodstuff.
"Methods
have not yet been developed with which whole foods (in contrast to
single chemical components) can be fully evaluated for safety," says
the paper. "Progress also needs to be made in developing definitive
methods for the identification and characterization of proteins that
are potential allergens and this is currently a major focus of research.
A continuing evolution of toxicological methodologies and regulatory
strategies will be necessary to ensure that the present level of
safety of biotechnology-derived foods is maintained in the future."
The full
paper is available at http://www.toxicology.org/Information/GovernmentMedia/
GM_Food.html.
TOP 10
BIOTECHNOLOGIES IDENTIFIED
An expert
panel of 28 eminent international scientists and experts in genome-related
technology and global health issues have expressed their collective
opinion on the top 10 genomic and other biotechnologies with the "greatest
promise of improving global health within a decade, particularly
in the world's poorer countries". The study entitled "Top
10 Biotechnologies for Improving Global Health" rank biotechnologies
in order of their importance to health care worldwide".
Genetically
modified crops with increased nutrients to counter specific deficiencies
were among them. According to the report, malnutrition affects one
in five people living in developing countries and has devastating
consequences. Genetically modifying staple foods to enhance their
nutritional value is a promising but under-utilized strategy to improve
global nutrition. But their development must be accompanied by a
thorough process of evaluation to ensure their biosafety.
The study
responds to a report by the World Health Organization (WHO) "Genomics
and World Health" which highlighted the importance of this growing
field. The WHO estimated that by 2010 around 8 million lives per
year, mainly in developing countries, could be saved through interventions
against infectious diseases and nutritional deficiencies.
However,
the WHO and other health bodies have expressed concerns about the "genomics
divide" between developing and developed countries. Ninety percent
(90%) of all medical research is targeted at problems affecting only
10% of the world's population. Professor Abdallah Daar, co-author
of the report and director of the University of Toronto Joint Centre
for Bioethics, said "funding agencies, international organizations,
investment funds, pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies
and so on - both in the developing and the developed world - must
focus their attention on the most promising technologies in order
to acquire the maximum benefit from these resources".
The top
10 biotechnologies are:
- Molecular
technologies for affordable, simple diagnosis of infectious diseases
- Recombinant
technologies to develop vaccines against infectious diseases
- Technologies
for more efficient drug and vaccine delivery systems
- Technologies
for environmental improvement (sanitation, clean water, bioremediation)
- Sequencing
pathogen genomes to understand their biology and to identify new
antimicrobials
- Female-controlled
protection against sexually transmitted diseases, both with and
without contraceptive effect
- Bioinformatics
to identify drug targets and to examine pathogen-host interactions
- Genetically
modified crops with increased nutrients to counter specific deficiencies
- Recombinant
technology to make therapeutic products (e.g. insulin, interferons)
more affordable
- Combinatorial
chemistry for drug discovery
To read
more about the report go to http://www.utoronto.ca/jcb/
ICRISAT/ICARDA
WIN KING BAUDOUIN AWARD
Researchers
of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT) and the International Center for Agricultural Research
in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) have jointly won the 2002 King Baudouin
Award, the most prestigious award bestowed by the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
Francisco
Reifschneider, Director of the CGIAR, announced that their entry "Changing
lives in marginal environments: A winning partnership in chickpea
research" will be recognized during the conferment ceremony
at the CGIAR Annual General Meeting to be held at the Shangri-La
Hotel, Manila, Philippines on October 30, 2002. Dr. Jagdish Kumar
will represent the ICRISAT/ICARDA chickpea research team at the ceremony.
According
to ICRISAT, chickpea is considered the most important leguminous
food grain in the diets of people in South and West Asia and northern
Africa. The joint research conducted with partners around the world
has generated many benefits. Over 100 improved varieties have been
released in 27 countries, and chickpea area and productivity have
increased dramatically in the tropics, and large new production areas
have been created.
ICRISAT
and ICARDA share a mandate for the improvement of chickpea. While
ICRISAT focuses on desi types in the tropical latitudes of South
Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, ICARDA takes the lead in kabuli types
in the arid temperate zones of Central and West Asia and North Africa.
Chickpea research at both institutes has dealt with five major stresses
which account for over $2 billion in losses. Drought, which accounts
for half this amount, is by far the most important. Helicoverpa pod
borer, fusarium wilt, ascochyta blight and botrytis gray mold account
for the rest.
ICRISAT
is based at Andhra Pradesh, India while ICARDA is located at Aleppo,
Syrian Arab Republic. For more information about the centers, visit
their websites at www.icrisat.org and www.icarda.org, respectively.
CIMMYT SAYS
ADOPTION OF GM MAIZE IS A NATIONAL DECISION
The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico has
issued a statement that says "We endorse the value and potential benefits
of GM maize for people and the environment. However, we believe that any decision
on transgenic maize in a country is that of the country".
The statement
notes continuing uncertainty over the presence or absence of GM maize
within Mexico. Since Mexico is the center of origin of maize, the
government does not permit the planting of transgenic maize, because
of the possible impact on maize genetic diversity. "CIMMYT's
response to this issue must be careful and scientific, since some
of the questions related to transgenic maize do not yet have satisfactory
answers." However, CIMMYT can work with countries that choose
to use the technology, by providing training, scientific information,
and information on intellectual property and biosafety policy and
procedures.
CIMMYT
says more research is needed on the genetic consequences of transgenes
for maize diversity, especially on issues relating to expression,
fitness, and selection pressure. It also says that to ensure confidence
in and public acceptance of studies on biosafety and diversity, in
relation to GM maize, such studies should be conducted by or in collaboration
with reputable public institutions.
CIMMYT
also says that since Mexico is the center of origin for maize and
seed from private companies may contain transgenes, "CIMMYT
will not grow germplasm from private companies on its Mexican experiment
stations and will not distribute the seed in our trials as checks."
The organization
says that private sector germplasm may be used at CIMMYT outreach
sites, if done carefully and only when essential. CIMMYT trials distributed
in Africa, South America, and Asia, and not grown in Mexico, may
include private sector hybrids as checks, provided the source company
furnishes a written statement to the effect that the hybrid(s) contain
no transgenes, to the best of their knowledge. If the company cannot
provide such a statement and the CIMMYT scientist must use a private
sector hybrid, the scientist must first justify the need to the Maize
Program Director and have the germplasm analyzed and certified as
transgene-free by an independent service provider recommended by
the CIMMYT Applied Biotechnology Center.
Email cimmyt@cgiar.org for
additional details about its statement on GM maize.
GM FOOD,
FAMINE AND FOOD AID
An article
on the Pew Agbiotech website discusses how the GM food debate has
reached the developing world. The article said that initially, much
of the international debate on GM food has been in developed nations.
Recently, the famine in south Africa has exported the debate to developing
nations. The US donated food but the twist in the story is that some
countries initially rejected the aid because they contain genetically
engineered food.
However, "the
reluctance of some southern African governments to accept GM corn
does not provide a complete picture of developing countries' attitudes
towards biotechnology". In Africa, Ethiopia is wary while its
neighbor, Kenya, is actively pursuing the technology as a means to
increase food security. In South America, "Argentina has embraced
GM crops while Brazil has not approved any". The various countries,
which will enact labeling laws will further impact the GM market.
The article
cited Frank Kiriswa, former First Secretary Economic/Political Section
at the US Embassy of the Republic of Kenya, who said "it is
unwise to deny the developing world the opportunity to use biotechnology".
He was also "adamant" that any efforts to develop the technology
for the developing world require close interactions between the government,
non-governmental organizations, scientists and farmers. Hope Shand,
of the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC
Group), agreed with the notion that "any progression of GM for
the developing world should be collaborative".
To read
the article, go to http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/display.php3?StoryID=77.
GM
CROPS OFFER HUGE BENEFIT TO ENVIRONMENT
The environmental
benefits of a number of genetically modified (GM) crops "are
enormous", says Adrienne Clarke, professor in the School of
Botany, University of Melbourne, and head of the Plant Cell Biology
Research Centre.
"For
example, the environmental benefits of GM cotton production is a
decreased use of chemical pesticides of 1.2 million kg a year, which
equates to 15 million fewer insecticide applications. This is a huge
benefit to the environment," Clarke noted during the 2002 Nancy
Millis Oration in Australia. Her talk was also subsequently published
in The Canberra Times.
"Likewise,
if we look at the environmental benefits of GM canola we find that
not only has there been a reduction in herbicide applications (by
6000 tons in Canada alone) but there are direct greenhouse gas savings
because of reduced field operations. Tillage is also reduced, helping
to conserve soil structure."
Clarke
noted that the potential for pollen flow is addressed seriously during
the process of reviewing applications for release to the environment. "For
canola, which is perhaps one of the crops which has the most opportunity
to hybridize with a non-GM crop, the pollen flow is well below the
accepted levels of contamination for both the EU and Japan," she
said.
Clarke
disputed the suggestion that if Australia were GM-free there would
be a premium in its produce in world markets. "I can find no
figures to support this position. Indeed, Canadian canola, which
is mainly GM, frequently commands a higher price than Australian
canola".
Clarke
is currently Victorian Ambassador for Biotechnology and co-chairs
the Council for Knowledge, Innovation, Science and Engineering.
BIOTECH IN
THE WSSD
Biotechnology
and genetically modified crops received considerable attention during
the recently concluded World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)
even though they were not listed as topics on the formal agenda.
According to Jennifer Thomson of the University of Cape Town who
wrote the article "Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops
at the World Summit on Sustainable Development", issues about
GM crops were raised during discussions involving food aid, sustainable
livelihoods, biopiracy and biodiversity and "in fact, the GM
crop debate comprised a key unofficial discussion point of the Summit".
A number
of stakeholders were involved in the biotechnology debate and 57
participants from 12 African countries attended a workshop on effective
biotechnology communications. A Biotechnology and GMO Commission
of the Civil Society forum took place on August 29, 2002 though Thomson
reports that "science was either neglected or distorted during
much of the forum".
A daylong
workshop on the role of biotechnology and biodiversity in sustainable
development was attended by more than 350 delegates. The following
recommendations were highlighted at the close of the meeting:
- Increase
funding for science and infrastructure in developing countries.
- Foster
public awareness, dialogue, communication, and understanding of
biotechnology to ensure that end-users understand the issues and
are given the opportunity to experience the benefits of biotechnology.
- Address
concerns about environmental safety of the technology on an ongoing
basis.
- Develop
Africa's own scientific and technological solutions to African
problems. This applies equally to other developing countries.
- Enhance
opportunities for investment in biotechnology in developing countries,
including partnerships between civil society and the private sector.
- Give
immediate attention to the implementation of Chapter 16 of Agenda
21 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Thomson
has been invited by Secretary General Kofi Annan to give an address
to the United Nations on GM crops for developing nations. The article
is available at http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2002/
artspdf/oct0201.pdf.
MISINFORMATION ON
GM ISSUES CONFUSES AUSTRALIANS
A recent
survey has found that the Australian public are finding it difficult
to understand gene technology issues because of a lack of quality
information, and the amount of conflicting misinformation being put
out by activist groups is not helping them any.
According
to Mr Craig Cormick, Manager of Public Awareness for the Commonwealth
Government Agency, Biotechnology Australia, "the public are
seeking balanced and factual information that will help them make
up their own minds, but many groups were dissemination myths and
half truths that were only confusing people and leading to a lowered
sense of trust in those group".
Speaking
at the International Institute for Public Ethics Conference in Brisbane,
Australia, Cormick said that tracking research over the past few
years had shown the Australian community was becoming polarized for
and against gene technologies, and had become the victims of a war
of misinformation between interest groups.
Cormick
commented, "When considering information on biotechnology people
should see if it addresses both benefits and risks, rather than just
puts forward one line. He also said the recent survey conducted for
Biotechnology Australia by Market Attitude Research Services found
that people's preferred sources of information included doctors (74%),
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
or CSIRO (56%), and schools or universities (54%). Perhaps reflecting
dissatisfaction with current information available, the media (34%)
and the internet (32%) rated much lower.
For more
information, contact Craig Cormick at gtis-australia@unimelb.edu.au.
BENEFITS AND
RISKS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN CALIFORNIA
A review
of scientific literature on the benefits and risks of food biotechnology
was prepared by the California Council on Science and Technology.
The focus of the report is on crop biotechnology and any positive
or negative impacts on human and animal feeding and the environment.
The report
said that the debate about the regulation and acceptance of genetically
engineered (GE) crops is fueled by the fact that the source of the
introduced DNA may be from a taxonomically different species and
the current technology does not control the location in the genome
at which the new, DNA-spliced transgene is introduced. The report
says "the ethical principles and goals that should be considered
in this debate are: ensure that all stakeholders are heard; maintain
a safe, nutritious, plentiful food supply; preserve ecosystems; and
balance agricultural production and wise stewardship of the earth.
The report
touched on several aspects of crop biotechnology. Regarding US consumer
response, 64% of the consumers surveyed value the benefits of genetic
engineering and have confidence in scientific innovation that will
bring benefits in the next five years. Concerning food safety, the
issue is whether transgenic crop products are quantitatively different
from crops resulting from non-spliced-DNA technologies. The experience
in California is that herbicide tolerant cotton has been documented
to give a $150 per acre savings to farmers. There are however criticisms
that there is a lack of coordination between the regulatory agencies
involved - the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture,
and the Environmental Protection Agency. The report further said
the most important criterion on the benefit-risk analysis of GM crops
is how it compares to conventional agricultural practices. So far
there is no evidence that transgenic crops harm the environment any
more than traditional agriculture, however systematic monitoring
is still needed.
The report
was prepared for the State of California Food Biotechnology Task
Force and its Advisory Committee in response to California Senate
Bill 2065 of 2000. It is available at http://www.ccst.ucr.edu/gmf/gmf01.html.
SWISS LEGISLATORS
REJECT GM BAN
The Swiss
House of Representatives has voted against a proposed moratorium
on the commercial use of genetically modified (GM) crops. Proposals
for moratoria lasting 5 or 10 years were both rejected by the House
following a lengthy debate. Less restrictive rules controlling GM
research were also adopted. The House voted for new labeling and
liability laws on GM. All commercial products containing GM ingredients
will require clear labeling. Any damage or contamination arising
from the use of GM crops or products will be the responsibility of
the producer.
USDA WEBSITE
TELLS BT MAIZE AND MONARCHS STORY
A US Department
of Agriculture web site gives an account of how the Bt maize/monarch
butterfly controversy was resolved. "The electronic and print
material present a case study of a controversial issue that was settled
by scientifically developed facts", says USDA.
"Butterflies
and Bt Corn: Allowing Science to Guide Decisions (http://www.ars.usda.gov/
sites/monarch)" was prepared by the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), University of Guelph, University of Maryland, Iowa State University,
University of Nebraska, Purdue University, Cornell University and Monarch Watch.
ARS coordinated
a workshop attended by representatives and researchers from government,
environmental groups and industry. "At that workshop, a cooperative
attitude developed that the issue needed credible, science-based
facts before any decisions were made," says USDA.
Two major
questions needed to be scientifically answered to establish whether
Bt maize actually posed a threat to monarch caterpillars-the direct
toxicity of Bt pollen for caterpillars and the likelihood that caterpillars
might be exposed to that much pollen. "In the end, monarch caterpillars
were not found to be very sensitive to pollen from most types of
Bt maize. The study also found that the likelihood of caterpillar
exposure to Bt pollen is low" says the USDA.
The impacts
of Bt plants, including those on Monarch butterflies, are also featured
in an AgBiotechNet hot topic: Bt plants. (http://www.agbiotechnet.com/topics/database/Btplant/btplants.asp).
TACKLING ARSENIC
WITH TRANSGENIC PHYTOREMEDIATION
A team
of researchers has developed the first transgenic system for removing
arsenic from the soil by using genetically modified plants. The new
system could have a major impact on arsenic pollution, which is a
dramatic and growing threat to the environment and to human and animal
health world-wide.
Scientists
were able to insert two genes from Escherichia coli that allow Arabidopsis
to tolerate arsenic, which is usually lethal to plants. By expressing
arsenate reductase and glutamylcysteine synthetase, Arabidopsis can
then remove arsenic from the soil and transport it to the plant's
leaves in a form which is far less biologically available in the
environment.
"Our
data demonstrate the first significant increase in arsenic tolerance
and what we call 'hyperaccumulation' by genetically engineered plants," said
Richard Meagher of University of Georgia. "This new system is
a major step in developing methods of cleaning up the environment
using plants."
Arsenic
contamination is an enormous worldwide problem. While soils are contaminated
both through natural occurrences of arsenic and spills and drainage
from chemical and manufacturing plants, by far the most serious problems
involved drinking water.
The scientists
say the plants genetically engineered to remove arsenic could be
used now. But they expect dramatic improvements in the amount of
arsenic they can extract as this current strategy is expanded in
future experiments.
The study
was published in Nature Biotechnology (http://www.nature.com/nbt).
Co-authors include postdoctoral associates Om Parkash Dhankher and
Yujing Li of UGA; Julie Senecoff and Nupur Sashti, formerly students
at UGA; Barry Rosen and Jin Shi of Wayne State University in Detroit,
Michigan; and David Salt of Purdue University. Rosen was the first
to characterize these genes in bacterial and fungal systems, making
this plant strategy possible.
ANNOUNCEMENT:
CROP
BIOTECH UPDATE ARCHIVE IS BACK ONLINE
Subscribers
to the Crop Biotech Update can access or retrieve previous news featured
in this electronic newsletter. After being redesigned, the Update's
Archive is now available online by clicking to http://www.isaaa.org/kc |
