In This
Issue
LESSONS
FROM A DECADE OF GE CROPS
A major
lesson learned after a decade of genetically engineered (GE) crops
is that high quality data must be made available to regulatory
agencies to enable them to make sound decisions. Public confidence
arises only from public knowledge that regulatory agencies are
overseeing the new technology comprehensively, fairly, and rigorously.
This point was raised by John Radin, national program leader of
plant physiology and cotton, US Agricultural Research Service of
the US Department of Agriculture.
Radin
says that the "future of GE is bright, with potential benefits
perhaps not yet imagined. But like all technologies, it must be
deployed properly to prevent unintended consequences. Globally,
consumers have clearly demonstrated a desire for more information
about the risk of any unintended consequences, and this desire
has limited markets for US agricultural products."
Other
lessons learned, adds Radin, include the realization that GE does
not solve all problems. He cites the case of virus-resistant squash
that was only partially resistant and thus did not replace the
need to control insects carrying the virus. A most important lesson
is, "the customer is always right." Radin explains that
the "ongoing globalization of trade has increasingly thrown
together diverse consumers in a marketplace that must serve them
all." Thus, consumers, particularly in Europe, were able to
create a backlash against its large-scale use, and even pushed
for the discussion of such issues as segregation and labeling of
GE foods.
These
lessons, according to Radin, will enable the second decade of GE
in agriculture "to have many more success stories than the
first."
The
full article appeared in the January 2003 issue of the Agricultural
Research Magazine and can be viewed at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jan03/form0103.pdf
OPTIONS FOR ACCESSING
TECHNOLOGIES
Designing
policies and procedures to ensure that public science has sufficient
freedom to operate is a major concern of developing and developed
countries. Freedom to operate will be crucial for public and nonprofit
agencies' intent on developing improved seed varieties and other
technologies destined for commercial release. So say Carol Nottenburg,
Philip Pardey, and Brian Wright in a brief (January 2003) entitled "Accessing
other people's technology," published by the International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Nottenburg
and colleagues enumerate several options for nonprofit institutes
seeking patent protection like the 16 centers of the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). These include:
- Cross-licensing.
Through a material trust agreement, recipients of in-trust material
distributed by research centers like those of the CGIAR agree
not to seek intellectual property (IP) protection on the material.
A possible model is where a center offers a material to another
institution at no cost in exchange for access to information
about subsequent discoveries and zero-cost non-exclusive research
licenses.
- Research-Only
Licenses. This license does not permit commercialization. If
the project succeeds, then the bargaining for permission to commercialize
commences. Despite refusal to allow commercialization, the intellectual
property rights holder gains valuable information about the technology
and its downstream applications.
- Market
Segmentation Strategies. Developing countries can get the new
technology for free, and proprietary claims are enforced in developed
countries. Markets for IP can also be segregated based on fields
of use, certain claims of a patent, limitations to specific uses
of the technology, research use versus commercialization, or
restrictions on third-party services.
- Mergers
of Joint Ventures. Mergers and privatizations of previously public
research agencies minimize the private costs of transactions
in intellectual property. Joint ventures are a more flexible
alternative where private sector companies get into joint ventures
with public sector for specific activities.
Other
options include direct programmatic research support from the private
sector; patent pools; clearinghouse mechanisms; independent development
of research tools; and pressure for sharing of technology.
The
Brief ends with a note that "guiding changes in intellectual
property regimes and responding creatively to the new environment
are pressing challenges for those interested in the future of scientific
research, including agricultural biotechnology."
The
full paper is available at http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp79.pdf
TRADE IN BIOTECH FOOD
PRODUCTS
Absence
of generally accepted standards for evaluating the safety of biotechnology
food products have resulted in different views on the need to trace
biotechnology components used in the food production chain as well
as on the issue of mandatory labels designating biotechnology food
products. This according to James Stamps, international economist,
in an article about agricultural biotechnology published by the
US International Trade Commission in the December 2002 issue of
International Economic Review.
The
article highlights key recent developments in global trade in biotechnology
food products, and discusses trade-related biotechnology policy
developments in several key trading countries.
Among
the trade-related concerns mentioned in the article are:
- Segregation
of agricultural biotechnology products which would require duplication
in storage and transportation infrastructure.
- Absence
of globally accepted standards for evaluating the safety of biotech
food products.
- Widely
different national standards and approval procedures as well
as insufficient guidelines causing international trade friction.
- Lack
of policy resolutions on biotechnology imports.
The
article likewise discusses biotech policy developments in such
markets as the European Union, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico,
China, India, Japan, South Africa and the Southern Africa Region.
GOING (GM) BANANAS
The
news about the spread of a new form of Panama disease, Fusarium
wilt which is threatening the popular Cavendish variety of banana,
raised alarm about the fruit's possible extinction. The doomsday
scenario is however refuted by the International Network for the
Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP), a program of the International
Plant Genetic Resources Institute.
Emile
Frison, director of INIBAP in France says that while the news has
raised an unprecedented interest in bananas, the scenario is not
so bleak. "If we can mobilize new and significant investment,
there is every reason to believe that the banana will provide food
and income security for those families for many years to come," says
Frison. Only five scientists in the world today are working to
breed improved bananas.
INIBAP
admits that diseases like Fusarium wilt and black Sigatoka are
threatening bananas worldwide and thus highlights the need for
developing new resistant varieties. "Biotechnology can speed
up research dramatically. Classical plant breeding can use biotechnologies
to see which varieties are worth pursuing. Genetic modification
is one biotechnology that could be used to breed improved varieties
of bananas", adds INIBAP. Often, it is the only available
solution in cases where varieties are totally sterile. Genetically
manipulated bananas, INIBAP claims, would be environmentally safe
because the banana is sterile and modified genes would not be able
to escape from the transformed crop.
Fore
more information see http://www.inibap.org/new/release210103.doc or
contact c.lusty@cgiar.org
USDA RELEASES JAPAN'S
BIOTECH POLICIES
The
US Department of Agriculture has released a biotechnology update
on Japan's biotechnology safety approval and labeling policies.
The report says that Japan has approved 44 biotech varieties as
food through its ongoing safety assessment process. It is illegal
to import biotech varieties which have not been approved in Japan
for food use. Food products containing approved biotech varieties
must be so labeled, if the biotech ingredients are scientifically
detectable.
Prepared
by Tetsuo Khamamoto and approved by Clay Hamilton of the US Embassy
in Japan, the report includes such topics as safety assessment
procedures for biotech products, labeling policy for biotech products,
and monitoring of GM or non-GM labeled foods.
The
report notes that due to the confirmation of Starlink corn in a
shipment of US corn for corn starch in December 2002, sampling
rate in the monitoring tests on US corn shipments was raised from
5% to 50%. In addition, a new legislation will go into effect April
1, 2003 making feed safety assessment mandatory.
Download
the full report at http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200301/145785045.pdf
EU COMMISSIONER REACTS
TO GM ISSUES
Pascal
Lamy, European Union's trade commissioner, clarifies in a Newsweek
interview that Europe's stance regarding genetically modified (GM)
foods is not outright resistance but that "we do more thorough
testing on every GM variety. Our objective is to rebuild consumer
confidence which has been badly shaken by food scares in recent
years."
Lamy
was reacting to threats by the US to drag Europe before the World
Trade Organization over its policy on GM crops. "We believe
that citizens should be free to choose," he said. "Consumers
will be willing to buy GM foods if and when they are convinced
that these products are safe for human health and for the environment
- and if they see a benefit in the products. Public authorities
need adequate regulatory systems, and companies selling biotech
products need to show what's in it for the consumers, be it in
terms of quality or price of the products concerned."
The
trade commissioner likewise reacted to perceptions that Europe
had a say in Zambia's decision to reject GM corn as well as China's
hold off on GM foods. Lamy explained that they had no say in these
two different issues noting that "we respect countries' sovereign
rights to decide on their policies towards GM foods."
In a
related article in the same issue of Newsweek entitled "Fear
of Food", Fred Guterl notes that "once better regulations
are in place, attitudes may soften". "If liability laws
were also strengthened, so that consumers felt they had better
resource against food-industry shenanigans, European consumers
might alter their resistance to GM crops," Guterl added.
The
Newsweek January 27, 2003 issue can be seen online at http://www.msnbc.com/
news/861360.asp?0cb=-3185737&cpl=1
US ANSWERS QUERIES
ON GE FOOD DONATIONS
The
US Agency for International Development has released a fact sheet
addressing the issue of biotechnology and food aid. It answers
questions raised about the safety and regulation of foods derived
from biotechnology, and about US food aid programs.
One
issue that the fact sheet tackled was the concern being raised
by countries receiving US food aid. It says that the governments
of Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
expressed fear of damaging their future agricultural trade with
the European Union. They felt that US-donated corn kernels planted
by farmers could accidentally or intentionally pollinate local
corn plants which in turn could lead to new genetic material being
introduced into the local corn varieties. The governments are concerned
that upon resumption of trade, the EU may unilaterally bar their
corn or corn-fed animal exports. Of the six countries, only Zambia,
to date, rejects any US GE food aid donations.
The
fact sheet clarifies that food aid grain if planted in Africa can
cross-pollinate (or out-cross) with other corn varieties but not
with other local plants. The frequency of cross-pollinating with
domestic corn in Africa will be low unless the food aid grain is
planted close to or in fields with domestic corn. Varieties adapted
for the US climate and growing conditions will likely not grow
well in Africa, limiting their ability to cross-pollinate with
local corn varieties. In addition, food aid grain is intended for
immediate consumption and is not intended for planting.
The
fact sheet can be downloaded at http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/biotech/03011701.htm
US CONSUMERS' REACTIONS
TO GM FOOD LABELS
There
is a low level of awareness about GM foods in the US despite the
amount of media coverage on genetically modified (GM) food labeling
policies. This is one of the major findings of the research conducted
by Mario F. Teisl, associate professor, Department of Resource
Economics and Policy, University of Maine, and colleagues.
The
study utilized focus groups to gauge US consumers' reactions to
alternative GM food labeling policies, and provide policy makers
with a guide to the best method of labeling GM food. Respondents
preferred neutral label information. Since the long-term health
and environmental effects of GM food are yet to be seen, they want
the messages in the labels to accurately reflect the state of knowledge
about the modification.
The
respondents noted that most consumers are unaware about the issues
pertaining to GM foods, so for labeling to be effective, the consumers
need to be educated first. In this regard, they felt that the media
should provide more information about the benefits and costs of
GM foods.
Other
findings of the study are as follows:
- When
buying food products, most of the participants considered the
characteristics of the product rather than the method of food
production.
- Most
of the participants were able to list some potential benefits
and risks associated with GM foods, but were surprised at the
range of GM food types available in the US.
- Almost
all the participants wanted a mandatory labeling program, and
stated that the food labels should clearly indicate whether the
food contains GM ingredients and of what type.
- Most
of the participants think that GM foods should not be banned
because this action could eliminate the potential benefits of
genetic modification.
The
pdf version of the research can be downloaded at http://www.agbioforum.org/
v5n1/v5n1a02-teisl.pdf
ASPB SUPPORTS RESPONSIBLE
USE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
The
American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) recently issued a statement
on the genetic modification of plants using biotechnology. ASPB
encouraged the responsible development and science-based monitoring
of biotechnology and all food production technologies and practices.
The Society also believed that biotechnology can provide the effective
tools, and has the potential to bring many significant health and
environmental benefits.
Health
benefits include enhancing the vitamin and mineral content of food,
eliminating common food allergens, developing higher protein quality
and quantity in crops, and modifying edible plants to contain vaccines
against diseases. Environmental benefits, on the other hand, pertain
to the responsible use of new plant biotechnologies for a more
sustainable and environment-compatible agriculture.
Environmental
concerns raised regarding modified plants should also be addressed.
Scientists and regulators should be vigilant of gene transfer to
compatible wild species, development of pest-resistant insects,
and possible adverse effects on genetic diversity.
Lastly,
the ASPB added that "no technology is risk-free, and fear
and mistrust often accompany the introduction of new processes
and products. Growing crops utilizing organic practices or high-inputs
of pesticides and practices is not risk free and neither is the
application of biotechnology."
The
American Society of Plant Biologists is a non-profit association
that supports advances in plant research. Its membership is composed
of nearly 6,000 plant scientists. A copy of the statement is available
at http://www.aspb.org/downloads/aspbgmstatement.pdf
ICRISAT TO FIELD TEST
GM CHICKPEA
The
International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
is set to conduct field trials of genetically modified (GM) chickpea
by 2004. The GM chickpea has been successfully altered with Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) gene for resistance to pod borer.
ICRISAT
scientists are using biotechnology to address several pests of
chickpea including helicoverpa pod borer, and diseases such as
botrytis gray mold, ascochyta blight, and dry root rot. The institute
is also developing drought- and cold-tolerant GM chickpea.
By year
2010, ICRISAT projects global demand for chickpea to reach 11.1
million tones, a 35% increase from current global demand of 8.2
million tones. Approximately 85% of the projected additional demand
will come from India.
Apart
from chickpea, ICRISAT is also developing GM pigeon pea, sorghum,
and pearl millet. The institute made the distinction of being the
first to develop GM peanut resistant to Indian peanut clump virus
(IPCV). Last year, the Department of Biotechnology allowed the
field trial of the GM peanut under controlled condition.
See
the full article online at http://www.blonnet.com/2003/01/20/stories/2003012000050700.htm
FAO HOLDS BIOSECURITY
CONSULTATION
The
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) held last January 13-17,
2003 a technical consultation on biological risk management in
food and agriculture or "biosecurity." This was held
at the United Nations Conference Centre in Bangkok, Thailand.
The
outcome of the technical consultation will be used to prepare a
document on biosecurity in food and agriculture. Some of the conclusions
of the technical consultation were as follow:
- There
is increasing recognition of the applicability of the biosecurity
methodology to address the multiple elements involved in food
security and animal and plant health, within an environmental
and trade framework.
- Methodologies
for implementing biosecurity is needed to be further developed,
building on proven practices and validated at the international
level.
- Institutional
adjustment and capacity-building are required for the introduction
of comprehensive and effective biosecurity. This is needed at
the national, regional and international levels. Situations existing
in developing countries will be given attention, and capacity-building
will be supported.
- For
other institutions, re-thinking is needed to be able to incorporate
the biosecurity concept into their respective programs and policies,
and to align future activities.
At present,
there is a growing interest in biosecurity due to major international
developments such as the globalization of the world economy; rapid
increase in communications, transport and trade; technological
progress; and an increased awareness of biological diversity and
environmental issues.
The technical consultation was convened within the framework of the FAO/Government
of the Netherlands Partnership Program, and the FAO Inter-departmental Sub-Working
Group on Biosecurity.
For
more information, contact Dr. E. Boutrif at Biosecurity@fao.org.
Additional information can also be viewed at http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/meetings_biosecurity_en.stm and
at ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/tc_bangkok/tc_brm_03_3en.doc
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
INTERNATIONAL SHORT COURSES
Michigan
State University announces three international short courses to
be offered for 2003. These include the following:
- Agroecology,
Integrated Pest Management and Sustainable Agriculture, June
15-27, 2003
- International
Internship Program in Intellectual Property Rights, Technology
Transfer, Use and Management, July 13-18, 2003
- International
Short Course in Food Safety, July 27-August 1, 2003
For
details of the courses, contact Dr. Karim Maredia at kmaredia@msu.edu.
SEED TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE
Iowa
State University Seed Science Center announces its conference on
Special Use Corn Production and Pollen Flow on February 18, 2003
at the Scheman Building, ISU. Topics include developments to prevent
transfer of transgenes; technology protection system; liability
issues concerning special-use corn; and edible vaccine from corn.
For registration information, contact the Continuing Education
and Communication Services at confred@iastate.edu.
TRAVEL GRANTS TO GENETICS CONGRESS
The
International Genetics Federation of Australia and some Australian
organizers are financing some travel grants for scientists from
developing countries to enable them to attend the 19th International
Congress of Genetics in Melbourne on July 6-11, 2003. The grants
are being awarded on a competitive basis. For more information
visit http://www.geneticscongress2003.com/index.php
ROYAL SOCIETY IN UK DISCUSSION MEETING
A scientific
discussion meeting about GM crops, modern agriculture and the environment
will be held by the Royal Society on February 11, 2003. The discussion
meeting will examine the scientific basis for the different positions
on GM crops, and contribute to the public debate on the commercialization
of GM crops in the United Kingdom.
For
more information, visit http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/gmplants | 
