Check out the interesting article below. Anti-GM groups in India are coming out of the woodwork now because GM crops are starting to see some success. Bt Brinjal (an insect-tolerant vegetable) continues to do well in India, as do many other insect-tolerant vegetables around the world. Dr. C Kameswara Rao Tremendous scope for vertical growth in biotech crops Sify.com May 09, 2008 Mumbai: With trials of India’s first genetically modified (GM) food crop, Bt. Brinjal (insect-tolerant vegetable), progressing well, the anti-biotechnology lobby seems to have become active. Those opposed to biotechnology in agriculture are spreading disinformation, according to Dr Usha B. Zehr, Joint Director of Research with Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd (MAHYCO), pioneer in, brinjal the country’s foray into agbiotech. Indeed, Bt. Brinjal is not the first GM vegetable crop. Globally, as many as 23 vegetable crop species (excluding potato and sweet corn) have been genetically engineered. China grows tomato, papaya, petunia and sweet pepper, while the US grows squash (a variety of gourd) and papaya. Currently, over a dozen biotech crops are being field-tested in different parts of the world. These include three major staples (rice, maize and wheat) as also potato, tomato, soyabean, cabbage, peanut, melon, papaya, sweet pepper, chilli and rapeseed. China’s agbiotech Talking about China’s advances into agbiotech, Dr Zehr said the country has planted about one quarter of a million Bt. Poplars and in 2006, started to commercialise an approved virus-resistant biotech papaya (a fruit/food crop) developed by a Chinese university and grown on approximately 3,500 hectares. Read more...

Everyone should take a look at the following article from the International Journal of Biotechnology. Bt maize is doing great things for farmers in the European Union! Dr. C Kameswara Rao Navigating the genetic engineering maze Alpha Galileo May 8, 2008 In the decade since genetically modified strains of maize resistant to insects have been grown in the European Union, crop yields have gone up, farmers' reliance on insecticides has fallen significantly and the quality of maize has improved. That's the message from research published this month in the International Journal of Biotechnology from Inderscience Publishers. Agricultural economist Graham Brookes of PG Economics Ltd, based in Dorchester, UK, has reviewed the specific economic impacts on yield and farm income as well as the environmental impact with respect to a lower reliance on insecticide usage since the introduction of GM maize in the EU in 1998. So-called "Bt" maize carries genes for a highly specific insect toxin from the soil-dwelling microbe Bacillus thuringiensis. This toxin kills the European corn borer and the Mediterranean stem borer, which would otherwise damage maize crops without insecticidal spraying. Brookes' analysis reveals that profits have risen by more than a fifth for some farmers who previously used synthetic insecticides to control these pests. He points out that GM technology has reduced insecticide spraying markedly, which also has associated environmental benefits. He also points out that the quality of the maize produced is higher because the GM crop is less susceptible than non-GM maize to infestation with fungi that produce mycotoxins, hazardous to human health. Bt maize was planted for the first time in 1998 in Spain and in 2007 the total area of this crop in Spain was about 75000 hectares. In total, the EU plantings of Bt maize in 2007 were 110,000 hectares, with crops also in France, Germany, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Poland. This represents 1.3% of total EU grain maize plantings in 2007. Read more...

I was searching the Web for new articles on GM today and found the following New York Times article. The article discusses not only the need for GM feed in Europe, but also the growing interest in the development of genetically modified wheat. Dr. C Kameswara Rao In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo New York Times April 21, 2008 Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops. In Japan and South Korea, some manufacturers for the first time have begun buying genetically engineered corn for use in soft drinks, snacks and other foods. Until now, to avoid consumer backlash, the companies have paid extra to buy conventionally grown corn. But with prices having tripled in two years, it has become too expensive to be so finicky. “We cannot afford it,” said a corn buyer at Kato Kagaku, a Japanese maker of corn starch and corn syrup. In the United States, wheat growers and marketers, once hesitant about adopting biotechnology because they feared losing export sales, are now warming to it as a way to bolster supplies. Genetically modified crops contain genes from other organisms to make the plants resistance to insects, herbicides or disease. Opponents continue to worry that such crops have not been studied enough and that they might pose risks to health and the environment. “I think it’s pretty clear that price and supply concerns have people thinking a little bit differently today,” said Steve Mercer, a spokesman for U.S. Wheat Associates, a federally supported cooperative that promotes American wheat abroad. Read more...

A UK manufacturing magazine just published the following positive article on genetically modified crops. The Soil Association recently tried to claim that genetically modified crops do not increase yield. This article quotes an agricultural economist as saying that he is frustrated with anti-gm activists picking and choosing the information they use to prove their point. Dr. C Kameswara Rao Organic lobby spreading ‘nonsense’ about GM, claim scientists Food Manufacture April 21, 2008 New claims by environmental lobbyists that genetic modification (GM) does not increase crop yields or reduce pesticide use have been dismissed by plant breeding experts as “total nonsense”. According to the Soil Association (SA), “the yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties”, while “any initial reduction in pesticide use is short-lived and often reversed as new pests arrive and old ones adapt”. Its comments came in the wake of recent moves to reignite the GM debate by scientists claiming that transgenic crops could boost agricultural productivity in the face of global food shortages and climate change. Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist and director of consultancy PG Economics, said he was becoming “increasingly frustrated by reports that cherry-pick pieces of information out of context and use them to support a fundamentally unsound argument”. Brookes, a joint author of a major report on the environmental and economic impact of agricultural biotechnology published last year, said: “This is just complete nonsense. Pesticide use has not increased as a result of the adoption of biotech crops – indeed, it has fallen significantly relative to levels of use that would have occurred without using biotechnology.” Likewise, it was “deeply insulting to the intelligence of farmers” to say that there were no economic benefits to using GM technology, he said. “They criticise biotech companies for having a vested interest - along the lines of ‘you would say that wouldn’t you’, but they also have a vested interest in attacking GM crops and supporting organic agriculture, which typically delivers far lower yields.” Read more...

I found this blog entry today on rising costs of grain prices and its effect on genetically modified crops. The author, Ben Hood writes that the high prices of grain is causing less expensive genetically modified grains to gain popularity, “or at least objections to them are declining.” Read more about it below. Dr. C Kameswara Rao Rising prices pushes people towards genetically modified foods “dcdork” blog April 21, 2008 There is nothing like cash to help focus the mind. While in Britain, I saw first hand the public distrust of Frankenfoods, or genetically modified crops. The continent was much more suspicious than Britain about the foods, but there were some outspoken critics (like Prince Charles) in Britain as well. I was doubly mortified when some African countries started to reject genetically modified donations, because they reasonably assumed that what was bad for Europeans is bad for Africans. However, there is no indication that genetically modified foods are harmful, and while Europe is rich enough to reject genetically modified crops, Africa is not, and rejection of the crops yields starvation. Fast forward to the food crisis of today, and an article in the New York Times shows that with grain prices doubling and tripling, the less expensive genetically modified grains are gaining in popularity, or at least objections to them are declining. I am pleased to see that irrational fears fall away when cash is at stake. The key word there is irrational. No one has shown popular genetically modified organisms to be harmful, and they can help feed multitudes more. To the people who object because we are "playing god," that ship has sailed. Wheat is the most crossbred organism in existence, not because we've turned our microscopes at it (indeed, it is one of the more difficult crops in a lab), but because we've been manipulating it for the last six thousand years. We've been doing the same with cattle. Ever seen a cow on a hike in the forest? That isn't natural. I do hope that this allows people to get past their reservations for the "new." Read more...

A friend passed along the following blog entry by Jackie Danicki. In her short entry, she criticizes other for telling her not to eat genetically modified foods and ends by saying “pas the franken-food.” Dr. C Kameswara Rao On genetically modified food Jackie Danicki April 18, 2008 People always look at me in horror when I say that I have zero problem with eating genetically modified foods. Even if I did, I would not consider it up to you or any politician to decide whether or not I should be permitted to do so, or whether it should be legal to do so or not. Of course it should be legal. Of course one should be allowed to eat whatever one wishes. If you are to make the offensive suggestion that it is your or another person’s decision to make for me, the onus is on you to make the case for that. So, yeah: Pass the franken-food.

I would like to ask some of the [GM critics] how they imagine most strains of wheat, barley, soybeans or rice that have been staples of diets for centuries came along. They are, albeit through trial and error over eons, just as ‘modified’ as a Monsanto crop. And that I think is the kicker: it is the speed of scientific change, not the change as such, that gives people the heeby-jeebies about genetic modification. I am not sure how that can be easily addressed without massive improvements in popular understanding of science.

Read more...

BASF is having trouble with getting approval for commercialization of its GM potato, according to this Reuters article. After an unsuccessful meeting with EU Commissioner Stravros Dimas, BASF is now threatening legal action if steps to approve the GM potato are not put into motion. . Dr. C Kameswara Rao BASF ready for lawsuit against EU on GMO potato Reuters April 17, 2008 BRUSSELS (Reuters) - German chemical company BASF may take legal action against the European Commission if approval of its genetically modified (GMO) potato is not issued soon, a senior company official said on Thursday. "We are prepared to take legal action against the Commission," said Stefan Marcinowski, a member of BASF's board of executive directors told reporters at a briefing. Asked about a possible timeframe, he said: "Not years, we are doing the utmost to meet the next planting season." After an inconclusive meeting this week with EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, BASF sent him an open letter -- printed across German media, the Financial Times and other newspapers on Thursday -- demanding that the Commission approve its Amflora potato "without any further delay". If approval is given, it would be the EU's first authorization of a GMO product for cultivation in a decade. Only one GMO crop may be grown commercially in the EU, a maize made by U.S. biotech company Monsanto and approved in 1998. "We have not been satisfied with the process of approval so we took this unusual step (of the open letter)," Marcinowski said. "The decision has been sitting for nine months on the desk of Commissioner Dimas." Read more...

As a regular reader of GMO Africa, I’m always interested in what James has to say on the topic of genetic modification. His post today applauds Dr. Pamela Ronald, a rice geneticist and director of the Plant Genomics Program and the University of California at Davis for her positive blog post. He notes that scientists do no speak out enough in favor of GM technology. Dr. C Kameswara Rao UC Davis researcher blogs on genetic engineering GMO Africa April 15, 2008 Blogger Karl J. Mogel of The Inoculated writes that Dr. Pamela Ronald, a rice geneticist and director of Plant Genomics Program at UC Davis has a new blog called Tomorrow’s Table. Pam’s blog celebrates crop genetic engineering, from a scientist point of view. Nobody’s excited by Pam’s blog than me. On this blog, on several occasions, I’ve exhorted scientists to take charge of the debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (Read this post on this subject that I made in December 2006.) Thumbs up Pam for taking the gauntlet. Since the commercialization of the first genetically modified (GM) crop in 1995, scientists haven’t been forceful enough to educate the public about agricultural biotechnology. Many - except people like Norman Borlaug, Roger Beachy, Sir David King, Jeffrey Sachs, Dr. Clive James, Dr. Luciana De Ciero, Dr. Ruth Oniang’o - have opted to maintain a studious silence as the science behind crop genetic engineering is distorted right and left by people who couldn’t conduct a simple high school lab experiment. These are the people who have been ruling the airwaves and the internet with unsubstantiated decibel rhetoric against GMOs. Scientists are to blame for this state of affairs. Had they, in the early beginning, demanded every charge against GMOs be scientifically substantiated, the current poisonous debate about GM crops would not be there. And it’s not too late. Pam, through her Tomorrow Table blog, has set the pace: others should follow. The world wants scientists to take lead in this debate. It’s them who should be saying whether or not GM crops offer any hope to farmers not some shenanigans whose sole motive is to create confusion and despondency in farmers and policy makers. Read more...

Biotech blogger James Wachai posted a new entry today on a Robert Paarlberg interview about GMOs and Africa. Wachai points to advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth as instigators in the fight to keep GMOs out of Africa. He writes that they have been intimidating African farmers and convincing them that GMOs are dangerous. Follow the link below to his full blog post. Dr. C Kameswara Rao Journalist counsels Africa on GMOs GMO Africa April 2, 2008 Journalist Kerry Howley of the Reason magazine has written a very riveting and informative article on how fear is being used to deny Africa cutting-edge technologies. Howley writes how activists descend on Africa every time new technologies emerge. They, using apocalyptic theories, misadvise and mislead Africans into not embracing these technologies. Africans are usually warned of cataclysmic consequences if they adopt new technologies. Usually, they’re told the West wants to use them as guinea pigs, or to enslave them. Most play along, thanks to high illiteracy levels and unavailability and/or access to alternative sources of information. Always the consequences are grave: the rest of the world prospers, while Africa wallows in poverty. Essentially, Africa merely gawks as other countries industrialize. Howley beautifully illustrates this point using the swirling debate about genetically modified (GM) foods. She writes how African countries have shunned GM foods on the advice of consumer advocacy groups such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. These groups happen to have a big presence in Africa Except South Africa, no other African country is currently growing genetically modified (GM) crops. We’ve read reports of countries like Zambia and Zimbabwe turning away food from the World Food Program (WFP) and the United States Agency for International Development (USaid) on suspicions they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs.) Many African countries have passed laws to completely bar GM crops. In her article, Howley laments that Zambia and Zimbabwe’s turning away of GM food “…brimmed over and seeped into almost every African state.” She regrets that “…cutting edge farming technology is most feared where it is most needed.” Read more...

The author of the “Notes from a Gene Safari” blog posted an entry today on the visit of Roger Beachy of the Danforth Center to the University of California – Davis. Sounds like he was well received. Read about it in the post below. Dr. C Kameswara Rao Let the people decide on GMOs The Notes from a Gene Safari blog April 2, 2008 Roger Beachy (of the Danforth Center) came to UC Davis this week to give a seminar. The grad students had the good fortune of meeting with him over lunch. He has some very interesting perspectives on genetic engineering that I haven't heard before. One of his most striking points was that all this hype we hear of the public being against GMOs is largely generated by the media. The consumer public has been given very few opportunities to make decisions for themselves. He gave several examples of the public enthusiastically embracing GMOs.

• Most papayas now have engineered resistance to the papaya ringspot virus (due to disastrous epidemics in Hawaii). Non-engineered, infected papayas have cosmetic blemishes and spoil quickly. Consumers prefer the engineered, virus-free fruit despite labels that declare the inclusion of recombinant DNA technology
• The Flavr Savr tomato, engineered to decrease spoilage, apparently couldn't be stocked fast enough to supply the public during its brief existence (until Calgene went out of business and ceased production)
• A study in Pennsylvania found that consumers at a farmers market presented with three types of sweet corn (engineered for insect resistance, conventional and organic) preferred organic to conventional corn and GMO corn to both organic and conventional. The GMO crop was favored because it was produced without pesticides OR the insects/insect damage that usually occur in the absence of pesticides.

Much more importantly, he described the center's humanitarian efforts in Africa. They are engineering crops with disease resistance and greatly elevated levels of vitamins and protein to fight malnutrition. They are also creating corn varieties that are resistant to a fungal disease that has been linked to devastating cancer rates in certain regions (the fungus infects corn naturally and produces a carcinogenic toxin, fumonisin). Read more...

A friend brought this Reuters article to my attention today. Germany has approved genetically modified sugar beets and potatoes for field trials. The sugar beets, made by Planta and potatoes, produced by BASF Plant Science will be grown experimentally for four years. Read about the restrictions below. Dr. C Kameswara Rao Germany approves GMO sugar and potato field trials Reuters April 2, 2008 HAMBURG, April 2 (Reuters) - Germany's state food safety agency said on Wednesday it approved open-air field trials of sugar beet and potatoes containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The company Planta has been given permission to sow 12,000 square metres of GMO sugar beet at two locations between 2008 and 2011, agency BVL said. BASF Plant Science, part of German chemicals group BASF (BASF.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), has been given approval to plant GMO potatoes on 30,000 square metres divided among three locations between 2008 and 2012. "The BVL's safety assessment came to the conclusion that the open-air trials would not have any dangerous influence on humans or animals or the environment," the agency said. The crops may not be sold as food or animal feed. The GMO sugar beet in the trials is resistant to the weed killer glyphosat. To prevent GMO organisms being spread by pollen, Planta must check sugar beets every two weeks for flowering and destroy any flowers before they bloom, the agency said. There must be a 10-metre gap between the GMO potatoes and conventional crops. Read more...

Fellow biotech blogger James Wachai just posted the following entry on the importance of biosafety legislation in Africa. He encourages African scientists to push this issue as well, since they have more credibility than pro-biotech groups. Dr. C Kameswara Rao Researcher wants biosafety laws in Africa GMO Africa March 6, 2008 Professor Walter Alhassan, a renowned agricultural biotechnologist from Ghana, recently raised a very salient issue regarding agricultural biotechnology in Africa. Alhassan moaned the unwillingness by African governments to enact laws to regulate safe acquisition of agricultural biotechnology. Alhassan regretted that the absence of biosafety laws in many African countries remains the greatest impediment to serious research on genetically modified crops in the continent. I can’t but totally concur with Prof. Alhassan, and I would encourage other scientists, especially from Africa to stand by him. Unlike pro-biotech lobby groups and multinational biotechnology companies, they’ve the requisite credibility to force their respective governments to act. They’re the right people to explain, unabashedly, what biosafety laws entail. I say this because there’s this conventional belief in most African countries that the sole mission of biosafety laws should be to keep off genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from their territories. Sample this April 2007 statement from Zambia’s Chairperson of the Education, Science and Technology Committee, who said a biosafety law was needed to ensure “…Zambia remains a GMO free country.” On this blog, just like Prof. Alhassan has said, I once emphasized that the first step to Africa benefiting from new technologies, including modern agricultural biotechnology, is to enact laws to regulate their acquisition. When computers emerged, African countries tried as much as they could to pass Information Technology (IT) laws to ensure their use for government and private businesses. The vigor with which African countries have enacted IT laws to ensure their safe use must, now, be applied to agricultural biotechnology. You can’t adjudge a technology - the way African governments are trying to do - as bad or good, before experiencing it. Europe, whose opposition to GMOs Africa seems to ape, is already conducting field trials of GM crops. Africa countries, except South Africa, are nowhere closer to here. They’re still dialoguing about whether biosafety laws have relevance to them. Isn’t this the time for Africa to heed Prof. Alhassan’s advice and pass biosafety laws, to allow farmers explore potential benefits agricultural biotechnology. Read more...

I found the following blog posted today on an announcement last week concerning the development of several biotech crops in Indonesia. I’m happy to see other bloggers posting this positive information. Read the blog post below. Dr. C Kameswara Rao Agriculture Ministry Growing Five Food Crops through Genetic Engineering Food Security & Agricultural Biotechnology March 4, 2008 A researcher at the Indonesian agriculture ministry's Research and Development Agency (Litbangtan) says that the agency is developing genetically modified (GM) varieties of tomato, potato, papaya, rice, and cassava. The researcher, M. Herman, reports that "The commodities are being researched and they are expected to be ready for commercial use after five years." Herman said it will be a relatively long period before the GM crops are made commercially available because they have to be subjected to meticulous tests to ensure their food and environmental safety. He also commented that the development of GM soybeans, corn, and cotton has so far been dominated by multinational companies. Read more...

Check Biotech just posted this Irish Times article on the growing problem of rising animal feed costs. Many MPs are calling for restrictions on GM animal feed to be lifted to help livestock farmers make a profit. Dr. C Kameswara Rao North Ireland plea over GM food imports Check Biotech March 6, 2008 Northern Ireland farmers must be allowed to import genetically modified (GM) animal feed to help them survive in the face of spiralling grain costs, Assembly members have claimed. In a debate on the impact of the inflated global feed markets on the local intensive farming sector MLAs backed a proposal calling on the EU to loosen restrictions on the import of biotech feedstuffs. The DUP added this amendment to an original Ulster Unionist motion urging the Agriculture minister Michelle Gildernew to provide financial support to those farmers who are struggling to cope with a 159% hike in grain prices in the last year. William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh) said the livelihood of many farmers depended on the EU lifting restrictions on GM feed for animals "These are being grown on an increasing scale in America and would go some way to addressing the grain shortage." Read more...

The European Union is reporting that more farmers are planting genetically modified maize. Current statistics show that nearly 110,000 hectares were used to grow GM maize in Spain, France, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Germany in 2007. That’s about 48,000 more hectares than was planted in 2006. Read more about this great news below. Dr. C Kameswara Rao GM Maize: 110,000 Hectares under Cultivation Check Biotech March 4, 2008 The cultivation of genetically modified plants in the EU is increasing. In 2007, genetically modified maize was grown on a total of nearly 110,000 hectares in Spain, France, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Germany. In the previous year, GM plantings comprised 62,000 hectares, totalling approximately 1 percent of maize cultivation areas. To date, the only type of GMO grown in the EU is Bt maize. Bt maize contains a gene from a bacterium that produces a toxin ( Bt-toxin) to defend it from the European corn borer. An insect pest, the European corn borer primarily is present in southern and middle Europe, and is slowly making its way north. Regions infested with the European corn borer can experience serious crop losses. Since biological and chemical control methods are expensive and only partially effective, Bt maize can be a money-saving option for many farmers despite its higher seed cost. In Spain, a substantial amount of the maize production is genetically modified – it is estimated that 25 percent of the current production falls under this category. Bt maize was first grown in Spain in 1998, and by 2004 production had risen to 60,000 hectares. In 2007, GM maize was cultivated on more than 75,000 hectares. Read more...