|
|
 
|
A food revolution beckons, but few show up; other news
(Friday, Aug. 19, 2005 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. A food revolution beckons, but few show up 1. A food revolution beckons, but few show up By Peter N. Spotts, Staff writer It's the kind of breakthrough scientists often dream about. They have unraveled the complete genetic blueprint for rice - the staple for more than half of the world's population. The development - a key to future genetic blueprints for other cereals and grains - should make it far easier to engineer better, more nutritious crops that could trigger a second "green revolution," whose predecessor - using more
traditional farming and breeding approaches - is said to be running out of gas. There's just one problem. It's not clear the world is ready for another food revolution if it involves splicing foreign genes into crops. "The initial expectation that this technology would be rapidly adopted turned out to be a bit optimistic," says Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. "We're in a stall in the development of new GM foods." To be sure, farmers are producing more bioengineered crops every year. Farmers have found many of these genetically modified crops quite useful. GM soybeans are cheaper to grow; GM papaya has saved Hawaiian growers from a virus
that had made their traditional crop unmarketable. But these remain
first-generation GM varieties with only indirect consumer benefits. The next generation - offering consumers better-tasting, more nutritious, or
longer-lasting food - is taking longer than the industry's optimists
expected, Mr. Rodemeyer adds. The reasons are legion, analysts say. Outside the United States, public reluctance and activist campaigns citing
everything from environmental concerns to the extensive clout of multinational
corporations have slowed the introduction of GM crops. This resistance led
Monsanto last year to shelve the first commercially available genetically
engineered wheat. US wheat growers worried that GM-wary global customers would
buy elsewhere. Within the US, where farmers plant more than 167 million acres of GM crops,
public unease has been less evident. But some analysts expect that to change
as companies genetically engineer crops to make them more nutritious or
harness crops to produce compounds for drugs. Second-generation GM crops also pose a tougher scientific challenge than the
first-generation did. The traits researchers want to enhance are likely to
involve several genes and complex interactions between the plant and its
environment. In this political and scientific environment, rice is poised to become the
latest "crop celebre" in the ongoing debate over conventional and
genetic-engineering approaches to feeding the world. The new rice genome, pulled together by researchers worldwide under the
umbrella of the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, was completed three
years ahead of schedule. Researchers say much of the credit for the speed
goes to Monsanto for making available the rice data it had. Scientists picked
rice as the first cereal crop to sequence because of its genome's relative
simplicity. Other, more complex cereals share rice's genes, often in the same
positions in long DNA assemblies known as chromosomes. Thus, rice has the
potential to become a Rosetta stone for reading other key cereal genomes. "That's one of the exciting aspects" about having the rice genome in hand,
says Sally Leong, a research chemist with the US Department of Agriculture's
Agricultural Research Service lab in Madison, Wis. And the international
nature of the project has helped build capabilities within some key developing
countries. Now comes the tricky part, scientifically associating the genes or gene
combinations with specific plant traits and processes. As that information
becomes available, traditional breeders can use it to identify useful genes and
then trace their movement through several generations. By using seedlings alone,
researchers speed up traditional breeding. Rice genetically engineered by
inserting foreign genes, however, may face a tougher challenge. Several charitable foundations and international research institutes are
working to enhance the level of "micro- nutrients" - trace minerals such as zinc
and iron - as well as vitamin A in rice. The enhanced rice could help in the
fight against malnutrition. Yet golden rice so far has languished, partly because of environmental
concerns. Some of the countries that could most benefit have imposed regulatory
barriers that are too costly for the public project, says Jorge Mayer,
golden-rice project manager at the University of Freiburg, Germany. In the US, meanwhile, a California biotech company proposing to grow GM rice
on a 200-acre plot in Missouri was sent packing in April. The rice had been
modified to produce two synthetic human proteins for pharmaceuticals.
Anheuser-Busch, worried about contamination of conventional rice, threatened to
boycott all Missouri-grown rice used in its brewing activities if the project was
approved. "In the quest to ease global malnutrition, too much emphasis is being placed
on genetic engineering without a sufficient look at the risks and
alternatives", says Doreen Stabinsky, a geneticist by training who serves as a science
adviser to Greenpeace. "We need a realistic assessment of what the technology
can and can't do."
2. GM plants use carbon nanofibres Azonano.com, August 15, 2005 Researchers are developing new techniques that use nanoparticles for
smuggling foreign DNA into cells. For example, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the US Department of Energy
lab that played a major role in the production of enriched uranium for the
Manhattan Project, researchers have hit upon a nano-technique for injecting DNA
into millions of cells at once. Millions of carbon nanofibres are grown
sticking out of a silicon chip with strands of synthetic DNA attached to the
nanofibres. Living cells are then thrown against and pierced by the fibres,
injecting the DNA into the cells in the process. Its like throwing a bunch of baseballs against a bed of nails...We literally
throw the cells onto the fibers, and then smash the cells into the chip to
further poke the fibers into the cell. - Timothy McKnight, engineer, Oak Ridge
Laboratory. Once injected, the synthetic DNA expresses new proteins and new traits. Oak
Ridge has entered into collaboration with the Institute of Paper Science and
Technology in a project aimed to use this technique for genetic manipulation
of loblolly pine, the primary source of pulpwood for the paper industry in
the USA. Unlike existing genetic engineering methods, the technique developed by Oak
Ridge scientists does not pass modified traits on to further generations
because, in theory, the DNA remains attached to the carbon nanofibre, unable to
integrate into the plants own genome. The implication is that it would be
possible to reprogram cells for one time only. According to Oak Ridge scientists,
this relieves concerns about gene flow associated with genetically modified
plants, where genes are transferred between unrelated organisms or are
removed or rearranged within a species. If the new technique enables researchers to selectively switch on or off a
key trait such as fertility, will seed corporations use the tiny terminators
to prevent farmers from saving and re-using harvested seed - compelling them
to return to the commercial seed market every year to obtain the activated
genetic trait they need? This approach also raises a number of safety questions: what if the
nanofibres were ingested by wildlife or humans as food? What are the ecological
impacts if the nanofibres enter the cells of other organisms and cause them to
express new proteins? Where will the nanofibres go when the plant decomposes in
the soil? Carbon nanofibres have been compared to asbestos fibres because they have
similar shapes. Initial toxicity studies on some carbon nanofibres have
demonstrated inflammation of cells. A study by NASA found inflammation in the lungs
to be more severe than in cases of silicosis, though Nobel laureate Richard
Smalley, Chairman of Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc. gives little weight to these
concerns: We are confident there will prove out to be no health hazards but
this [toxicology] work continues.
3. Bill on DNA-altered crops reaps organic outrage By KRISTIN COLLINS, Staff Writer The idea of rearranging the DNA of plants once sounded like the stuff of
science fiction. Today, man-made plants that repel pests or survive heavy doses of weedkiller
cover 3 million acres of North Carolina farmland -- and state agriculture
leaders are paving the way for more. A bill likely will pass in the legislature this session that will stop local
governments from banning genetically modified crops, as three California
counties have done. The bill, requested by the Department of Agriculture, passed
in the Senate on Friday, the last major hurdle to its success. The House,
which passed the bill in May, must agree to a few changes to make it final. No North Carolina county or city has tried to ban the crops. But the bill
has created a maelstrom among those who say that genetically engineered crops
pose a danger to the food supply and could destroy organic farming.
"They're really playing with Mother Nature in a pretty perverse way," said
Ken Dawson, an organic vegetable farmer from Orange County. "We don't know
what the consequences are." The outrage is heightened by a new genetically modified crop in North
Carolina that, unlike most others, is intended to go directly into the food supply. This year in Washington County, a California company planted 75 acres of
rice implanted with a human gene that produces proteins found in human milk,
saliva and tears. The company plans to extract the proteins and use them in food
products that they say could help infants in the Third World. Those who oppose the crops say they can easily cross-pollinate with organic
and conventional crops, destroying rare heirloom varieties and making natural
food almost extinct. Now, as the bill awaits final passage, state leaders are in the middle of a
rowdy debate over the future of high-tech agriculture. "Research and science has moved agriculture from the horse and plow and very
low yields to very efficient operations that can meet the world's food
demands," said state Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler, who grows genetically
modified soybeans on his Guilford County farm. "I don't know that we can
afford to stop doing that." Genetically modified crops are the products of biotechnology companies,
which have figured out how to add genes to plants' DNA to make them resistant to
pests or to the weedkiller Roundup. Farmers, who pay the companies for the rights to use the patented seeds, say
the mutant crops make farming easier and more efficient and cut down on the
use of pesticides and herbicides. Ninety-five percent of cotton, 87 percent
of soybeans and 52 percent of corn grown in North Carolina this year are
genetically modified, according to the Department of Agriculture.
Right now, most genetically modified crops do not go directly into the food
supply. Most of the soybeans and corn are used for livestock feed, not sold
in grocery stores. But their uses are expanding. Troxler is among many state agriculture leaders who say that genetically
modified crops provide the best hope for keeping farmers in business in
difficult times -- and for feeding the world on less and less land.
Troxler said the Agriculture Department asked for the bill, which is similar
to those being floated in several other states. It would give the state
Board of Agriculture, which Troxler chairs, sole authority to outlaw plants. He said the push comes at the request of seed dealers, farmers and
agribusiness companies that were concerned about what they saw in California and New
England -- where "genetically engineered free" movements have gained steam. "The public is very misinformed," said Wade Byrd, a Bladen County corn
farmer. "We're going to use fewer pesticides and have a safer food product when we
get more of these crops on the market." In California, several counties have held referendums on whether to ban the
plants locally. Three have been successful. In Vermont, more than 80 local
governments have passed resolutions barring them. And in Maine, one town has
passed a resolution, and others are considering similar action. In North Carolina, where no such movement has gained a foothold, state
officials said they thought the bill would pass without fanfare. It slid through
the House in May with only one dissenting vote. But advocates of organic farming got wind of it soon after, and it didn't
have such a smooth road in the Senate. On Thursday, a Senate committee amended
the bill to create a study commission that will examine the risks and
benefits of genetically engineered crops. It also added two new members to the state
Board of Agriculture: an organic farmer and a consumer advocate. Tony Kleese, head of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, which
promotes organic farming, said the new bill is better -- but still not palatable. He said it will all but assure that genetically engineered crops can spread
unchecked. He said allowing local governments to create zones where genetically
engineered crops aren't allowed could protect organic crops from being contaminated
by wind-blown pollen. Now, that right will be taken away, regardless what the
study shows. Kleese and other organic advocates say genetically engineered crops haven't
been studied enough to prove they're safe. Europeans shun them, banning any
U.S. product that contains them. They call the bill the work of giant biotech companies -- such as Monsanto,
a Missouri company that owns the rights to most of the genetically modified
seeds used on American farms -- that want to protect their profit margins. "Do we want these companies to own our food supply from seed to plate?" Kleese said. "The more of these kinds of laws that go into effect, the more the
balance tips to genetically engineered crops. We need to ask a lot of hard
questions before we continue down this path." Sen. Charlie Albertson, a Duplin County Democrat, was one of the bill's
sponsors. He said it's unrealistic to think that organic farmers, who sell vegetables
and fruits at a premium, can feed the masses. He said the expansion of
genetically engineered crops will ensure an abundant and affordable food supply. "The truth is, organic crops are out of the reach of most people who are
buying produce," Albertson said. "We can't grow them at the expense of
genetically modified crops. These crops offer the best hope in the world to feed
hungry people."
4. Can Gene-Altered Rice Rescue the Farm Belt? By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO WATSON, Mo. - Like an expectant father, Jason Garst stood in calf-deep
water and studied the three-foot-high rice plants growing in a flooded
field here. It was a curious sight in northwest Missouri, where the growing season
is considered to be too short for rice. Mr. Garst, a sixth-generation
farmer, is hoping at least one of the 12 varieties on his test plot will
sprout this fall. If one does, he will start growing rice plants that
have been genetically engineered to produce proteins found in human
milk, saliva and tears. Once converted into a powder form, those
proteins would be used in granola bars and drinks to help infants in
developing countries avoid death from diarrhea. "I know in my heart that this will be better than anything else we are
doing," said Mr. Garst, 35, who also farms soybeans and potatoes. The rice project is backed by a private company called Ventria
Bioscience but also has the support of the state and a local university,
which are hoping to reverse the long decline in the area's farm economy.
But the project has run into opposition from environmental groups and
even the beer giant Anheuser-Busch amid fears about the health effects
of genetically engineered crops, making Mr. Garst's little rice paddy a
piece of a larger battlefield. The economic and academic ambitions of the Missouri project make it
unique, but the arguments echo those heard in similar disputes in Europe
and, increasingly, in the United States. Critics of Ventria's plans are
concerned that the gene-altered rice could contaminate regular rice
crops and pose a health risk to consumers, scaring off buyers. Ventria
and its academic partner in the project, Northwest Missouri State
University, say they can control the potential for contamination. And
they say the risks are minimal when balanced against the potential for
the special rice to help cut the costs of drugs and save lives. The debate has a certain urgency in the Farm Belt because it highlights
the challenge facing much of the region's economy: finding new products
that will reduce farmers' reliance on commodity crops. As equipment has
become more efficient and foreign competition has stiffened, farms have
consolidated and profit margins have shrunk, forcing farmers to plant
ever more acres to squeeze out a living. The genetic engineering work
that Ventria and other companies are doing can add value to products
like rice, offering farmers a more stable income that does not rely on
steep government subsidies. "There is no question that this represents a chance to transform the
economy of the region," said Mark Drabenstott, director of the Center
for the Study of Rural America at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
City. "For regions like northwest Missouri, there is not a long list of
economic alternatives." Despite opposition, Ventria's plans to grow genetically engineered rice
- eventually to commercial scale - are going forward. The company began
growing rice in North Carolina this summer after getting approval from
the Agriculture Department. Once Ventria decides where it will grow rice
in Missouri, it will have to apply for a permit from the department, a
process expected to take two to three months. Dean L. Hubbard, president of Northwest Missouri State, persuaded
Ventria last year to move its operations from Sacramento to new
buildings planned for the Northwest campus in Maryville, about 90 miles
north of Kansas City. Seeking a way to reverse the area's slide in population, Dr. Hubbard
teamed up with Melvin D. Booth, a Northwest Missouri alumnus who
previously ran two large biotechnology companies. The two approached
Ventria about making it part of the university's plan to form joint
ventures with young biopharmaceutical companies. Ventria was already considering similar offers from universities in
Georgia, Louisiana and North Carolina, but Scott E. Deeter, Ventria's
chief executive, agreed to visit the university last August. Mr. Deeter
said that on the ride from the Kansas City airport, he was intrigued
when Dr. Hubbard described the university's program to heat and cool the
campus using bio-fuel derived from paper and wood chips. At the meeting, Mr. Garst presented him with a research paper he had
prepared on what it would take to grow rice in northern Missouri. "It
was very impressive," said Ning Huang, Ventria's vice president for
research and development, who was there. Finally it came down to whether Ventria scientists would agree to move
to Maryville, population 10,000, from California. Next year 13 will
move, including Dr. Huang. Under the agreement reached last November, Ventria will pay farmers more
than double what they make on their most profitable crop, and pay
Northwest Missouri $500 an acre for crops grown on university land. The
university is spending about $10 million to help build a production and
teaching complex, and the state is kicking in another $10 million. Atchison County, Mo., where Mr. Garst's farmland is, has lost more than
1,000 people, or 14 percent of its population, since 1990. The town of
Watson, once a thriving rural hub with three grocery stores and an opera
house, has just over 100 people and no place to buy a soda. Most
buildings have been boarded up. "To reverse the population slide, you have to make it profitable to
farm," Dr. Hubbard said. "My dream is that 10 years from now, this rural
economy has been transformed, that it is vibrant again and people are
renovating their downtowns." The fate of Mr. Garst's experimental rice plot has loomed larger since
Ventria encountered resistance to planting its rice in the southern part
of the state, where rice has traditionally been grown. When the company was considering Missouri as a place to grow its rice,
it talked to Anheuser-Busch, which uses Missouri rice in its beer. Mr.
Deeter said Anheuser-Busch initially did not raise any opposition to the
project. But when Ventria tried to plant rice in southern Missouri this
spring, the beer maker threatened not to buy any rice grown in the
state. The company feared a consumer backlash if people thought
gene-altered rice could end up in their bottles of Bud. For Missouri's farm economy, the risk of growing pharmaceutical rice is
high. More than half of Missouri's rice is sent abroad, to the European
Union and Caribbean countries that are especially sensitive about
genetically modified products. "We are still having to make statements to our customers that the rice
we export is not genetically modified," said Carl Brothers, the vice
president for marketing at Riceland Foods, which markets more than half
of Missouri's rice. "We are concerned longer term that if Ventria and
others get involved that will get harder to say." The two companies reached a truce in April: Ventria agreed not to grow
genetically modified rice within 120 miles of commercial rice crops. "We
can continue to purchase rice grown and processed in Missouri as long as
Ventria's growing areas remain sufficiently far from commercial rice
production," said Francine Katz, a spokeswoman for Anheuser-Busch. That deal suddenly made four test plots in the northern part of the
state, including Mr. Garst's, all the more important, since Ventria's
agreement with Northwest Missouri State calls for the company to grow 70
percent of its rice in the state. To prove to its customers that it would have a diverse supply base,
Ventria must grow in at least one other location in North America, and
is also searching for a growing area in the Southern Hemisphere to be
able to produce year-round. In June, Ventria planted 70 acres of
genetically modified rice in North Carolina. There, environmentalists
continue to attack the company, saying the rice poses a threat to other
crops and the human food chain. Ventria's rice fields are just a few miles from a rice-seed-screening
research center and are also close to two wildlife refuges with large
populations of migrant birds and swans that environmentalists contend
could transport Ventria's rice seeds into wild areas. Storms and floods,
environmentalists say, could also lead to rice contamination. "Just washing away in a big rain- storm is enough," said Margaret
Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of
Concerned Scientists in Washington. Scientists at Ventria, which is yet
to make any money from its bio-rice, say rice is among the safest crops
for genetic engineering. Rice stalks pollinate themselves, so the
altered genes, which are synthetic versions of human genes, cannot be
easily transferred to plants in other fields. And Ventria requires
farmers to employ a "closed system," using dedicated equipment and a
production process where the seed is ground into a powder before it
leaves the farm. But critics say that there is no way to guarantee that the farmers will
follow all the government regulations and Ventria's rules, and that they
are worried about the risk of contamination because it would be hard to
detect. "We simply wouldn't know if a contamination event took place,"
said Craig Culp, a spokesman for the Center for Food Safety, in Washington. Dr. Hubbard acknowledged that there are risks, but he said he believed
that they were minimal. Federal regulations have been tested before, most notably in 2002, when
drug-producing corn made by ProdiGene began sprouting in soybean fields
near its Iowa and Nebraska sites. The Agriculture Department seized
500,000 bushels of soybeans and assessed the company nearly $3 million
in fines and disposal costs. Earlier, in 2000, a gene-altered variety of
corn that was approved for animal feed but not for human consumption was
found in taco shells and other grocery items, prompting recalls. Mr. Garst is a modern breed of farmer with a master's degree and a
healthy interest in science. And he himself has done whatever he can to
wring more from his commodity crops, even trying out a $300,000 tractor
that steers automatically using a global-positioning satellite to till
straighter rows. "Obviously, you will not see pharmaceutical crops from here to Kansas
City," he said of Ventria's project. "But there will be pockets in this
area where you will see development. If you keep two more farmers in
this area it is huge - there are four of us now."
5. GMO debate comes to Lake County John Jensen -- Record-Bee staff LAKE COUNTY -- Genetically engineered crops won't be growing in Lake County
anytime soon if local growers have their way. Lake County supervisors will consider a moratorium on planting of
genetically modified, herbicide-resistant alfalfa during the Aug. 23 board meeting. The Lake County Coalition for Responsible Agriculture (LCCRA) is proposing
the moratorium to give the county time to learn more about the benefits and
hazards of planting the genetically modified seeds. LCCRA is a coalition of several groups and numerous individuals, organic
farmer Phil Murphy said.
"It's Lake County Healthy Environment and Living (HEAL), the Sierra Club,
conventional and organic growers," Murphy explained. Agricultural products using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are
entering mainstream agriculture in the U.S. -- despite resistance to the technology
in some parts of the country and in California, where genetically modified,
herbicide-resistant alfalfa seeds have been released for sale. The seeds are the product of Monsanto Co., the same company that makes the
commonly used herbicide Roundup.
Proponents include the Farm Bureau and Monsanto, who argue that it will
increase yields and reduce herbicide use. "We live in the age of computers. This is just a technological way to
increase production using less pesticides," said Lake County Farm Bureau Executive
Director Chuck March. "This is just a future step in agriculture." Detractors of the genetically modified seeds say they will necessitate
increased herbicide spraying. They also claim Monsanto's licensing agreement will
potentially expose farmers to copyright infringement lawsuits from the
company as traditional crops are contaminated by genetically modified crops. The problem with cross pollination of the crops is that Monsanto doesn't
want people stealing its technology and selling the seeds as their own. The
thing is, bees pollinate plants, so crops could be pollinated without a human
hand in it. March doesn't see it quite that way. "That's been a scare tactic on the GMO
issue," he said. "When Monsanto comes out with a product they have patents on
the seed." One solution, March said, is buffer zones. Denise Rushing, a walnut grower in Upper Lake, wants to grow organic alfalfa
between her walnut trees in a farming process called permaculture. "Some alfalfa is grown naturally," she explained. "Permaculture no-till
agriculture is basically planting grasses with animals that can graze and provide
organic enrichment over the soil," she said. While neighbors planting GMO crops won't eliminate her ability to grow
organic, she doesn't like the idea that to protect her crops from somebody else's
she would be required to create a buffer zone. "It doesn't preclude it, it just requires extra work on my side," she said.
"It requires a buffer zone so I have to have some of my land out of
production." Supervisors will get to listen to the arguments on Tuesday and decide which
way to go. District 1 Supervisor Ed Robey said he wasn't entirely sure why
the moratorium was strictly on a single crop. "If we're going to pass an ordinance on alfalfa, why not on all GMOs,
including alfalfa?" he asked. Robey said he isn't interested in an outright ban on GMOs -- as neighboring
Mendocino County put into effect -- but he suggested that the single crop
moratorium might not be enough. "I would prefer to talk about the whole enchilada and not just a bite of
it," he said.
6. Scientists warn of GM superweed risk Paul Brown, environment correspondent Scientists have identified 15 weed species that are resistant to a herbicide
widely used on GM crops and are warning farmers they may become a serious
problem unless a strategy for dealing with them is developed. Some of the most common weed species, including types of ryegrass, bindweed
and goosegrass either have some strains with a natural resistance to the
widely used GM herbicide glyphosate or have developed one. Writing in the journal Outlooks on Pest Management, four scientists argue
there is a danger that by ignoring the threat these weeds pose, farmers may
be giving them a huge advantage over other plants which are killed by
glyphosate. Even where they did not previously thrive on farmland or were in a minority
of weeds, farmers may be creating a new niche for them among arable crops
which would allow them to multiply rapidly. The paper is published alongside an assessment of the three-year farm-scale
trials of GM oilseed rape, sugar beet and maize in Britain. All three crops
are glyphosate-resistant and, if the American researchers are right, would
be troubled by glyphosate-resistant weeds if grown commercially in the UK. Glyphosate has been used by farmers to kill off weeds for 30 years but since
the 1990s, when GM crops were modified to resist glyphosate, its use has
mushroomed. The paper says that worldwide use has increased from 5,000 tonnes a year in
1995 to more than 30,000 tonnes in 2002, and has increased since. However, intensive use of the herbicide combined with the non-rotation of
glyphosate-resistant GM crops is expected to increase the problem and it
will develop on "a global scale," the paper says. The researchers, based at the State University and the Southern Weed Research
Unit in Mississippi, are concerned that the widespread usefulness of an
extremely efficient weedkiller will be lost if farmers do not take
precautions. "The problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds is real, and farmers have to
realise that the continuous use of glyphosate without alternative strategies
will likely result in the evolution of more glyphosate-resistant weeds. "Even in the short term no one can predict the future loss of glyphosate
efficiency due to weed species shifts and evolution of glyphosate
resistance," says Vijay Nandula in the conclusion to the paper. He advises farmers to treat land with additional herbicide to kill off the
weeds before they multiply sufficiently to cause a problem. | |
