What lies behind GMO activism?

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are defined as living organisms that possess a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology. These techniques, combine DNA molecules from different sources to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes.

Modern biotechnology is being applied in health, industry, environment and Agriculture. For example Plants with combination of genes from different sources which confers resistance to pests and diseases or to herbicides is what Agricultural biotechnology is for.  Although the other areas of modern biotechnology are perceived to be safe and very useful, agricultural biotechnology is receiving a lot of criticism, rejections and activism. There are some reasons to the activism; however they are not limited to the ones below.

The process is shrouded in secrecy, and therefore it is not understood and resisted. Genetic engineering process is very complicated and tedious, it needs some extra work for a normal person to have a clear glimpse of what is being done,  issues related to intellectual property rights, IPR contributes to the secrecy and maybe public fear.

The general knowledge on biotechnology is not well understood by the general public. Studies show that if the knowledge about or experience of a topic is low chances are people will base their perceptions on already present global attitudes

Exposure to misinformation, fear of unknown environmental and health consequences of genetically modified crops

Perceptions are also linked to certain beliefs or a group in a community. Family, friends, class and culture have a huge influence on consumers’ perception and altitude.

==information is the most priceless thing; most of the controversy are because of misinformation or lack of the information. Lang et al. (2003) observed that public fears about bioengineering would be overcome if the public were given more genuine information. This is very important to Tanzania because the farming population in the country is aging and productivity per unit area of land needs to be increased to make farming more attractive to the younger generation and provide adequate amounts of food for the increasing population. It’s about time the responsible authorities should start taking serious actions.

Ernest Madard

sir.meddy@hotmail.com

May 2014

GM food labeling, a means to create more earning, and increase price of GM products

The abundance of food today and in the last years is being taken for granted; just because we have enough food does not mean we are not going to run out of it, the human population is growing very fast. There is no point of taking this surplus for granted, for example, in one study Jerry caulder (1998), reported that on any given day, the U.S has less than forty five days of food supplies, and these supplies are viewed as “surplus”. In contrast, two hundred years of oil supplies are viewed as a “strategic reserve’’. How can this be? Who is actually deciding on behalf of the public? Is Oil more important than food?

Basically there is a problem on how food issues are communicated to the public, a few people suffering from malnutrition or hunger is newsworthy while preventing billions from ever running such risk is not. We have lacked proper regulations on who precisely should decide which food is safer to eat and which one isn’t. This case of poor science is now affecting biotechnology advancement, especially with food LABELING.

Technically food labeling is supposed to provide important information to consumers, based on underlying scientific facts and not prejudice. Years back blood was labeled “Caucasian” or “colored” now this had nothing to do with the blood composition; it was only based on social prejudice. Labeling foods differently, simply because they are genetically engineered, is just another expression of prejudice.

Labeling is very useful and desirable when accurate, valuable information is communicated to the user/public.  For example genetically engineered cotton has been made to produce fibers, if valuable information is put about fibers’ reaction with other chemicals; that could be useful to consumers. Long shelf life tomatoes can be labeled to provide valuable information as well. In this case labeling should be used to communicate important information about services within the product, and this information is of economic value to the consumer.

Today there are thousands of food products derived from genetically engineered Soybeans,  and they are consumed by the public. If it is labeling, should we label every product individually just because genetically modified soybean was used as a raw material? Should we label chicken that fed on genetically modified corn? Should we label Milk from a cow that fed on genetically modified maize?  Who should be responsible for labeling these products? What criteria do we use to reach the conclusion of what is safe to eat and what is not? What information does the public have to make informed decisions on these labeled products (since labels have no information)? Other than science what rules do we use to guide us? Who actually pays for the label on food?

==labels with no information content are doing nothing rather than imposing costs to consumers.

Ernest Medard

May 2014

Sir.meddy@hotmail.com

Ten Lessons from Biotechnology Experiences in Developing Countries

The Asian Biotechnology and Development Review has published an article, "Ten Lessons from Biotechnology Experiences in Crops, Livestock, and Fish for Smallholders in Developing Countries." Written by James D. Dargie, John Ruane, and Andrea Sonnino, the article is a project by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 
The FAO commissioned a unique series of 19 case studies where agricultural biotechnologies were used to serve the needs of smallholders in developing countries. Most involved a single crop, livestock or fish species and a single biotechnology. From the case studies, ten general and interrelated lessons were drawn that could be used to inform and assist policymakers when deciding on potential interventions involving biotechnologies for smallholders.
Some of the lessons are:

• the need for government commitment and backing from donors and international agencies;
• the need for partnerships, both nationally and internationally, but also with the farmers themselves; and,
• the recognition that long-term investments in science and technology are critical, as is the appropriate integration of biotechnologies with science-based and traditional knowledge.

The study also found that planning, monitoring, and evaluation of biotechnology applications was weak and should be strengthened.
The article is available for download at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/as351e/as351e.pdf.

ISAAA Brief 46-2013: Top Ten Facts

ISAAA releases Top Ten Facts about Biotech/GM Crops in 2013, a Special Edition of Crop Biotech Update March 5 issue. We encourage you to translate and/or use the information therein to develop news articles for publication in tri-media in your own country, with proper attribution to ISAAA.

FACT # 1. 2013 was the 18th year of successful commercialization of biotech crops.

Biotech crops were first commercialized in 1996. Hectarage of biotech crops increased every single year between 1996 to 2013, with 12 years of double-digit growth rates, reflecting the confidence and trust of millions of risk-averse farmers around the world, in both developing and industrial countries. Remarkably, since the first plantings in 1996, an unprecedented cumulative hectarage of more than1.5 billion hectares have been successfully cultivated, an area that is 50% more than the total land mass of China or the United States.

FACT # 2. Biotech crop hectares increased by more than 100-fold from 1.7 million hectares in 1996, to over 175 million hectares in 2013.

This makes biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in recent times – the reason – they deliver benefits. In 2013, hectarage of biotech crops grew by 5 million hectares, at an annual growth rate of 3%. It is important to note that more modest annual gains, and continued plateauing, are predicted for the next few years due to the already optimal (between 90% and 100%) adoption rates for the principal biotech crops, leaving little or no room for expansion.

FACT # 3. Number of countries growing biotech crops and stacked traits.

Of the 27 countries which planted biotech crops in 2013, 19 were developing and 8 were industrial countries. Stacked traits occupied 47.1 million hectares, or 27%.

FACT # 4. For the second consecutive year, in 2013, developing countries planted more hectares than industrial countries.

Notably, developing countries grew more, 54% (94 million hectares) of global biotech crops in 2013 than industrial countries at 46% (81 million hectares). Successful public/private partnerships were established by several countries including Brazil, Bangladesh and Indonesia.

FACT # 5. Number of farmers growing biotech crops.

In 2013, a record 18 million farmers, up 0.7 million from 2012, grew biotech crops – remarkably over 90%, or over 16.5 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Farmers are the masters of risk-aversion and improve productivity through sustainable intensification (confining cultivation to the 1.5 billion hectares of cropland and thereby saving the forests and biodiversity). In 2013, a record 7.5 million small farmers in China and another 7.3 million in India, elected to plant more than 15 million hectares of Bt cotton, because of the significant benefits it offers. In 2013, almost 400,000 small farmers in the Philippines benefited from biotech maize.

FACT # 6. The top 5 countries planting biotech crops – deployment of the first drought tolerant maize and stacked HT/IR soybean.

The US continued to be the lead country with 70.1 million hectares, with an average ~90% adoption across all crops. Importantly, the first biotech drought tolerant maize was planted by 2,000 US farmers on 50,000 hectares. Brazil was ranked second, and for the fifth consecutive year, was the engine of growth globally, increasing its hectarage of biotech crops more than any other country – an impressive record increase of 3.7 million hectares, up 10% from 2012, reaching 40.3 million hectares. Brazil also planted the first stacked HT/IR soybean in a record-breaking 2.2 million hectare launch, and its home-grown virus-resistant biotech bean is ready for commercialization. Argentina retained its third place with 24.4 million hectares. India, which displaced Canada for the fourth place had a record 11 million hectares of Bt cotton with an adoption rate of 95%. Canada was fifth at 10.8 million hectares with decreased plantings of canola but maintained a high adoption rate of 96%. In 2013, each of the top 5 countries planted more than 10 million hectares providing a broad, solid foundation for future growth.

FACT # 7. Status of biotech crops in Africa.

The continent continued to make progress with South Africa benefiting from biotech crops for more than a decade. Both Burkina Faso and Sudan increased their Bt cotton hectarage by an impressive 50% and 300%, respectively, in 2013. Seven countries (Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda) conducted field trials, the penultimate step prior to approval for commercialization. Importantly, the WEMA project is scheduled to deliver the first biotech drought tolerant maize to Africa in 2017. The lack of appropriate, science-based and cost/time-effective regulatory systems continues to be the major constraint to adoption. Responsible, rigorous but not onerous, regulation is needed, particularly for small and poor developing countries.

FACT # 8. Status of biotech crops in the EU.

Five EU countries planted a record 148,013 hectares of biotech Bt maize, up 15% from 2012. Spain led the EU with 136,962 hectares of Bt maize, up 18% from 2012 with a record 31% adoption rate in 2013.

FACT # 9. Benefits offered by biotech crops.

From 1996 to 2012, biotech crops contributed to Food Security, Sustainability and the Environment/Climate Change by: increasing crop production valued at US$116.9 billion; providing a better environment, by saving 497 million kg a.i. of pesticides; in 2012 alone reducing CO2 emissions by 26.7 billion kg, equivalent to taking 11.8 million cars off the road for one year; conserving biodiversity by saving 123 million hectares of land from 1996-2012; and helped alleviate poverty for >16.5 million small farmers and their families totalling >65 million people, who are some of the poorest people in the world. Biotech crops are essential but are not a panacea and adherence to good farming practices such as rotations and resistance management, are a must for biotech crops as they are for conventional crops.

FACT # 10. Future Prospects.

Cautiously optimistic with more modest annual gains expected due to the already high rates of adoption (90% or more) in the principal biotech crops in mature markets in both developing and industrial countries. Bangladesh, Indonesia and Panama approved biotech crop planting in 2013 with plans for commercialization in 2014.

Peanut Gets an Upgrade Against Drought and Salinity

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is one of the economically important oil and food crops. Peanut is generally grown across a wide range of environments including rain-fed conditions. Because of this, drought is a main limiting factor to peanut production in the semi-arid areas. The development of salinity and drought stress-tolerant peanut to exploit the drought-prone and salinity-affected areas of the world has been imperative these past years. Now, mannitol may just be the thing that would make it a reality.
Mannitol accumulation in most plants works for the alleviation of salinity and osmotic-induced stresses. However, it is not naturally synthesized in peanut. The mtlD gene (from Escherichia coli) codes for an enzyme that converts fructose 2 with 6-phosphate to mannitol1-phosphate. Peanuts transformed with mtlD were evaluated for salinity and drought stress tolerance. The overexpression of the mtlD gene translated to the transgenic peanuts' improved tolerance to salinity and drought. This was revealed by better growth and physiological parameters like mannitol content, total chlorophyll content, and relative water content in transgenic peanuts.
The better performance of the transgenic plants was attributed to the stress-shielding role of mannitol. However, the mtlD expression causing the activation of other protective reactions in transgenic peanut may also be possible

 Read more at: http://www.cropj.com/thankappan_8_3_2014_413_421.pdf.

Punctured-hypocotyl Method of Agrobacterium-mediated Transformation

Tomato productivity has always been constrained because of abiotic stresses. Transgenic tomatoes are presently being developed to minimize these losses due to abiotic stresses. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation is the most common approach to producing transgenic tomato. However, the effectiveness of the present methods were limited to only a few tomato cultivars. Hence, we still need an appropriate, simple and general procedure effective across all cultivars. Wounding methods, such as puncturing with a syringe needle, may just be the answer.
Using Indian tomato hypocotyl explants, the efficiencies of the punctured-hypocotyl method as well as normal immersion method of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation were compared. All factors influencing transformation efficiency, such as Agrobacterium density and co-cultivation time, were optimized. The transgene integration of the tomato genome was confirmed by PCR and Southern hybridization. Transformation efficiency was found to be greater with the punctured-hypocotyl method compared to the normal immersion method.
This newly developed method is simple, efficient and could be used to transfer important agronomic genes into the tomato genome for the potential improvement in terms of quality and quantity.
read more on http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304423813006237

Tanzania biotech debate heats up

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania – The government has been advised to play its part by creating conducive environment so as to enable local researchers to do their job on the merit and shortcoming of biotech crops.
The adoption of biotech crops has been a contentious debate in Tanzania. Scientists say the technology has no health effects as it has been propagated by activists while policy makers are hesitant to make a decision either way.
The ongoing debate has caused panic among many farmers who due to bad weather have suffered poor harvests.
According to a study by the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), titled ‘Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using crop genetic improvement technologies for sustainable agriculture,’ a billion people on this planet experience hunger.
The EASAC study goes on to state that another billion eat a diet lacking in essential vitamins and minerals.
According to the study, as the debate on GM technology continues, the world’s population continues to grow and, over the next 40 years, agricultural production will have to increase by some 60%.
But several Ugandan and Tanzanian scientists say the future is bright because these challenges can beaten by GM technology.
“What is missing is the government willingness to allow the widely use of biotech crops,” Chief Researcher, from the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH), Dr Nicholaus Nyange said.
Dr Nyange said, biotech crops could be used as an alternative to solve the said challenges that have been facing Africa farmers most of the time. The issue of climate change, drought and disease.
In Uganda, Head of the Biotechnology Centre at Kawanda, Dr. Andrew Kiggundu said they have developed new varieties of bananas resistant to the devastating banana bacterial wilt disease, nematodes and weevils.
Dr Kiggundu told a group of Ugandan and Tanzania journalists, who toured the centre as part of their field trip to learn about biotech organized by the Bioscience for Farming in Africa, that the new varieties developed in collaboration with the Queensland University of Technology, Australia, are still being monitored in confined field trial gardens at the research institute.
The Kawanda’s researchers have also fortified yellow bananas (Ndiizi), mostly eaten as fruits, with Vitamin A, Zinc and Iron.
The three nutrients, essential for proper growth in children, intellectual development and supply of blood in the body, were got from genes of maize and a special type of foreign bananas called Aspina.
“Banana is a staple food. Some people can eat bananas daily but still lack these nutrients. A number of children are stunted while many expectant mothers die due to lack of enough blood. This is what the new varieties are to address,” Kiggundu said.
Although genetic modification has attracted the closest attention, it is only one of a clutch of new breeding technologies to have been developed in recent decades. The term GM is generally taken to mean the introduction into an organism of genetic material from a different species.
The Managing Director of Tanseed International, Isaka Mashauri said last week recently the government has to allow farmers to choose the seeds they want, whether traditional or biotech crops.
According to Mashauri, who his firm engaged in quality seed production and marketing of crop varieties, the ongoing debate about GM technology is confusing farmers. “Farmers are in dilemma now,” Mashauri said.
“What the government has to do, is to create  a conducive environment for researchers to do their job, so that farmers will be able to know the bad and good of biotech crops,”
The scientists are the only the communities that could clearly articulate the consequences of research findings and the opportunities for agricultural innovation,” Dr Nyange said.
He said the regulatory framework for crop genetic improvement technologies must be reformulated appropriately to be science-based, transparent, proportionate and predictable, taking into account the extensive experience gained and good practice implemented worldwide.
According to Mashauri, if the government will be able to explain the pros and cons of using biotech crops will help farmers decide on whether to adopt the technology or not.
He said that people are hesitant to use biotech crops because they do not know their impacts on their lives, urging the government to impart more knowledge on the organisms.
The global value of biotech seed alone was $13.2 billion in 2011, with the end product of commercial grain from biotech maize, soybean grain and cotton valued at approximately $160 billion or more per year.
Players in agriculture business markets include seed companies, agrochemical companies, distributors, farmers, grain elevators, and universities that develop new crops and whose agricultural extensions advise farmers on best practices
source: East african business week website