Choose your natural plant poison: lectin, tannin, cyanide or aflatoxin.

Plants are not just food for animals.... The world is not green. It is colored lectin, tannin, cyanide, caffeine, aflatoxin, and canavanine [Janzen (16)].

From

Dietary Pesticides (99.99% All Natural)

BN Ames, M Profet and LS Gold

The toxicological significance of exposures to synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods. We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant.

Ames, B.N., Profet, M., and Gold, L.S. (1990b) Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 87, 7777-7781.



Toxicological examination of synthetic chemicals such as pesticides and industrial pollutants, without similar examination of the chemicals in the natural world to use for comparison, has generated an imbalance in both data and perception about potential hazards to humans (1-6). In this and two accompanying papers (7, 8), we try to redress this imbalance and discuss in detail one major group of natural chemicals in our diet-nature's pesticides.
About half of all chemicals (whether natural or synthetic) tested chronically in animal cancer tests at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) are carcinogens (7, 9-14).¶ The MTD of the test chemical is a near-toxic dose that can cause chronic mitogenesis, often as a result of cell killing (7). We have argued that mitogenesis increases mutagenesis, and therefore that a high percentage of all chemicals might be expected to be carcinogenic when tested chronically at the MTD (7). A high proportion of both natural and synthetic test chemicals are positive for carcinogenicity. Natural chemicals constitute the vast bulk of chemicals in the human diet and therefore should be used as a reference for evaluating possible carcinogenic hazards from synthetic chemicals. In recent years, we have compared the possible hazards of various
rodent carcinogens, using the human exposure/rodent potency (HERP) ratio (1, 6). It should be emphasized that as the understanding of carcinogenesis mechanisms improves, these comparisons can be refined but they cannot provide a direct estimate of human hazard. This paper does not extend the HERP comparisons (1) because our purpose is different and space does not allow a proper analysis.

Nature's Pesticides: Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity
Plants are not just food for animals.... The world is not green. It is colored lectin, tannin, cyanide, caffeine, aflatoxin, and canavanine [Janzen (16)].

Dietary Pesticides Are 99.99% All Natural.

Nature's pesticides are one important subset of natural chemicals. Plants produce toxins to protect themselves against fungi, insects, and animal predators (5, 16-23). Tens of thousands of these natural pesticides have been discovered, and every species of plant analyzed contains its own set of perhaps a few dozen toxins. When plants are stressed or damaged, such as during a pest attack, they may greatly increase their natural pesticide levels, occasionally to levels that can be acutely toxic to humans. We estimate that Americans eat about 1.5 g of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than they eat of synthetic pesticide residues (see below). As referenced in this paper (see refs. 16-21 and legends to Tables 1 and 2), there is a very large literature on natural toxins in plants and their role in plant defenses. The human intake of these toxins varies markedly with diet and would be higher in vegetarians. Our estimate of 1.5 g of natural pesticides per person per day is based on the content of toxins in the major plant foods (e.g., 13 g of roasted coffee per person per day contains about 765 mg of chlorogenic acid, neochlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, and caffeine; see refs. 22 and 23 and Table 2). Phenolics from other plants are estimated to contribute another several hundred milligrams of toxins. Flavonoids and glucosinolates account for several hundred milligrams; potato and tomato toxins may contribute another hundred, and saponins from legumes another hundred.

Grains such as white flour and white rice contribute very little, but whole wheat, brown rice, and corn (maize) may contribute several hundred milligrams more. The percentage of a plant's weight that is toxin varies, but a few percent of dry weight is a reasonable estimate: e.g., 1.5% of alfalfa sprouts is canavanine and 4% of coffee beans is phenolics. However, the percentage in some plant cultivars is lower (e.g., potatoes and tomatoes).
......continues at original.

see also
http://www.fortfreedom.org/n16.htm

http://reason.com/amesint.shtml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11843442&dopt=Abstract

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=INTERVIEWS_Bruce_Ames

http://potency.berkeley.edu/text/pesticide.html

Citations:

1. Ames, B. N., Magaw, R. & Gold, L. S. (1987) Science 236,271-280.
2. Ames, B. N. & Gold, L. S. (1987) Science 238, 1634.
3. Ames, B. N., Magaw, R. & Gold, L. (1987) Science 237, 1283-1284.
4. Ames, B. N., Magaw, R. & Gold, L. S. (1987) Science 237, 235.
5. Ames, B. N. (1983) Science 221, 1256-1264.
6. Ames, B. N. & Gold, L. S. (1989) Science 244, 755-757.
7. Ames, B. N. & Gold, L. S. (1990) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7772-7776.
8. Ames, B. N., Profet, M. & Gold, L. S. (1990) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7782-7786.
9. Gold, L. S., Bernstein, L., Magaw, R. & Slone, T. H. (1989) Environ. Health Perspect. 81, 211-219.
10. Gold, L. S., Sawyer, C. B., Magaw, R., Backman, G. M., de Veciana, M., Levinson, R., Hooper, N. K., Havender, W. R., Bernstein, L., Peto, R., Pike, M. C. & Ames, B. N. (1984) Environ.
Health Perspect. 58, 9-319.
11. Gold, L. S., de Veciana, M., Backman, G. M., Magaw, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, M., Blumenthal, M., Levinson, R., Bernstein, L. & Ames, B. N. (1986) Environ. Health Perspect. 67, 161-200.
....



12. Gold, L. S., Slone, T. H., Backman, G. M., Magaw, R., Da Costa, M., Lopipero, P., Blumenthal, M. & Ames, B. N. (1987) Environ. Health Perspect. 74, 237-329.
13. Gold, L. S., Slone, T. H., Backman, G. M., Eisenberg, S., Da Costa, M., Wong, M., Manley, N. B., Rohrbach, L. & Ames, B. N. (1990) Environ. Health Perspect. 84, 215-285.
14. Gold, L. S., Slone, T. H. & Bernstein, L. (1989) Environ. Health Perspect. 79, 259-272.
15. Haseman, J. K. (1985) Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 5, 66-78.
16. Janzen, D. H. (1977) Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 64, 706-736.
17. Beier, R. C. (1990) in Reviews ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology, ed. Ware, G. W. (Springer, New York), Vol. 113, pp. 47-137.
18. Rosenthal, G. A. & Janzen, D. H., eds. (1979) Herbivores: Their Interaction with Secondary Plant Metabolites (Academic, New York).
19. Green, M. B. & Hedin, P. A., eds. (1986) Natural Resistance of Plants to Pests: Roles of Allelochemicals, ACS Symposium 296 (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC).
20. VanEtten, H. D., Matthews, D. E. & Matthews, P. S. (1989) Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 27, 143-165.
21. Watson, D. H., ed. (1987) Natural Toxicants in Food (VCM Verlagsgeselischaft, Weinheim, F.R.G.).
22. Maarse, H. & Visscher, C. A., eds. (1989) Volatile Compounds in Foods (CIVO-TNO, Zeist, The Netherlands).
23. Stofberg, J. & Grundschober, F. (1987) Perfum. Flavor. 12, 27-56.
24. Gunderson, E. L. (1988) J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 71, 1200-1209.
25. Stich, H. F., Rosin, M. P., Wu, C. H. & Powrie, W. D. (1981) Mutat. Res. 90, 201-212.
26. Ishidate, M., Jr., Harnois, M. C. & Sofuni, T. (1988) Mutat. Res. 195, 151-213.
27. Ariza, R. R., Dorado, G., Barbancho, M. & Pueyo, C. (1988) Mutat. Res. 201, 89-96.
28. Fung, V. A., Cameron, T. P., Hughes, T. J., Kirby, P. E. & Dunkel, V. C. (1988) Mutat. Res. 204, 219-228.
29. Hanham, A. F., Dunn, B. P. & Stich, H. F. (1983) Mutat. Res. 116, 333-339. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87 (1990)
30. McGregor, D. B., Brown, A., Cattanach, P., Edwards, I., McBride, D., Riach, C. & Caspary, W. J. (1988) Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 12, 85-154.
31. National Toxicology Program (1982) Carcinogenesis Bioassay of Allyl Isothiocyanate (CAS No. 57-06-7) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F, Mice (Gavage Study) (Research Triangle Park, NC), Tech. Rep. 234, NIH Pub. No. 83-1790.
32. Huff, J. E., Eustis, S. L. & Haseman, J. K. (1989) Cancer Metastasis Rev. 8, 1-21.
33. Morse, M. A., Wang, C.-X., Amin, S. G., Hecht, S. S. & Chung, F.-L. (1988) Carcinogenesis 9, 1891-1895.
34. National Toxicology Program (1990) Draft Technical Report: Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of d-Carvone (CAS No. 2244- 16-8) in B6C3F, Mice (Gavage Studies) (Research Triangle Park, NC), Tech. Rep. 381.
35. Wakabayashi, K., Suzuki, M., Sugimura, T. & Nagao, M. (1989) in Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cancer Association (Nagoya, Japan), abstr. 284.
36. Ito, N. & Hirose, M. (1987) Jpn. J. Cancer Res. (GANN) 78, 1011-1026.
37. Hirose, M., Fukushima, S., Shirai, T., Hasegawa, R., Kato, T., Tanaka, H., Asakawa, E. & Ito, N. (1990) Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 81, 207-212.
38. VanEtten, C. H. & Tookey, H. L. (1979) in Herbivores: Their Interaction with Secondary Plant Metabolites, eds. Rosenthal, G. A. & Janzen, D. H. (Academic, New York), pp. 471-500.
39. Fenwick, G. R., Heaney, R. K. & Mullin, W. J. (1983) CRC Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 18, 123-201.
40. McDanell, R., McLean, A. E. M., Hanley, A. B., Heaney, R. K. & Fenwick, G. R. (1988) Food Chem. Toxicol. 26, 59-70.
41. Nishie, K. & Daxenbichler, M. E. (1980) Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 18, 159-172.
42. Nishie, K. & Daxenbichler, M. E. (1982) Food Chem. Toxicol. 20, 279-280.
43. Villasenor, I. M., Lim-Sylianco, C. Y. & Dayrit, F. (1989) Mutat. Res. 224, 209-212.
44. Malinow, M. R., Bardana, E. J., Jr., Pirofsky, B., Craig, S. & McLaughlin, P. (1982) Science 216, 415-417.
45. Hirono, I., ed. (1987) Naturally Occurring Carcinogens of Plant Origin: Toxicology, Pathology and Biochemistry, Bioactive Molecules (Kodansha/Elsevier, Tokyo/Amsterdam), Vol. 2.
46. International Agency for Research on Cancer (1986) IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Some Naturally Occurring and Synthetic Food Components, Furocoumarins and Ultraviolet Radiation (International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France), Vol. 40.
47. National Toxicology Program (1989) Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 8-Methoxypsoralen (CAS No. 298-81-7) in F344/N Rats (Gavage Studies) (Research Triangle Park, NC), Tech. Rep. 359.
48. McManus, B. M., Toth, B. & Patil, K. D. (1987) Lab. Invest. 57, 78-85.
49. Toth, B. (1986) Anticancer Res. 6, 917-920.
50. National Toxicology Program (1990) Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies ofd-Limonene (CAS No. 5989-27-5) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Studies) (Research Triangle Park, NC), Tech. Rep. 347.
51. Miller, E. C., Swanson, A. B., Phillips, D. H., Fletcher, T. L., Liem, A. & Miller, J. A. (1983) Cancer Res. 43, 1124-1134.
52. National Toxicology Program (1986) Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Benzyl Acetate (CAS No. 140-11-4) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Studies) (Research Triangle Park, NC), Tech. Rep. 250.
53. National Toxicology Program (1990) Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of a-Methylbenzyl Alcohol (Cas No. 98-85-1) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F, Mice (Gavage Studies) (Research Triangle Park, NC), Tech. Rep. 369.
54. Hirose, M., Masuda, A., Imaida, K., Kagawa, M., Tsuda, H. & Ito, N. (1987) Jpn. J. Cancer Res. (GANN) 78, 317-321.
55. Beier, R. C., Ivie, G. W., Oertli, E. H. & Holt, D. L. (1983) Fd. Chem. Toxicol. 21, 163-165.
56. Chaudhary, S. K., Ceska, O., Tetu, C., Warrington, P. J., Ashwood- Smith, M. J. & Poulton, G. A. (1986) Planta Med. 6,462-464.
57. Ivie, G. W., Holt, D. L. & Ivey, M. C. (1981) Science 213,909-910.
58. Berkley, S. F., Hightower, A. W., Beier, R. C., Fleming, D. W., Brokopp, C. D., Ivie, G. W. & Broome, C. V. (1986) Ann. Intern. Med. 105, 351-355.
59. Seligman, P. J., Mathias, C. G. T., O'Malley, M. A., Beier, R. C., Fehrs, L. J., Serrill, W. S. & Halperin, W. E. (1987) Arch. Dermatol. 123, 1478-1482.
60. Carlson, D. G., Daxenbichler, M. E., VanEtten, C. H., Kwolek,
W. F. & Williams, P. H. (1987)J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 112, 173-178.
61. Schreier, P., Drawert, F. & Heindze, I. (1979) Chem. Mikrobiol.
Technol. Lebensm. 6, 78-83.
62. Engel, K. H. & Tressl, R. (1983) J. Agric. Food Chem. 31, 796-801.
63. Hasselstrom, T., Hewitt, E. J., Konigsbacher, K. S. & Ritter, J. J.
(1957) Agric. Food Chem. 5, 53-55.
64. Hecker, E. (1981) J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 99, 103-124.
65. Miura, Y., Ogawa, K. & Tabata, M. (1987) Planta Med. 53, 95-96.
66. Archer, A. W. (1988) J. Chromatogr. 438, 117-121.
67. Concon, J. M., Swerczek, T. W. & Newburg, D. S. (1979) Nutr. Cancer 1, 22.
68. Ohta, H., Kinjo, S. & Osajima, Y. (1987) J. Chromatogr. 409, 409-412.
69. Wootton, M., Edwards, R. A., Faraji-Haremi, R. & Williams, P. J. (1978) J. Apic. Res. 17, 167-172.
70. Luo, S. J., Gue, W. F. & Fu, H. J. (1988) Dev. Food Sci. 17, 191-199.
71. Karawya, M. S., Hashim, F. M. & Hifnawy, M. S. (1974) J. Agric. Food Chem. 22, 520-522.
72. Risch, B. & Herrmann, K. (1988) Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 186, 225-263.
73. Schmidtlein, H. & Herrmann, K. (1975) Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 159, 255-263.
74. Moller, B. & Herrmann, K. (1983) Phytochemistry 22, 477-481.
75. Mosel, H. D. & Herrmann, K. (1974) Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 154, 6-11.
76. SchAfers, F. I. & Herrmann, K. (1982) Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 175, 117-121.
77. Winter, M., Brandl, W. & Herrmann, K. (1987) Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 184, 11-16.
78. Herrmann, K. (1978) Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 167, 262-273.
79. Stohr, H. & Herrmann, K. (1975) Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 159, 219-224.
80. Schuster, B., Winter, M. & Herrmann, K. (1986) Z. Naturforsch. 41c, 511-520.
81. Clarke, R. J. & Macrae, R., eds. (1988) Coffee (Elsevier, New York), Vols. 1-3.
82. Baltes, W. (1979) in 8th International Scientific Colloquium on Coffee (ASIC, Paris), pp. 85-96.
83. Tressl, R., Bahri, D., Koppler, H. & Jensen, A. (1978) Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 167, 111-114.
84. Rahn, W. & Konig, W. A. (1978) J. High Resolution Chromatogr. Chromatogr. Commun. 1002, 69-71.
85. Fukuda, Y., Nagata, M., Osawa, T. & Namiki, M. (1986) Agric. Biol. Chem. 50, 857-862.
86. National Research Council (1989) Diet and Health, Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
87. National Research Council (1982) Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
88. National Research Council, Board on Agriculture (1987) Regulating Pesticides in Food (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
89. Treon, J., Dutra, F. & Cleveland, F. (1953) Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med. 8, 170-184.
90. Nigg, H. N., Beier, R. C., Carter, O., Chaisson, C., Franklin, C., Lavy, T., Lewis, R. G., Lombardo, P., McCarthy, J. F., Maddy, K. T., Moses, M., Norris, D., Peck, C., Skinner, K. & Tardiff, R. G. (1990) in The Effects of Pesticides on Human Health, eds. Baker, S. R. & Wilkinson, C. F. (Princeton Scientific Publishing, Princeton, NJ), Vol. 18, pp. 35-130.
91. Furihata, C. & Matsushima, T. (1986) Annu. Rev. Nutr. 6, 67-94.
92. Sugimura, T. (1988) Mutat. Res. 205, 33-39.
93. Takayama, S., Nakatsuru, Y. & Sato, S. (1987) Jpn. J. Cancer Res. (GANN) 78, 1068-1072.
94. Beije, B. & M6ller, L. (1988) Mutat. Res. 196, 177-209.
95. Formation of Mutagens During Cooking (Special Issue) (1986) Environ. Health Perspect. 67, 3-157.
96. Kasamaki, A., Yasuhara, T. & Urasawa, S. (1987) J. Toxicol. Sci. 12, 383-396.
97. Randerath, K., Randerath, E., Agrawal, H. P., Gupta, R. C., Schurdak, M. E. & Reddy, V. (1985) Environ. Health Perspect. 62, 57-65.
98. Tucker, J. D., Taylor, R. T., Christensen, M. L., Strout, C. L. & Hanna, M. L. (1989) Mutagenesis 4, 343-348.
99. Stich, H. F. & Powrie, W. D. (1982) in Carcinogens and Mutagens in the Environment, ed. Stich, H. (CRC, Boca Raton, FL), Vol. 1, pp. 135-145.

Read more!

A 21st Century Cheerful Guide to Better Health from GMOs. Part 6. Fish Oils help Arthritis.

This is how medical scientists put it. But the plain version is: Omega 3 fats help rheumatoid arthritis sufferers feel better.

Diet and rheumatoid arthritis: a review of the literature.

Stamp LK, James MJ, Cleland LG.

Department of Medicine, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences,
University of Otago, New Zealand.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis is a common inflammatory condition. A large number of patients seek alternative or complementary therapies of which diet is an important component. This article reviews the evidence for diet in rheumatoid arthritis along with the associated concept of oral tolerization.
METHODS:
References were taken from Medline from 1966 to September 2004. The keywords, rheumatoid arthritis, diet, n-3 fatty acids, vitamins, and oral tolerization, were used.

RESULTS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that dietary supplementation with n-3 fatty acids provides modest symptomatic benefit in groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Epidemiological studies and RCTs show cardiovascular benefits in the broader population and patients with ischemic heart disease. A number of mechanisms through which n-3 fats may reduce inflammation have been identified. In a small number of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, other dietary manipulation such as fasting, vegan, and elimination diets may have some benefit. However, many of these diets are impractical or difficult to sustain long term.

CONCLUSIONS: Dietary manipulation provides a means by which patients can a regain a sense of control over their disease. Dietary n-3 supplementation is practical and can be easily achieved with encapsulated or, less expensively, bottled fish oil.

Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Oct;35(2):77-94.
PMID: 16194694 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Related Links in PubMed

Dietary n-3 fatty acids and therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. [Semin
Arthritis Rheum. 1997] PMID:9355207

Anti-inflammatory effects of a low arachidonic acid diet and fish oil in
patients with rheumatoid arthritis. [Rheumatol Int. 2003] PMID:12548439

[Are there effective dietary recommendations for patients with rheumatoid
arthritis?] [Z Rheumatol. 2001] PMID:11263011

Is diet important in rheumatoid arthritis? [Br J Rheumatol. 1991]
PMID:2012942

Dietary fish oil and olive oil supplementation in patients with rheumatoid
arthritis. Clinical and immunologic effects. [Arthritis Rheum. 1990]
PMID:2363736

Read more!

Trying to Avoid All Risk Transfers Harm Somewhere Else - To the Future.

A Modern Parable thanks to Cronaca.

Ute Navidi, who heads a British children's charity called London Play, was walking along a Berlin street, on a break from an international conference, when she stopped to watch a group of primary schoolchildren in the schoolyard. She couldn't believe what she was seeing. "If this was London they would have called in search- and-rescue," says Navidi. "Or the health inspector would have come in and shut the place down." Young German kids were chopping wood with axes and mixing soups in a cauldron over an open flame. Children who looked like kindergarteners were manoeuvring kayaks on their own in a large pond while the adults chatted on the sidelines. The scene got Navidi worried -- and not for those kids. The risks the German children were learning to manage far surpassed anything schoolchildren in her city were doing.

In Britain, as in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere, an overwhelming concern for safety -- along with a desire to safeguard against child-injury litigation -- has completely altered the landscape of kids' activities over the past 20 years. . .

But recently, a growing number of people have reached an epiphany similar to Navidi's: despite our best intentions to protect children, our actions have produced the opposite effect. Studies are showing that kids have become less capable, less self-reliant -- essentially, more vulnerable to harm. . .

And kids spend more time with parents -- eight hours more with their mothers and four more with fathers -- compared with 1981. The radius of play of the average nine-year-old has shrunk to one-ninth of what it was in 1970.

Read more!

A Range of Second Generation GM Insect Protection Cottons on the Move towards the Market.

What will second generation Bt cotton contribute?

- DELTA FARM PRESS, By Elton Robinson, 01 Sep 2006

Cotton producers who plant second generation Bt cottons like Bollgard II, WideStrike and VipCot may not spray less or yield more cotton in the short term. But they should see improved control of worm pests and will have set the bar for resistance management at a very high level.

Two new, two-gene products - Bollgard II, which has been in cotton fields since 2003, and WideStrike, which has been commercially available since 2005 - have the gene that expresses the Cry1Ac protein. Bollgard II's second protein is Cry2Ab; WideStrike has Cry1f.

A third product, VipCot, the result of a cooperative effort between Syngenta and Delta Pine Land Co., is not yet commercially available.

The new technologies have improved the spectrum of worm control, according to Stewart. "There are also some subtle differences in these technologies. It's not going to show up in most environments, most years. But when you have a big bollworm year or a big fall armyworm year you might be able to tease apart the technology."

As with Bollgard, WideStrike and Bollgard II will provide great control of tobacco budworm, according to Stewart.

"Original Bollgard was fair on bollworm and less than that on some other pests, like fall armyworm. "Bollgard II is excellent on bollworm. We think WideStrike is somewhere between the two based on all the data we've collected.

"But the big thing that the additional gene will bring, hopefully, is to prevent resistance from developing to these technologies as quickly. The idea is that if you have one gene, that's good, but resistance can develop. If you have two genes and the mode of action is different enough, it's unlikely that any one insect will be resistant to both at the same time.

"The newer technologies also have a large advantage over original Bollgard for fall armyworm and loopers. That's where you're going to really see improvement. With fall armyworm, we think WideStrike might be a bit better than Bollgard II.

"If I were to choose a Bt technology based on the pure efficacy of that product for west Tennessee, I would probably pick Bollgard II because we think it's a little better on bollworms than the WideStrike technology and that is the primary pest in this environment.

"If I were in another environment where I had a lot of fall armyworms or a mixture of fall armyworms and bollworms, it may be a tougher decision.

"The reality of the situation is that even original Bollgard is pretty good most of the time. And growers are probably going to choose technology by what variety they want to grow."

Stewart noted that there is still a refuge requirement for the second generation of Bt cotton - planting some amount of Bt cotton and managing it according to specific guidelines. But there is a proposal to go to a so-called natural refuge for Bollgard II.

"Essentially Monsanto is trying to convince EPA that the technology is good enough and there are enough other sources of tobacco budworm and bollworm in the environment that we don't need the structured, non-Bt cotton refuge in Bollgard II. They've made a good case, so we'll see what the EPA decides."

Walt Mullins, Monsanto's technical manager for Bollgard and Bollgard II, hopes a decision will come from EPA in late September, "but certainly enough in time for growers to know something before the 2007 season."

Mullins said that two-gene products like Bollgard II have significantly improved inherent resistance management potential in Bt cotton, one reason why original Bollgard technology, which contains a single gene, will be available only through the 2009 season.

"In Australia, they have already outlawed the use of a single gene product because of their concern for resistance management.

"We know that it will take a while to get the Bollgard II varieties up to the performance level we need. We've made great strides and by 2009, we should be there."

Read more!

Human error 'probable cause' of GM canola mix-up two years ago in Tasmania.

07.sep.06
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) via Agnet

Human error has, according to this story, been identified as the most likely cause of the genetically-modified contamination of conventional canola two years ago.
Low level contamination of the commercially-grown 'grace' variety was discovered in 2005 during routine sampling of canola exports.
A trial of GM canola was conducted in Tasmania in 1998, and a year later grace canola was grown on a separate site three kilometres away, but an investigation by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator has found that is not how the contamination occured.
Alex Schaap from Tasmania's Department of Primary Industry was cited as saying there is not enough evidence to provide a definite answer, adding, "The mystery still remains as to what the source of the contamination is. The only hypothesis left standing is some form of human error, perhaps something as simple as somebody not labelling seed bags correctly, and seed hence being mixed."
The peak grains research body says it is continuing negotiations to try to secure the commercial release of genetically modified crops.
The Grains Research and Development Corporation is funding research into GM canola, which cannot be released to farmers because of state-imposed bans on the technology.

Read more!

Demand for Low Sat Soybean Oils in Portland - 50 percent Less Saturated Fat But Without Bad Canola Taste.

‘Low-sat' soybean oil finds champion in Portland

- Ionia Sentinel-Standard, September 5, 2006, By GARY A. SCHLUETER

PORTLAND - Eliminating half the fat in regular soybean oil makes good sense to Brian Stuart - both health wise and, he hopes, economically.

On Saturday morning one may find Brian and Susan Stuart selling not only their produce but also a relatively new low-saturated fat soybean oil called Select Oil.

Low saturated fat oil is a good thing because saturated fats are the bad fats.

According to the “Fat Dictionary” at DietSite.com, “Saturated fats are the very unhealthy fats. Excess saturated fat is related to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”

The Stuarts have a farm on Portland Road where they grow and sell hay and straw, sweet corn, pumpkins, gourds and eggs - and now, Select Oil - a new item for them.

Brian Stuart has all the facts about Select Oil and gladly shares the information on Saturday mornings with anyone interested.

“This is made right here in Zeeland, Michigan,” Stuart said holding up a bottle of Select Oil, which sells for $3.50.

According to an Iowa State University paper introducing low-saturated-fat soybean oil, soybean oil is the most widely used vegetable oil in the United States. The trouble with traditional soy bean oil is it has about two grams of saturated fat per tablespoon serving.

In 1997 two Iowa State professors came up with a product they trademarked as LoSatSoy. “LoSatSoy has only one gram of saturated fat per serving, half the amount found in traditional soybean oil and the same amount found in canola oil,” the professors reported.

The problem with canola oil is that consumers complained about the taste. The introduction of low-saturated soybean oil was designed to eliminate that complaint.

Stuart is also selling a Monsanto-engineered soybean called Vistive.

“Select Oil is non-GMO, but this Vistive is not,” Stuart pointed out.

Vistive is genetically modified to produce low-linolenic oil “which allows food processors to reduce the need for hydrogenation,” according to a Monsanto informational packet.

“Companies like Kentucky Fried Chicken have put in a big order for Vistive,” he said. KFC is turning to this low-saturated soybean oil because of bad publicity the company has received about the health risks of eating its deep fried chicken.

“There is a great demand for soybeans grown to be low in saturated fats,” Stuart said. “The trouble is not enough farmers have them available. The demand is larger than the supply.

Read more!

The Best Kind of Pinup: A Healthy Lovable Intelligence Promoting Brain Food.

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (Molecule of the Month for March 2006)

C22 H32 O2

Docosahexaenoic acid is an omega-3 essential fatty acid.

[Try the link for a 3D movie that rivals Star Wars in entertainment value].

DHA is most often found in fish oil. Most of the DHA in fish and other more complex organisms originates in microalgae of the genus Schizochytrium, and concentrates in organisms as it moves up the food chain. Most animals make very little DHA metabolically, however small amounts are manufactured internally through the consumption of gamma-linolenic acid, an omega-3 fatty acid found in flaxseed as well as many other seeds and nuts.

DHA is a major fatty acid in sperm and brain phospholipids, especially in the retina. Dietary DHA can reduce the level of blood triglycerides in humans, which may reduce the risk of heart disease. Low levels of DHA have been associated with Alzheimer's disease, depression, and other diseases, and there is mounting evidence that DHA supplementation may be effective in combating such diseases.

Omega-3 fatty acids are polyunsaturated fatty acids found in oil from oily fish and vegetable sources such as the seeds of chia, perilla, flax, purslane, lingonberry and hemp. Omega-3 fatty acids are classified as essential fatty acids. Common omega-3 fatty acids in the human body are linolenic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid.

Formal Chemical Name (IUPAC)
(4Z,7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z,19Z)-docosa-4,7,10,13,16,19-hexaenoic acid

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docosahexaenoic_acid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid

Read more!

GM Chinese Rice Present in EU Imports at Trace Levels.

GM Chinese rice contaminating European food: NGOs
05.sep.06
Agence France Presse

BRUSSELS - Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were cited as demanding on Tuesday an immediate ban on rice imports from China citing the discovery that some European food is being contaminated by an illegal genetically modified (GM) rice from China.
The story explains that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth tested samples of rice products such as vermicelli, rice sticks and other processed foods in Britain, France and Germany. Five positive samples were found containing an illegal GM product not approved anywhere in the world.
Greenpeace International was quoted as saying in a statement that, "However, this could be the tip of the iceberg with rice products included in everything from baby food to yoghurt."
Friends of the Earth Europe's GM Campaigner Adrian Bebb was quoted as saying, "It is shocking that contamination with illegal genetically modified rice has occurred for the second time in three weeks. The European Commission must react quickly and ban imports from China until consumers can be guaranteed that foods containing rice are safe from contamination. Chinese foods already in shops should also be immediately tested and products recalled if necessary. Consumers in Europe deserve better than panic measures each time the latest crisis breaks."
The tainted products were found in Asian specialty stores and were imported from China, the environmental groups said.
The illegal rice contains a protein or fused protein (Cry1Ac) that has reportedly induced allergic-like reactions in mice.

Nature carries the story too and adds:
Published online: 5 September 2006; | doi:10.1038/news060904-5
Escaped Chinese GM rice reaches Europe
Prevalence of genetically modified foods highlights risks of field trials.

Allergic reaction

The Greenpeace release and report make much of the potential allergenicity of a compound, Cry1Ac, which is found in a pure or slightly altered form in the escaped Chinese GM rice. But Rob Aalberse, a biochemist at the University of Amsterdam specializing in food allergies, says that the risk is likely to be small. "There are no real data to indicate that there is any real risk involved."

Studies showing allergic effects in mice, cited by Greenpeace, did not cook the rice, which Aalberse says would decrease the allergenicity.

Besides, Aalberse says, the unapproved rice is already being consumed by many people in China. "If there were anaphylactic events, people would have noticed," he says.

The real problem, says Aalberse, is containment. "Field trials are one thing, but if you are going to grow it for real, I think it will be impossible to contain it."

And this Just in:
China rejects claims genetically modified rice entering EU food market
07.sep.06
Forbes
BEIJING - China has, according to this story, rejected claims by western environmental groups that its genetically modified rice had entered the European market, saying it has not been approved for commercial production.
The European Commission urged member states this week to intensify controls on genetically modified foods out of fear they might contain an illegal GM product that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth said came from China.
'We have not approved a single case of the commercial production of GM rice,' foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regular press briefing.

Plus this thorough detail

Regulated Rice

- CropGen, 8th September, 2006

The past few weeks have seen rice hit the headlines – GM-rice, that is, not the nice rice of rice puddings.

The first bombshell was that US long-grain rice may contain traces of LLRICE601, a herbicide-tolerant GM variety containing the phosphinothricin-N-acetyltransferase (PAT) protein. Although this protein in the closely related varieties was submitted to the US regulator for approval for human consumption, Bayer (the company involved) had not finished the process of getting LLRICE601 approved for marketing before dropping the project several years ago. But the company did complete the process for LLRICE62 and LLRICE06, two other varieties of rice with the same inserted gene. While neither of those two was ever marketed, the US Agriculture Secretary said the approval offers reassurance that 601 is probably safe (1).

Why the approval application for LLRICE601 was withdrawn is unclear but it seems to have been for commercial reasons. How the strain came to be widely distributed in commercial rice is not yet known; presumably somebody made a mistake, or was careless, but who, when, how and why have yet to be revealed. Somebody was responsible but it may have been far back in the history of this strain, before the company in its present form even existed.

LLRICE62 and LLRICE06, having been through thorough safety evaluations, are deemed safe for use in food and safe in the environment. The safety of LLRICE62 also currently being assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as part of the authorisation procedure to allow the product onto the European market (2). Note, however, that although the protein is the same in both strains (and in others), and has been approved for human consumption, the precise genetic constructs differ in detail with the regulations accordingly demanding that each be separately evaluated.

The results of the announcement were as dramatic as could be expected. Japan banned imports of long-grain rice altogether (3). One interesting point about that ban is that Japan imports long-grain rice primarily for the use of foreigners, mainly Americans. The Japanese themselves prefer short-grain sticky rice (4).

Europe, needless to say, was not far behind. While anxious for more information (5), the EU banned imports (6), with some being held in a Dutch port (7) and the Irish ready to sue (8). Moreover, companies importing illegal genetically modified foods risk legal action by national governments (9). Across the Atlantic some US farmers filed suit against Bayer, seeking $5 million compensation for the drop in rice prices since the announcement that LLRICE601 might be present (10).

However, the latest development seems to be a move by Bayer and the USDA to deregulate (i.e. give approval to) LLRICE601 (11). What might be the consequences of that in the European Union and Japan remain to be seen.

As if all that were not enough, one of the anti-GM pressure groups claimed that an independent laboratory had found “illegal GM rice” in Europe in the form of imported Chinese rice noodles (12). Curiously though, that “….(test) facility wishes to remain anonymous so that it will not be labelled as an activist lab. ‘They worry about being associated too closely with us,’” said a spokesman for the campaign group (13). China, however, has rejected the claims, saying that the country had not approved a single case of the commercial production of GM rice (14).

The world was in turmoil – and for what? Mainly because traces of GM rice that had not received formal approval had been found in food. There are accordingly two major issues: safety and a breach of regulations.

For all the protests of the campaigners, there really does appear to be no safety issue; the rice containing traces of LLRICE601 is perfectly safe (15). But the regulatory breaches, both with the US rice and the Chinese variety, are serious because our society is based on respect for and adherence to the law. You may not like the law – in which case by all means seek to change it through well-established democratic procedures – but while it is in place it must be obeyed.

There is another question, one about the complexity of the regulatory system. It is not difficult to see how the present situation developed over the years. Were these not the consequences of excessive regulation of GM products as they impinged both upon the US and the Chinese rice:

1. for their own political and commercial agendas, various interested parties whipped up public concern;

2. governments, always willing to respond to what they perceive as public opinion whenever they possibly can, over-reacted and enacted excessive and unnecessary legislation;

3. companies, well aware of the hassle and expense of the regulatory system, refrained from seeking more approvals than they needed to;

4. nevertheless, varieties were developed for which approval, for one reason or another, was not been sought or not pursued to completion (LLRICE601); those varieties continued to exist somewhere. For a whole variety of reasons, traces of some of them may have found their way into commercial products.

5. a major flap develops: the rules have been broken (and should not have been – but nobody did it deliberately); however, no physical harm is done because companies take care to avoid making harmful products. So we have minor or major political ructions but no actual "damage", either to human or animal health or to the elusive "environment";

6. a whole agricultural sector is faced with possible major losses - for what? Because of excessive regulations? Yet all the while, crops genetically modified by cross-breeding and mutagenesis are of no interest to anybody except to the plant breeders themselves:

7. something of the sort may also have happened in China although the details are not yet published. The public sector in that country developed the GM rice strains which were tested in the field and in food. For its own political and/or commercial reasons, the Chinese government decided that then was not the time to go ahead and withheld formal approval both for planting and for food. But the varieties were out and somehow found their way into the food supply, with traces ending up in Europe. Nobody has yet fallen ill as a result.

Some authors take a radically different approach to GMO regulation, arguing that “regulation exacts societal costs whose magnitude is almost unimaginable” (16) and that “zero tolerance” is the problem (17).

Is there really any reason other than politics for oppressive regulation of GM crops while turning a totally blind eye to genetic modification achieved by traditional cross-pollination and mutagenesis? In neither of those cases is there any requirement to test for safety or environmental effects, nor to characterise genetic changes: we simply do not know what has happened to the genomes of plants modified in those procedures. Their value and suitability is judged purely on an empirical short-term basis. Yet the placing of “GM” crops in a special category demonises them so that, while LLRICE62 and LLRICE06 have been “approved”, virtually the same genetic event in LLRICE601 causes upheaval in the world’s rice economy. Something has gone badly wrong.

Nevertheless, one can always look on the brighter side. There are plans afoot to boost rice photosynthesis with inserted genes, allowing it to grow faster and larger (18). The researchers hope to do this by inserting genes from maize or from wild relatives of rice that are more efficient at photosynthetic carbon dioxide uptake. It will take about four years to determine whether the technique is feasible and another 10-15 years until the first improved varieties are available.

Sources:

1. Nation's rice supply contaminated with unapproved variety. Arizona Republic (19.8,2006)

2. Anthony Fletcher. FSAI bans GM rice, US farmers sue Bayer. Food Navigator (31.08.2006)

3. Japan ends U.S. long - grain rice imports. New York Times (19.8.06)

4. Rice Tariffication in Japan: What Does It Mean for Trade? Agricultural Outlook (April 1999)

5. Jeremy Smith. EU still anxious for details on U.S. biotech rice. Reuters (30.8.06)

6. EU adopts tough rules for U.S. long-grain rice. Wall Street Journal (24.8.2006)

7. Dutch port holds contaminated US GMO rice. Dow Jones (31.8.06)
8. Food watchdog to clear banned US rice from shops. Irish Independent (31.8.2006)

9. Food cos risk legal action if import illegal GMO crops. Wall Street Journal (6.9.2006)

10. Robert Patrick. 3 Missouri farmers sue Bayer CropScience over genetically modified-rice contamination. St. Louis Today (07.09.2006)

11. Lauren Morello. USDA moves to deregulate controversial Bayer rice. E&E News PM (7.9.06)

12. Gene-altered rice from China found in EU. Reuters (5.9.2006)

13. Emma Marris. Escaped Chinese GM rice reaches Europe. Nature (5.9.06)

14. China rejects claims genetically modified rice entering EU food market. Forbes (7.9.06)

15. Howard Cincotta. Genetically altered rice found safe, Agriculture Secretary says. US Department Of State (19.8.2006)

16. Henry I. Miller. Letters to the Editor: I have a dream: scientific, logical regulation. Policy Analysis (13 Jul 2006)

17. Elton Robinson. Zero tolerance is the problem. Delta Farm Press (7.9.06)

18. Mike Shanahan. Plan to boost rice photosynthesis with inserted genes. Science and Development Network (27.6.06)



Meanwhile, other groups focus on food security rather than food safety:

U of Leeds and Chinese Academy of Sciences create first virtual joint lab to study role of genes within crop plants, particularly rice
05.sep.06
University of Leeds
Via SeedQuest

A new research partnership between Leeds and Beijing is to help meet the challenge of feeding China’s fast-growing population.
Plant scientists from the University of Leeds and applied agricultural specialists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences will work on joint projects looking at the role of genes within crop plants, particularly rice. Potential areas of collaboration include how plants react to environmental stress, such as high salt levels, and ways to mitigate the impact of crop parasites.
The project will also see the creation of a ‘virtual laboratory’, where researchers can share information and research data...

Read more!

Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta race to pinpoint plant genes for drought-tolerance.

Advances in pinpointing plant genes for drought-tolerance

- Agweb.com, September 04, 2006, By Wayne Wenzel

Worrying about whether or not the forecast calls for rain may be a thing of the past when the next generation of drought-tolerant corn hits the market.

We’re not talking about breeding better plants with deeper roots or traits that prevent insect feeding. Now, genetic engineering and high-speed gene shuffling let breeders and engineers pinpoint the plant genes that affect crop yield under moisture stress.

After a decades-long marathon, today’s big three seed firms—Monsanto Company, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and Syngenta—are in a sprint for the finish line. Finally, it appears technology has advanced far enough for one or all of these companies to soon make a serious run at high-yielding, drought-tolerant hybrids.

For farmers, the timing could be perfect. As energy prices skyrocket and drought patterns shift, it can cost up to $100 to irrigate an acre of corn. Some aquifers are depleting at an alarming rate, and competition for limited water supplies is fierce. Meanwhile, corn production is under increasing demands to fuel ethanol plants, feed livestock and satisfy exports. With these forces at work, marginal acres, including those more prone to drought stress, could soon be growing corn...

Monsanto/DeKalb

Perhaps sensing the finish line, Monsanto recently broke from the pack, making bold statements about its drought research. The company’s CEO, Hugh Grant, announced this past spring that Monsanto will start commercial sales of drought-tolerant corn after the turn of the decade.

Grant also said the company has completed 53 large-scale field trials during the past two years and is now identifying the highest-yielding seeds. While Monsanto now pulls genetics from 36 germplasm pools around the world, much of Monsanto’s drought success traces back to its acquisition of DeKalb. One hybrid in particular, DKC63-78, has shown success against drought in Illinois, Indiana and Iowa. Its drought tolerance comes from a specific Mexican inbred line.

Along with specific drought-tolerant germplasm, Monsanto also acquired DeKalb’s drought discovery and development work in Mystic, Conn. DeKalb’s long-time molecular research and breeding hub continues to be the center of Monsanto’s drought research.

John Headrick, chief of development for drought-tolerant corn at Monsanto, is optimistic that his company will be the first to come to market with yield-competitive hybrids engineered specifically to tolerate drought. But, he refuses to reveal too many details about the exact methods Monsanto is using to attain its goal. Concern about protecting intellectual property is high.

There are clues, however. Monsanto has released promotional photos and video of drought-tolerant hybrids not rolling their leaves under drought stress, so it would seem one key is the corn’s ability to maintain leaf surface area under drought conditions.

Despite the promotional teaser, Headrick is quick to point out that reduced leaf rolling is only one possible route to drought resistance. “Reducing plant water loss, or evapotranspiration, is one thing we look at in drought tolerance,” he says, “but we consider the whole plant from the roots up. It’s not absolutely necessary that leaves don’t roll at all; in fact, leaf rolling itself is a defense mechanism. The leaves on a drought-tolerant plant may still roll some and help preserve moisture. We’re looking at a number of leads and characterizing them in early stage field tests.”

Headrick also reveals that while Monsanto’s most recent tests in corn have been a success, earlier research that led to key pathways in drought tolerance was done in a plant called Arabidopsis. This small relative of the mustard family has been called the lab rat of plant genetics because it grows quickly and is relatively easy to work with genetically.

A quick search of the scientific literature shows that Michael Thomashow of Michigan State University was one of the first researchers to use Arabidopsis to discover a genetic mechanism that protects cell walls and membranes during periods of drought and cold. Some rights to his research were licensed to a company called Mendel Biotechnology, which began promoting the technology as Weathergard.

Today, Monsanto prominently stands out among companies that have research exchange agreements with Mendel Biotechnology. Monsanto and Mendel recently renewed their agreement.

So, is Weathergard the key to Monsanto’s program? Headrick will only say that the company is looking at many sources for drought tolerance, including simple microbes, native corn traits and other plant sources.

DuPont/Pioneer...

Based on 50 years of data collected by USDA and Pioneer, Schussler estimates that in any given year, one-third of U.S. corn acres experience yield-reducing drought stress.

“Weeds and insects used to be the primary yield robbers, but now drought is No. 1,” Schussler says...

“Our drought candidates come from a three-pronged approach that includes conventional breeding, molecular breeding and transgenic programs that might move novel genes into corn,” Schussler says. “Sometimes our own conventional breeders and genetic engineers find themselves in a race to find the same solution.”

Thus far, Pioneer’s breeders have had some success. There have been bumps along the road, though. Pioneer’s early attempts to breed in or insert drought-resistant genes from sorghum into corn, for example, proved more difficult than expected. “We’ve learned that drought tolerance, like yield, is more likely the result of many genes interacting in the plant. This favors conventional corn breeding over single novel gene insertion like with Bt corn,” Schussler says.

But, technology helps a lot. Pioneer has identified promising drought traits in some inbreds by using marker-assisted breeding and high-speed gene shuffling technology from Verdia, a company purchased by Pioneer’s parent company, DuPont...

He points out that Pioneer has recently discovered several hybrids with exceptional drought tolerance and high yield potential. Some of those headed to market share a parent inbred from the recently successful 108- to 110-day Pioneer 33D11. The hybrid has shown an ability to throttle back its water use and maintain green leaves without rolling as much. It also tends to put out silks more robustly than other hybrids, silking a couple of days earlier than pollen shed...

Syngenta/Greenleaf Genetics...

That’s where Syngenta’s drought project leader Scott Valentine thinks his company may have an advantage. With a Ph.D. specializing in chemical gene switches that turn genes on and off, Valentine focuses on finding the switch that tells corn to redirect energy and nutrients away from the kernel and into the leaves and stalks during drought stress...

“Today, Syngenta has some corn candidates that appear to keep the yield effect of modern breeding and also stop the kernel abortion throwback trait of teosinte,” Valentine says. “In multi-year field trials, our lead event has shown consistent yield improvement over control hybrids. The yield improvement is far better than incremental—more than just 1% or 2%.”

Valentine won’t speculate on when commercial hybrids with Syngenta drought traits will be available. “Looking at native trait and biotech trait options for drought takes time. It’s harder than adding a new Bt protein, for example, because Bt is a foreign protein that does not interact with plant function. But, plant interaction is what controlling drought response is about. When we get it, I think drought resistance will be a broad-acreage trait that almost everyone will want.”

Read more!

MINISTER OPENS $15M EXPANSION TO QLD ETHANOL INDUSTRY

Media Release, Australian Parliament
The Hon Ian Macfarlane, MP, 4 September 2006

An extra 23 million litres of ethanol could be pumped out of CSR's expanded Sarina facility every year, bolstering the state's burgeoning ethanol industry, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, Ian Macfarlane said today.

The boost is the result of a $15 million expansion, including a new molecular sieve dehydrator, officially opened by Mr Macfarlane in Sarina this morning.

"This is a significant investment by CSR that will assist Australia to achieve its Biofuels target and increase the use of ethanol blended fuels in the domestic transport market," Mr Macfarlane said.

"With the successful installation of the molecular sieve, CSR now has the capacity to deliver 32 mega litres of fuel ethanol to domestic suppliers annually."

CSR is a leading contributor to the strong development of Australia's ethanol fuel industry, recently announcing a partnership with BP to supply 23 mega litres of fuel ethanol to BP over the next two years.

"This is an encouraging development and a strong commitment on behalf of both companies to work together to distribute ethanol to consumers."

“The Australian Government is pleased to have been able to contribute to this great achievement by providing $4.2 million to CSR through the $36 million Biofuels Capital Grants Program.”

“On top of the capital grants, the Australian Government has delivered more than $56 million in Ethanol Production Grants and a commitment to ensure ethanol remains excise free until 2011.”

“Last month the Prime Minister also announced the new $17.2 million Ethanol Distribution Program to support the uptake of ethanol by encouraging petrol stations to install new, or convert existing pumps, to sell E10 blended fuel.”

"Our investment is clearly paying off with an almost three-fold increase over the past 12 months in the number of service stations selling ethanol as well as a 75% increase in the production of transport ethanol in the last financial year," Mr Macfarlane said.

Read more!

Does a non-GM premium at $1 a tonne match GM canola at 40 bushels an acre?

Geraldton Guardian (Western Australia). 28 August 2006.

In Seminar on GM issues, WA agronomist and Canola expert Bill Crabtree has some key messages about the small size of the non-GM premium for canola compared to 40% boosts in output from GM.

[Mr Crabtree said] that in 10 years, non-GM technology had not achieved a significant premium price over its GM counterpart, removing any growing advantage of non-GM crops for WA farmers.

"It's a clever idea (to remain GM free) if we could get a premium, and if we could get a 40% premium for it, I'd be cautious about introducing GM, but we are missing out on yields and oil premiums for $1 a tonne." he said.

"GM canola will yield at 40% more than the current species. In Canada where the wheat yields at 45 bushells per acre, [GM] canola yields at 40 bushels,' he said.

See also GMO Pundit post "Australian canola currently has a price premium?" for an extended discussion of how small or large the mooted non-GM premium might be.

For the metrically minded, 40 bushels per acre at 44.092 bu/tonne by 2.471 acre/ha = 2.24 tonne/ha.

Read more!

Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Biotechnology

AC21 Consensus Report - Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Biotechnology


Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Biotechnology:
The Decade Ahead
A report prepared by the USDA Advisory Committee
on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture
July 13, 2006

From the overview:

The Past Decade and the Next Decade
The first ten years
Over the past decade, traits developed using modern biotechnology have been introduced into U.S. agricultural commodities including corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola. They have been adopted rapidly by American farmers, and also are being grown by farmers in other countries. The new varieties were intended to provide increased productivity, profitability, and improved environmental management (e.g., reduced pesticide use and expanded conservation tillage). Most of the new varieties were developed to be incorporated into existing undifferentiated commodities. Genetically engineered traits have been part of a multifaceted biotechnology research milieu in which enhanced breeding, a greater focus on germplasm improvement, and advances in understanding the molecular basis of growth, productivity and disease resistance jointly have led to substantial increases in agricultural productivity.

In the United States, these transgenic varieties are largely undifferentiated and fully integrated into commodity markets. In 2005, 52% of corn, 87% of soybeans, and 79% of cotton planted in the United States was genetically engineered, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service. In addition, in 2005 transgenic crops were planted globally on about 222 million acres,1 roughly 5.8% of the estimated 3.8 billion acres devoted to crops. Transgenic varieties thus far in the marketplace have been beneficial to farmers and the environment, but have not provided marketing advantages to food retailers or improved nutrition or taste to attract consumers...

The next ten years
It is impossible to predict exactly which new modern biotechnology-derived plants or animals will be ready for the marketplace over the next decade. Some possibilities
include:

• Genetically engineered plant varieties that provide improved human nutrition (e.g., soybeans enriched in omega-3 fatty acids);
• Products designed for use in improved animal feeds (providing better nutritional balance by increasing the concentration of essential amino acids often deficient in
some feed components, increased nutrient density, or more efficient utilization of nutrients such as phosphate that could provide environmental benefits);
• Crops resistant to drought and other environmental stresses such as salinity;
• Crops resistant to pests and diseases (e.g., fusarium- resistant wheat; chestnut-blight resistant chestnut; plum pox resistance in stone fruit; various insect resistant crops);
• Additional crops containing a number of transgenic traits incorporated in the same plant (stacked traits);
• Crops engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, such as vaccines and antibodies;
• Crops engineered for particular industrial uses (e.g., crops having improved processing attributes such as increased starch content, producing useful enzymes that
can be extracted for downstream industrial processes, or modified to have higher content of an energy-rich starting material such as oil for improved utilization as
biofuel); and
• Transgenic animals for food, or for production of pharmaceuticals or industrial products (e.g., transgenic salmon engineered for increased growth rate to maturity,
transgenic goats producing human serum factors in their milk, and pigs producing the enzyme phytase in their saliva for improved nutrient utilization and manure with
reduced phosphorus content).


There are several factors beyond whether a genetically engineered crop or animal can be developed and found efficacious which will help determine whether it is successful as a marketable product. For each such possibility, before any product reaches the marketplace, the federal government must ensure it is safe for human consumption, safe for the environment, and will not adversely affect the food supply. To appropriately manage risk, the government might impose additional measures on developers, farmers, or others throughout the food and feed chain that may affect the economic or technical viability of the product and the realization of potential benefits.

AC21 members have diverse views about the appropriate role of plant and animal products derived from modern biotechnology in the food and agricultural marketplace.
Members recognize that new products will be entering a world that is very different from the one that existed a decade ago when the first agricultural products of modern
biotechnology were introduced:
• Many of the “first-generation” transgenic organisms developed in the United States have now been adopted by farmers in other nations, including developing nations;
• Some of the transgenic plant varieties intended for food use developed over the next few years will likely emerge from the developing world. For example, if transgenic
rice varieties (probably insect-resistant varieties) that have been developed in the developing world (e.g., in China or India) are commercialized, this could have a
significant impact on the global genetic engineering debate because large populations of humans will be consuming a staple transgenic whole food;
• Some of the “next generation” of transgenic varieties and products may need to be produced under identity preservation conditions or require strict segregation from
food or feed product streams;
• Media coverage and public debate have made consumers more aware of genetically engineered products than when the first crops were adopted. Increased awareness
along the food and feed chain will continue to influence the acceptance of new products derived from modern biotechnology;
• Genomic information is being used to enable the development of improved crops and animals through both transgenic and non-transgenic approaches;
• National regulatory systems for evaluating the safety of new transgenic products are being developed and implemented in many countries around the world, eliminating
some uncertainties but, in some cases, complicating the path to market;
• Many countries now require mandatory labeling for food products derived from modern biotechnology, and some require traceability of those products throughout the
food and feed chain. Food manufacturers who do not want to label their products as containing transgenics are sourcing non-transgenic crops, further segment ing the
marketplace;
• U.S. regulations are evolving slowly and many governing statutes were written before modern agricultural biotechnology was developed. That system may not be optimal to meet the needs of producers and consumers.
• The commercializatio n of a transgenic plant or animal product is affected by considerations beyond the safety of the product. Technical challenges may arise
when turning a beneficial trait into a marketable food. New products must gain acceptance by consumers and trading partners;
• Sometimes social and ethical concerns may influence decisions about commercialization. For example, the development of transgenic animals may
generate, for some people, higher levels of concern than those for plant breeding;
• Some international agreements specific to modern biotechnology, e.g., the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and standards related to modern biotechnology under Codex
Alimentarius, now exist. Additional efforts under these bodies are continuing, but their future outcomes are uncertain;
• There is an ongoing trade dispute over modern biotechnology-derived products between the EU and a number of complainants, including the United States, nearing a
final report from the World Trade Organization;
• Technology producers, food producers and processors increasingly recognize the global interdependence of markets and the importance of resolving genetic
engineering- related issues;
• With the increased use of genetically engineered organisms, other issues such as testing, liability, coexistence, and intellectual property rights, have emerged.

Read more!