Great news: Peanuts safety proofed against main food allergies because of GM technology

Reduction of IgE Binding and Nonpromotion of Aspergillus flavus Fungal Growth by Simultaneously Silencing Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 in Peanut 

- Ye Chu et al., and Peggy Ozias-Akins; J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11225-11233; e-mail pozias@uga.edu  http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf802600r

Abstract: The most potent peanut allergens, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6, were silenced in transgenic plants by RNA interference. Three independent transgenic lines were recovered after microprojectile bombardment, of which two contained single, integrated copies of the transgene. The third line contained multiple copies of the transgene. Ara h 2 expression was significantly suppressed in all three lines, whereas Ara h 6 was reduced in two lines. Expression of peanut allergens Ara h 1 and Ara h 3 was not noticeably affected. Significant reduction of human IgE binding to Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 also was observed. Seed weight and germination data from transgenic and nontransgenic segregants showed no significant differences. Data collected from in vitro Aspergillus flavus infection indicate no significant difference in fungal growth between the transgenic lines and the nontransgenic controls. These data suggest that silencing Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 is a feasible approach to produce hypoallergenic peanut.

Read more!

Large pipeline of new GM crop events and lack of harmony in international regulations pose problems for international trade

Workshop participants considered that in particular the following two issues should be addressed with a view to mitigating the risks of LLP.

First, participants saw the need to reconsider zero tolerance thresholds, possibly replacing them with low-level marketing thresholds; these new thresholds need to be higher than the technical detection limit to be practical, to reduce the negative impact on costs and to prevent trade disruptions.

Second, participants highlighted the need to address the "destination risk", e.g. by official testing of shipments already at the port of loading. Other solutions proposed were the streamlining of the regulatory systems, mutual recognition of risk assessments of new GM crops and the flexible implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines.

 

The global pipeline of new GM crops (pdf file)
Implications of asynchronous approval for international trade
Alexander J. Stein and Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo

JRC EU report. EUR 23486 EN - 2009

Executive summary
The commercialisation of new genetically modified (GM) crops generally is a regulated activity worldwide. Different countries have different authorisation procedures, and, even if submitted at the same time, new GM crops do not get approval simultaneously in all countries.

This issue, known as "asynchronous approval" of GM crops, is of growing concern for its potential economic impact on international trade. Because if the importing country operates a "zero tolerance" policy, imports may be rejected if containing traces of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are not yet authorised.

A problem similar to asynchronous approval (AA) occurs when a developer of a new GM crop does not seek approval for commercialisation in all world regions. (This may be the case if the crop in question is designed only for local markets or foreign markets do not represent major target markets for exports.) In this case there can be "isolated foreign approval" (IFA) by a cultivating country and any traces of unauthorised GM material in imports may again lead to their rejection by other countries.

Finally, imports can also be rejected due to "low-level presence" (LLP) of research events; this can happen if a country has authorised the cultivation of a GM crop in field trials only, but due to accidental admixture traces end up in the commercial crop supply.

In the case of the European Union (EU), any such low-level presence of new GM crops in agricultural imports has already caused trade disruption and economic problems. In particular, as acknowledged in a report by the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission (EC 2007), the EU feed and livestock production sectors are affected by this issue.
In order to predict the evolution of the impact of LLP of GM crops for the EU agri-food sector, it is essential to produce a forecast of the upcoming GM crops. It needs to be clarified which and how many GM crops will be developed in the next years, in which countries, and when these new crops will be authorised by the different trading partners of the EU.

To build the basis for such a forecast, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), organised a workshop on the "Global commercial pipeline of new GM crops" on 12-13 November 2008 that gathered international experts and practitioners involved in the development, regulation and commercialisation of GM crops worldwide.

This report presents an overview of the current status of approvals of GMOs in different countries with relevance for EU trade. It also presents a database of GM crops that are already in the pipeline and may be marketed worldwide in the short term (2-3 years) to medium term (7-8 years from 2008). The pipeline was compiled for the seven crops (soybeans, maize, rapeseed, cotton, sugar beet, potatoes and rice) for which GM varieties already exist or are likely to be marketed in the near future. The pipeline includes GM crops to be marketed by private and public technology providers in all world regions.

GM crops were classified in five categories according to their proximity to market:

   Commercial crop: commercialised GM events (those currently marketed in at least one country worldwide).
   Commercial pipeline: GM events authorised for marketing in at least one country but not yet commercialised (commercialisation only depends on the developer).
   Regulatory pipeline: GM events already in the regulatory process to be marketed in at least one country.
   Advanced R&D pipeline: GM events not yet in the regulatory process but at late stages of development.
   Other crops: GM events authorised in at least one country, but not commercialised or commercialised once but phased out commercially or legally afterwards.

The summary of the findings of the workshop and subsequent desk research predicts a significant global increase in the number of individual commercial GM events. While currently there are around 30 commercial GM events that are cultivated worldwide, the forecast is that by 2015 there will be over 120: for soybeans, currently only 1 GM event is available, but this number is predicted to increase to 17 different events; maize events are expected to increase from 9 to 24, rapeseed events from 4 to 8 and cotton events from 12 to 27. In the case of rice where currently no commercial events are cultivated, the prediction is that by 2015 as many as 15 GM events could be grown; potatoes also are predicted to move from no current cultivation to 8 events, and other, minor crops are predicted to grow from 7 events currently marketed to 23 events by 2015. Therefore, as problems of LLP have already occurred in the current situation (with about 30 events marketed), these are only likely to increase when moving from 30 to 120 events in the market.

Individual GM events can easily be combined by conventional crossings by plant breeders to generate new GMOs with multiple desirable traits. Such "stacking" of (authorised) events is already common in maize and cotton. It is evident that in countries where stacked GM crops are required to go through the regulatory system as a new GM crop, the possibility of generating new GM crops by stacking individual events will create an increasingly large number of new "approvable" GMOs. This will cause significant increase in the workload of regulatory systems and will likely contribute to the asynchrony of approvals.

Most of the existing events in commercial GM crops were developed by (private) technology providers from the USA or Europe, and cultivated first in North and South America. These developers also tended to seek broad authorisation of their products in key export target markets (in particular the EU and Japan). However, by 2015 about half the events in commercial GM crops are expected to come from national technology providers in Asia (and Latin America), designed for domestic agricultural markets. It seems very improbable that all these new GM crops will be submitted for approval in the EU, i.e. there will be isolated foreign approval (IFA). Hence future incidents due to LLP in imports of crops or processed foods from these countries are very likely. An added complication in such cases is the need for information on validated tests for the detection of some of these events in order to enforce current regulatory provisions in many countries worldwide.

In addition to new GM crops like rice and potatoes, it is also foreseen that a limited number of new traits will be commercialised. Currently the large majority of commercial traits confer insect resistance, herbicide tolerance or a combination of both. For minor crops virus resistance is already available. The pipeline predicts that by 2015 insect resistance and herbicide tolerance traits will still be dominant but also new commercial traits will be available covering crop composition and abiotic stress tolerance (mainly optimised oil and starch content, improved nutrient profiles, and drought tolerance).

Given the EU's dependency on soybean imports, special attention should be paid to this crop. Currently there are five new soybean events in the commercial and regulatory pipeline that could result in potential situations of AA already in the next 2-3 years. In the longer term further AA incidents could arise from nine new events that are currently in the advanced R&D pipeline. In addition, difficulties with LLP due to IFA cannot be discarded because of the GM soybeans that are currently in the regulatory system in China.

For maize there are four new individual events in the pipeline that could pose potential AA problems in the short term, with more difficulties being likely due to the stacking of events. In the longer term, seven more events could enter the market and contribute to the AA situation. Moreover, three GM maize events that could become potential issues of IFA are in the regulatory pipeline in China.

For GM rapeseed there is only one event in the regulatory pipeline that may pose difficulties due to LLP in the short term; in the longer run the problem of LLP in rapeseed in the EU will depend on the evolution of the five events in the advanced R&D pipeline. Also for GM cotton the LLP issue may be less relevant because the EU imports of cottonseed meal and cotton oil are very small. However, the EU depends on the import of cotton seeds for domestic cultivation. It is also worth noticing that out of the 12 individual GM events of cotton cultivated in the world, as many as eight events are not currently cleared for import into the EU and only one of these has been submitted for EU approval. This situation is not likely to change and therefore LLP incidents, in particular due to IFA, cannot be ruled out.

None of the five GM rice events in the commercial and regulatory pipelines worldwide are authorised in the EU and four of them are not even submitted for approval. Hence potential problems of LLP in rice imports may occur, especially due to IFA once the events that are currently in the advanced R&D pipelines in various Asian countries reach the market.

Three events of GM potatoes are already in the regulatory pipeline worldwide; one event is being assessed exclusively in the EU, while the other two events in GM potatoes are being assessed in Argentina. Imports of potatoes into the EU have traditionally been very small and highly regulated for plant health reasons; therefore LLP issues with potatoes are unlikely, at least in the short to medium term. Regarding "other commercial GM crops", only GM sugar beet is authorised in the EU for import and all the other events of other GM crops are not even submitted for EU approval. Hence in these cases future LLP issues, if any, may be due to IFA and occur in particular in processed food products.

For professionals in the global food and feed chain the economic risk of rejections of shipments at the EU border is the major problem in the context of LLP. Part of this problem, the "destination risk", arises if the tests for the detection of unauthorised GM material in imports are only carried out at the port of destination – when a cancellation of the shipment is impossible and when its re-direction is costly. And while identity preservation of crops is possible in principle, given the bulk handling of grains in international trade, commodity traders also question the possibility to comply with a zero tolerance policy for LLP of unauthorised material. A possible consequence mentioned is that exporters could sell their grain to "preferred buyers", i.e. to countries that have found concerns about LLP not justified and to importers that are known to create little problems. Moreover, the price of grain is determined through demand and supply in "bid and offer" systems of grain exchanges where prices are based on quality and quantity, with a strong relationship between price,  specifications and risk. As risk is increased if there is uncertainty whether imported grains will be in compliance with LLP regulations, prices are likely to rise (unless the risk cannot be measured or managed, in which case there will be no trade at all). In this context more general issues are the lack of predictability and legal certainty. Apart from problems for commodity traders, future price increases and supply bottlenecks in the EU due to LLP also carry the risk of relocations of EU businesses that are dependent on cheap imports of agricultural commodities, like livestock farming.

Workshop participants considered that in particular the following two issues should be addressed with a view to mitigating the risks of LLP.

First, participants saw the need to reconsider zero tolerance thresholds, possibly replacing them with low-level marketing thresholds; these new thresholds need to be higher than the technical detection limit to be practical, to reduce the negative impact on costs and to prevent trade disruptions.

Second, participants highlighted the need to address the "destination risk", e.g. by official testing of shipments already at the port of loading. Other solutions proposed were the streamlining of the regulatory systems, mutual recognition of risk assessments of new GM crops and the flexible implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines.

Read more!

Nature Biotechnology reports on ongoing continental EU farce

Up in Arms

- Gunjan Sinha, Nature Biotechnology 27, 592 - 594 (2009)
'Several European countries continue to defy EU law and ban genetically modified maize. Will the stalemate ever be resolved?'

In the battle over genetically modified crops in Europe, the Greens have scored another point. On 5 May, a court in Braunschweig, Germany rejected St. Louis, Missouri–based Monsanto's attempt to suspend a government ban on its product MON810, a genetically modified maize resistant to the European corn borer. In upholding the ban, the court stated that although the evidence presented did not prove that MON810 posed any health or environmental risks, it did indicate a "possible" risk and this was sufficient to uphold the ban 1.

Germany's decision to prohibit the planting and selling of MON810 seed a few weeks earlier was the latest chapter in what has become a never-ending soap opera of science versus politics—a drawn-out drama in which the characters attempt to trump one another for reasons that are not always what they seem....

...Jürgen Zentek and colleagues at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna launched a feeding study in mice to assess health over generations...

...The only statistically significant finding came from the continuous breeding study. After the first litter, mice fed GM maize gave birth to fewer pups in each subsequent litter, and the average litter weights of pups in the GM group also decreased over time.

Although the results from the first arm of the multigeneration study (in which mice from each generation were bred with each other) were not statistically significant, the authors did report that the number of pups weaned, the average litter size and the weight at weaning tended to be lower in the GM group than in the group fed the isogenic maize variety. They also found that more pups died in the GM group. They reported that these differences were consistent over generations, but were not significant because the intragroup variability was very high.

The study, funded by the Austrian Ministry for Health, Family and Youth, wasn't published, nor was it peer reviewed. Rather, the results were announced at a press conference last fall 2. Greenpeace issued a press release touting the study: "Forget condoms—eat GM maize," read the headline. Other anti-GM groups also jumped on the news, and the internet was awash with stories touting the new study and its frightening findings. In its release, Greenpeace demanded a worldwide recall of all GM foods and crops, stating: "GM food appears to be acting as a birth control agent, potentially leading to infertility."

Monsanto, the producer of MON810 maize, almost immediately responded. Although they commended the study design, they criticized the data: "This report lacks sufficient experimental details to fully interpret the results and contains a number of errors that make it unsuitable for risk assessment and/or regulatory purposes," they announced in a press release3.

Their criticism focused specifically on two major flaws. First, the authors did not use historical controls or reference groups throughout the study when comparing groups of mice. Without a proper control group of mice to assess natural variability in fertility, it's difficult to say how much of the fertility decline was caused by diet alone. In addition, the authors used inconsistent calculation methods, did not use standard units in some calculations and also miscalculated some data. And even when the calculations were corrected, the lack of a control group made the results impossible to interpret, Monsanto argued.

Monsanto's criticisms have been confirmed and elaborated upon by several scientists. At Monsanto's request, James Lamb, executive vice president of the Weinberg Group, a multinational regulatory consulting firm, wrote a review in which he concluded: "When properly analyzed, these data do not appear to support an effect on fertility or reproduction from consumption of GM corn" 4. Lamb was the researcher who had originally developed the continuous breeding study design, at the Research Triangle Park, North Carolina–based U.S. National Toxicology Program during the 1980s.

But the authors aren't to blame, says Klaus Ammann, emeritus professor at the University of Bern in Switzerland. They are merely the latest victims of what has become the political gerrymandering of science to bolster and support anti-GM sentiment in Europe.

"The Austrian government had exhausted all legal avenues to ban cultivation of GM crops," Ammann says. "The Ministry of Health decided to avoid the peer-review process and announce study results at a conference, hide the data from scientists, and let the activists run amok with the help of uncritical media."

Indeed, in the ensuing months the Austrian government has backpedaled. The Ministry of Health responded to a request to interview Zentek or other authors with the following: "We asked the scientists to reevaluate their statistical analysis. Additionally the external evaluation will soon be started. I kindly ask you to wait with your proposal until the reevaluation is completed."...

 

Journal References

   1. Hogan, M. German court rejects Monsanto plea to end GMO maize ban. Reuters (5 May 2009). http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSL558166220090505
   2. Velimirov, A., Binter, C. & Zentek, J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603 X MON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report of the Austrian Ministry for Health, Family and Youth (2008). http://bmgfj.cms.apa.at/cms/site/standard.html?channel=CH0810&doc=CMS1226492832306
   3. Monsanto Corp. For the record: do Monsanto corn products reduce fertility in mice? Monsanto Today.com (2009). http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/monsanto_corn_mice_fertility.asp
   4. Lamb, J.C. Review of Zentek paper. GMObelus (20 November 2008). http://www.gmobelus.com/news.php?viewStory=290
   5. Prasifka, P.L., Hellmich, R.L., Prasifka, J.R. & Lewis, L.C. Environ. Entomol. 36, 228–233 (2007). 
   6. Rosi-Marshall, E.J. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 41, 16204–16208 (2007). 
   7. Beachy, R.N., Fedoroff, N.V., Goldberg, R.B., Hughen, A., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, E9 (2008). | Article | PubMed | ADS |
   8. Rosi-Marshall, E.J. et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, E11 (2008). 
   9. Planting of controversial genetically modified maize stopped. Der Spiegel Online (14 April 2009). http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,618850,00.html

See other Pundit posts
Full Austrian report
Curious silence about animal deaths

 

Meanwhile, this just in

Majority of German policymakers don’t support Mon810 ban
http://www.eurobiotechnews.eu/service/start-page/top-news/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=10268&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12&cHash=1716e7d4e0
European Biotechnology News

09.07.09 Berlin – A majority of the members of Germany’s parliament are against the current ban of Monsanto’s genetically engineered maize Mon 810, that could not be planted this year by German farmers after Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner argued there might be effects on non-target organisms such as ladybugs. On Monday, a majority of the members of the Deutscher Bundestag rejected a motion of the German Greens to vote against EU re-authorisation of Monsanto’s Bt maize as well as against a permanent ban of Mon810 cultivation in Germany. A few days before the European food watchdog EFSA had stated that Mon810 is as safe for human health and the environment as conventional maize is. The statement of the EFSA implies that data and studies presented by farm minister Aigner to invoke the safeguard clause are not relevant. The lab studies suggested that the CryA1b toxin produced by Mon810 causes higher mortality of ladybugs and other non–target organisms. Furthermore, the parliamentarians voted against the establishment of GMO-free zones

Read more!

ERS/USDA Data - Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. 2009 Update

 

ERS/USDA Data - Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.#2009-7-1#2009-7-1

U.S. farmers have adopted genetically engineered (GE) crops widely since their introduction in 1996, notwithstanding uncertainty about consumer acceptance and economic and environmental impacts. Soybeans and cotton genetically engineered with herbicide-tolerant traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GE crops in the U.S., followed by insect-resistant cotton and corn. This data product summarizes the extent of adoption of herbicide-tolerant and insect–resistant crops since their introduction in 1996. Three tables devoted to corn, cotton, and soybeans cover the 2000-09 period by State. See more on the extent of adoption... at the link.

Read more!

New salt tolerant trait for cereals from U Adelaide

Scientists closer to developing salt-tolerant crops

Wednesday, 8 July 2009, University of Adelaide Press Release

An international team of scientists has developed salt-tolerant plants using a new type of genetic modification (GM), bringing salt-tolerant cereal crops a step closer to reality.
The research team - based at the University of Adelaide's Waite Campus - has used a new GM technique to contain salt in parts of the plant where it does less damage.
Salinity affects agriculture worldwide, which means the results of this research could impact on world food production and security.
The work has been led by researchers from the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics and the University of Adelaide's School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, in collaboration with scientists from the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Cambridge, UK.
The results of their work are published today in the top international plant science journal, The Plant Cell.
"Salinity affects the growth of plants worldwide, particularly in irrigated land where one third of the world's food is produced. And it is a problem that is only going to get worse, as pressure to use less water increases and quality of water decreases," says the team's leader, Professor Mark Tester, from the School of Agriculture, Food and Wine at the University of Adelaide and the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (ACPFG).
"Helping plants to withstand this salty onslaught will have a significant impact on world food production."
Professor Tester says his team used the technique to keep salt - as sodium ions (Na+) - out of the leaves of a model plant species. The researchers modified genes specifically around the plant's water conducting pipes (xylem) so that salt is removed from the transpiration stream before it gets to the shoot.
"This reduces the amount of toxic Na+ building up in the shoot and so increases the plant's tolerance to salinity," Professor Tester says.
"In doing this, we've enhanced a process used naturally by plants to minimise the movement of Na+ to the shoot. We've used genetic modification to amplify the process, helping plants to do what they already do - but to do it much better."
The team is now in the process of transferring this technology to crops such as rice, wheat and barley.
"Our results in rice already look very promising," Professor Tester says.

Read more!

Marketing triumph for biodegradable plastic toys.

From the Canadian inventor of a new eco-friendly boomerang

My mission is to design and manufacture new products with minimal environmental impact, using as much as possible renewable or abundantly available natural raw materials, while offering the highest technical and health safety standards for
our customers.

This particular design offers the opportunity for educatorsand teachers to initiate younger or older ones about the basics of handcrafting. It promotes an introduction for outdoor physical and creative manual activities with a pleasurable eco-friendly raw material. It is safe for children and accessible as well for adults, with an educative dimension as well as a sporting value. It targets communities that are involved with kids from 9 years old on, either summer camps or schools programs. It reaches as well adults involved in corporation team building workshops or public and festivals events. It promotes an environmentally friendly attitude and thus contributes to the preservation of our planet, as we are continually searching for more ecological manufacturing and production processes...

...The material used is a corn starch (GMO free), 100% biodegradable and compostable. It is water resistant and can be decorated with markers or paint. This is the first wind toy in the world made with this kind of bio-polymer.

Pundit's thoughts:
Yup, they are serious. They are claiming we can save the planet by turning corn into lurid pink plastic toys, as long as they're GMO free. And by the way -- they plan to make money from this lurk.

Hat tip to AA.

Read more!

European Food Safety Agency releases report on the contested crop Mon 810 maize

Summary

This document provides a scientific opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 3 applications submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 for renewal of the authorisation of (1) existing food and food ingredients produced from genetically modified (GM) maize MON810 (Unique Identifier MON-ØØ81Ø-6); (2) feed consisting of and/or containing maize MON810, including the use of seed for cultivation; and of (3) food and feed additives, and feed materials produced from maize MON810, developed by Monsanto to provide resistance to lepidopteran target pests.

The scopes of the 3 renewal applications cover the continued marketing of:
existing food and food ingredients produced from maize MON810 (Reference EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[8-1a]) that have been placed on the market in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97;
feed consisting of and/or containing maize MON810 that were authorised under Directive 90/220/EEC (Commission Decision 98/294/EC), including the use of seed for cultivation (Reference EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[20-1a]);
food additives produced from maize MON810 that were authorised under Directive 89/107/EEC, and feed produced from maize MON810, i.e., feed additives lawfully placed on the market under Directive 70/524/EEC and feed materials (Reference EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[8-1b/20-1b]).

After the date of entry into force of the Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the products mentioned above were notified to the European Commission according to Articles 8 or 20 of this Regulation and subsequently included in the Community Register of GM food and feed.
Maize MON810 expresses a Cry1Ab insecticidal protein, derived from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki, which confers protection against lepidopteran target pests such as the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) and species belonging to the genus Sesamia.

In delivering its scientific opinion, the EFSA GMO Panel considered the 3 renewal applications (EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[8.1.a], EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[20.1.a] and EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[8.1.b/20.1.b]); additional information supplied by the applicant; the scientific comments submitted by Member States; the report of the Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission; and relevant information published in the scientific literature.

The EFSA GMO Panel assessed maize MON810 with reference to the intended uses and appropriate principles described in the guidance document of the EFSA GMO Panel for the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed. The scientific assessment included molecular characterisation of the inserted DNA and expression of target proteins. A comparative analysis of agronomic traits and composition was undertaken, and the safety of the new protein and the whole food/feed were evaluated with respect to potential toxicity, allergenicity and nutritional quality. An assessment of environmental impacts and the post-market environmental monitoring plan were undertaken.

Maize MON810 was generated by particle acceleration technology. Maize MON810 expresses a cry1Ab coding sequence that encodes an insecticidally active Cry1Ab protein. The molecular characterisation data established that a single insert is integrated in the maize genomic DNA. Appropriate analyses of the integration site including sequence determination of the inserted DNA and flanking regions and bioinformatic analysis have been performed.

Updated bioinformatic analysis of junction regions demonstrated the absence of any potential new open reading frames coding for proteins known to be toxic for humans and other mammals and/or allergens. The expression of the genes introduced by genetic modification has been sufficiently analysed and the stability of the genetic modification has been demonstrated over several generations.

The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that the molecular characterisation of the DNA insert and flanking regions of maize MON810 does not raise any safety concern, and that sufficient evidence for the stability of the genetic modification was provided.

Analyses carried out on materials from maize MON810, including stacked GM maize events where maize MON810 was one of the parental lines, and their comparators indicate that maize MON810 is compositionally, phenotypically and agronomically equivalent to the non-GM counterparts and conventional maize, except for the newly expressed trait.

The Cry1Ab protein shows no homology with proteins known to be toxic for humans and other mammals and/or allergens. In addition, this protein is rapidly degraded under simulated gastric conditions. Furthermore, the Cry1Ab protein has been extensively assessed in previous opinions of the EFSA GMO Panel. No concerns for humans and animals were identified regarding the safety of the Cry1Ab protein.

In a 90-day feeding study in rats, no indications of adverse effects were observed. In addition, a 42-day broiler feeding study provided evidence of nutritional equivalence of maize MON810 kernels to kernels of conventional maize. The toxicological and nutritional data on maize MON810 and appropriate non-GM maize control published during the last 10 years confirm that these maize varieties have comparable influence on the test systems.

Therefore, the EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that maize MON810 is as safe as its non-GM counterparts and that the overall allergenicity of the whole plant is not changed through the genetic modification.

The Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission provided to EFSA its report on the environmental risk assessment in line with Articles 6.3(e) and 18.3(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission conclude that "according to the current state of scientific knowledge and after examining the existing information and the data provided by the Monsanto Company, the Spanish Commission on Biosafety could give a favourable opinion to the renewal of commercialisation in the EU of maize MON810 if the proposals and conditions defined in this environmental risk assessment report are implemented".

Since maize MON810 has no altered survival, multiplication or dissemination characteristics, the EFSA GMO Panel agrees with the assessment that the likelihood of unintended environmental effects due to the establishment and spread of maize MON810 will be no different from that of conventional maize varieties.

On the basis of the data provided by the applicant and obtained from a literature survey and a modelling exercise on the effect of the cultivation of maize MON810 on non-target lepidopteran species in representative maize cultivation regions in the European Union (EU), the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that the likelihood of adverse effects on non-target organisms or on ecological functions is very low, especially if appropriate mitigation measures are adopted. In agreement with the environmental risk assessment by the applicant and the assessment conducted by the Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission, the EFSA GMO Panel identifies the possible evolution of resistance in target species, as a potential risk linked to the cultivation of maize MON810.

In conclusion, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that the information available for maize MON810 addresses the scientific comments raised by Member States and that maize MON810 is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health. The EFSA GMO Panel also concludes that maize MON810 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on the environment in the context of its intended uses, especially if appropriate management measures are put in place in order to mitigate possible exposure of non-target Lepidoptera. Moreover, the EFSA GMO Panel advises that pest resistance management strategies continue to be employed.

Headed as follows at EFSA website
Technical meeting report 2009-05-26 (0.2Mb)
Published: 30 June 2009
Applications (EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810) for renewal of authorisation for the continued marketing of (1) existing food and food ingredients produced from genetically modified insect resistant maize MON810; (2) feed consisting of and/or containing maize MON810, including the use of seed for cultivation; and of (3) food and feed additives, and feed materials produced from maize MON810, all under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto
Question number: EFSA-Q-2007-150, EFSA-Q-2007-153, EFSA-Q-2007-164
Adopted: 15 June 2009
Summary (0.1Mb)
Opinion (0.4Mb)

Read more!

For a change -- a real food safety issue -- and a hat tip to the Great Barfblog

How to avoid backyard bacteria
02.jul.09
New Scientist
Debora MacKenzie

It's food poisoning season again. As summer settles in and guys in chef hats and aprons fire up the backyard barbecue, government agencies are issuing their seasonal warnings about the dangers of grilling. In the US, the Fourth of July holiday approaches, and that means hamburgers.
It turns out to be remarkably difficult to grill a safe burger. Scientific studies have found E. coli O157:H7 peaks in cattle in the summer. This strain of the common gut bacteria is equipped with a potentially lethal toxin. It spreads in animal poop, and gets onto meat during slaughtering...
...Most people think a burger is done when it is no longer red or pink in the middle, but it turns out colour is a poor guide to temperature in ground meat. The only way to be sure is to use a tip-sensitive digital thermometer to make sure the whole patty has reached the 71 ˚C (160 ˚F) needed to kill E. coli, says Doug Powell, food safety expert at Kansas State University and editor of the excellent barfblog.
If you're worried that's overcooked and dry, he says cook it to 65 ˚C (150 ˚F) then let it rest five minutes. Residual heat will finish the centre, while juices redistribute nicely. A lawyer who specialises in E. coli litigation goes further: bake the thing in a medium oven till it's the right temperature throughout, and slap it on the barbecue just to get those all-important grill marks on it.

Read more!

Blog about Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS) in Africa and Asia supported by IFPRI

 pbs.ifpriblog.org

(Illustrated by PBS Post of  June 18, 2009 by lakatosc)

Dr. Judy Chambers has been selected as the new PBS director and will formally assume the role on July 27. Dr. Chambers joins PBS with extensive experience in biotechnology and biosafety. She served as Director of International Government Affairs at Monsanto Company and as Senior Advisor to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where she was responsible for co-developing the first public-private sector agency program on agricultural biotechnology (ABSP).  She has also worked as an independent consultant on agriculture biotechnology issues for public, private, non-profit and academic establishments.  As a highly-regarded, internationally-recognized senior executive with over fifteen years of experience in strategic leadership positions within and on behalf of diverse institutions, Dr. Chambers joins PBS with a strong background in international and cultural issues affecting technology and product acceptance, public-private sector coalition building, and corporate social responsibility initiatives. PBS welcomes Judy to the team.

Read more!

FAO say global food production needs to increase more than 40% by 2030 and 70% by 2050

OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2009-2018 (large pdf)

Box 1. THE OUTLOOK IN BRIEF

· The macroeconomic environment underlying this medium-term outlook, based on the OECD’s and World Bank’s medium term economic projections from December 2008, continues to evolve rapidly due to the ongoing financial and economic crisis. Because of the turmoil in the economic environment the baseline projections must be interpreted with caution. The possible impacts of this deteriorating economic crisis on the baseline projections have been analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively within the present report, although an assessment of the full impact of the current global credit crunch and economic contraction on agricultural markets goes beyond the scope of this Outlook.
· A stronger than expected agricultural commodity supply response last year, particularly in developed countries, and much lower oil prices has resulted in significantly lower commodity prices from 2007-08 highs. Continued weakness in the general economy will further dampen commodity prices over the next 2-3 years, which should then strengthen with economic recovery.
· The situation varies by commodity but average prices in real terms (adjusted for inflation) for the next 10 years are still projected at or above the levels of the decade prior to the 2007-08 peaks. Average crop prices are projected to be 10-20% higher in real terms relative to 1997-2006, while for vegetable oils real prices are expected to be more than 30% higher. · Meat prices in real terms are not expected to surpass the 1997-2006 average, while reduced consumer incomes in the beginning of the projection period will tend to encourage substitution to cheaper meats, favouring poultry over beef. Average dairy prices in real terms are likely to be slightly higher in 2009-18 relative to 1997-2006, driven up by rising energy and vegetable oil prices, with a 12% increase in average butter prices being the most notable.
· Despite the significant impact of the global financial crisis and economic downturn on all sectors of the economy, agriculture is expected to be relatively better off, as a result of the recent period of relatively high incomes and a relatively income-inelastic demand for food.
· Global economic prospects are now more pessimistic than earlier in the year when this outlook was prepared. In response, the outlook includes a special focus on the resiliency of agriculture to economic recession. The analysis suggests that the reduction in agricultural prices, production and consumption, associated with lower incomes is likely to be moderate, as long as economic recovery begins within 2-3 years.
· This special focus provides an assessment of an even deeper and more prolonged recession with lower GDP and incomes than in the outlook baseline. Demand for higher cost livestock products, such as beef, pork and dairy, would be the most seriously affected. Beef prices would be about 9% below those projected in the baseline. The reductions in crop and biofuel prices associated with the lower GDP scenarios were only about one-half those for livestock products. Among cereals, maize prices were the most responsive to lower GDP, reflecting its use primarily as a feed ingredient rather than a biofuel feedstock. · The special focus also includes a survey of the impact of the financial market turmoil and economic crisis on agri-businesses, from input suppliers to retail. The sector seems to be weathering the recession fairly well to date. However, downstream sectors are experiencing difficulties in access to credit. Trade finance constraints are having significant impacts on firms and should these tight credit markets persist, firm viability could be in peril. Access to credit was viewed as the key issue, particularly by smaller agri-food firms in both OECD and non-OECD countries surveyed.
· The special focus also examines the sensitivity of agricultural prices to crude oil prices. Energy and agricultural prices have become much more interdependent with industrialised farming, more processing and increased transport, as well as the emergence of the biofuels industry (particularly for maize, oilseeds and sugar feedstocks). Crude oil prices are highly volatile and some projections are well above those used in this outlook.
· The crude oil price over the medium-term assumed for the baseline is about 60% higher than the 1997-2006 average in real terms, moderately increasing to USD 70 per barrel by the end of projection period. If crude oil prices increased to the USD 90 to USD 100+ per barrel level used in last year’s Outlook, agricultural prices would be significantly higher; with the largest impact on crops, driven mainly by reduced crop production with higher input costs, but also increased feedstock demand for biofuels.
Biofuel markets increasingly depend on government mandated use, but prospects remain uncertain, due to such unpredictable factors as the future trend in crude oil prices, changes in policy interventions and developments in second-generation technology. Biofuels will struggle to compete with relatively low fossil fuel prices as long as crude oil prices remain in the USD 60-70 range assumed for most of this Outlook, although biofuel support policies underpin ethanol and biodiesel prices and production. A projected rapid expansion of biofuel production to meet mandated use will continue to have inflating price impacts for such feedstocks as wheat, maize, oilseeds and sugar.
· Once economic recovery begins most of the growth in agricultural production and consumption will continue to come from developing countries. This is particularly evident for livestock products where the primary drivers are income and population growth, with a trend towards higher animal protein diets and continuing urbanisation.
· For almost all commodities, projected growth in imports and exports of developing countries exceeds that of the OECD area. Continued expanding South-South trade is a key feature of the Outlook. Nevertheless, OECD countries will continue to dominate exports of wheat, coarse grains and all dairy products.
· A key focus of last year’s Outlook was the large hike in food prices associated with rising commodity prices. While commodity prices have since declined, food prices have remained high in many countries. Still, food inflation has come down. Over the 3 and 6 month periods ending February 2009, the decline in food price indices in many countries has been accelerating.
· According to recent FAO work using longer term population and income projections, global food production needs to increase more than 40% by 2030 and 70% by 2050, compared to average 2005-07 levels. There is substantial additional land available for use in agriculture. Some 1.6 billion ha could be added to the current 1.4 billion ha of cropland. Over half of the additionally available land is found in Africa and in Latin America. These regions account for most of the available land that has the highest suitability class for rain-fed crop production. But historical expansion of arable land has been slow, and bringing more marginal land into production can involve considerable investment and lower average yields, while possibly incurring social and environmental costs.
· Crop and livestock productivity continues to rise at long term trend rates, at least in the most productive areas, and there is considerable potential for further increases over the next 10-20 years. To capitalize on this potential requires development and adaptation of new technologies but growth in public agricultural research expenditures is slowing. In many regions like Central and Eastern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa, productivity can be significantly increased using existing technologies with better access to inputs, infrastructure development and extension services.
· Agriculture accounts for over 40% of water use in OECD countries and use has been growing. Irrigation accounts for 99% of this use and major developing countries like China and India have large areas under irrigation. The FAO projects a substantial slowdown in expansion of area under irrigation, and future agricultural production will be increasingly conditioned by water availability.
· Climate change is an important variable in future production possibilities as well. It will clearly add to the risks of water stress as well as the incidence and severity of floods, and likely shift production frontiers. · Behind this fairly positive outlook for agricultural commodity markets lies a more disturbing story about hunger and food insecurity for some one billion people. Food security is not only about solving the urgency in the short-term; it is also about addressing the longer term issues of poverty alleviation and economic growth. Greater investment in agriculture, more effective development aid and reforms to trade and domestic policies are all part of the solution.

Read more!

FAO - "World hunger reaches 1 billion mark", "No part of the world is immune".

UN: World hunger reaches 1 billion mark
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO – Jun 19, 2009

ROME (AP) — The global financial meltdown has pushed the ranks of the world's hungry to a record 1 billion, a grim milestone that poses a threat to peace and security, U.N. food officials said Friday.
Because of war, drought, political instability, high food prices and poverty, hunger now affects one in six people, by the United Nations' estimate.
The financial meltdown has compounded the crisis in what the head of the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization called a "devastating combination for the world's most vulnerable."
Compared with last year, there are 100 million more people who are hungry, meaning they consume fewer than 1,800 calories a day, the agency said.
"No part of the world is immune," FAO's Director-General Jacques Diouf said. "All world regions have been affected by the rise of food insecurity."

continues at link

Read more!

East is East and West is West. Hark, the twain hath met!

First liberal California, then conservative Italy. The heterodox marriage of biotech and organic farming is gaining popularity.


Molecular geneticist Pamela Ronald and partner organic farming expert Raoul Adamchak showed the way in 2008 with their great book Tomorrow's Table: A Marriage of Genetic Engineering and Organic Farming (featured in several previous GMO Pundit posts, including reviews by Jonny Gressel and by Tony Trewavas), and not least of all, a food fight organised by Oxford University Press.

Now we have a report forshadowing the tolerance of biotechnology and genetic engineering from Italy ( Isabel Rosa, GAIN Report: Organic Agriculture in Italy, 2008 (Foreign Agricultural Service: Rome, 2008 , GAIN Report Number IT8019) , together with a perceptive and thoughtful commentary fron USDA-FAS-GAIN in Rome (see below). Hopefully wider sections of the organic movement will start take note of the benefits of liberalism and plurality for food security and farming sustainability that are on offer from this marriage.

Although East is still East and West is still West, in this case, let's thank God the twain hath met.



The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production
- USDA, GAIN Report Number: IT9014 Office of Foreign Service Operations (OFS); Approved By: Jim Dever
Prepared By: Cyndi Barmore. May 6, 2009.

• Report Highlights: The organic movement rejects biotechnology as inherently contradictory to its fundamental goal of promoting environmental protection in agriculture. European organic promoters in particular stress respect for nature over yield maximization, campaigning for a return to traditional production methods and inputs. [1] In reality, the divide between organics and biotechnology is an artificial construction maintained by ideology rather than science. A governmental decision to change organic regulations to permit the use of biotechnology could have far-reaching policy implications for global agriculture. Allowing producers to gain organic certification for biotech crops could encourage the development of a new type of environmentally sustainable agricultural production with greater benefits for the consumer. [1] Isabel Rosa, GAIN Report: Organic Agriculture in Italy, 2008 (Foreign Agricultural Service: Rome, 2008) 5.
  
  See
  Italy: Organic Products. Organic Agriculture in Italy, 2008. GAIN Report Number IT8019. Foreign Agricultural Service, Washington, DC. http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=PB2008113226

Read more!

German government involved in scientific malpractice on GM maize MON810

Is the German Suspension of MON810 Maize Cultivation Scientifically Justified?
Agne`s Ricroch Jean Baptiste Berge´
Marcel Kuntz

Transgenic Res 2009 DOI 10.1007/s11248-009-9297-5
- Marcel Kuntz, kuntz@ujf-grenoble.fr

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r6052757667ng364/fulltext.pdf

Having examined the German authorities’ claims and the relevant scientific literature, Agnès Ricroch (AgroParisTech), Jean Bergé (INRA) and Marcel Kuntz (CNRS) provide a negative response to the question. The inconsistencies of the German administration are also highlighted in an open access article.

In this report, we examined the justification used by the German government in April 2009 to suspend the cultivation of genetically modified maize varieties containing the Bt insect-resistance trait MON810. We critically examined the alleged « new data » concerning the potential environmental impact ofthese varieties as well as previous data on Lepidoptera and on aquatic and soil organisms. We demonstrate that the suspension is based on an incomplete list of references and ignores the widely supported case-by-case approach. The German arguments confuse two different types of Bt maize, MON810 and Bt176. In addition, the potential hazard is confused with proven risk in the scientific risk assessment procedure.

Furthermore, we did not find any justification for this suspension in our extensive survey of the scientific literature regarding possible effects under natural field conditions on non-target animals. In contrast, Bt maize varieties have generally a lower impact than insecticide treatment. The present review demonstrates that the German government used selected individual studies supposed to confirm its thesis and ignored the available meta-knowledge on MON810 maize already available. For example, supposedly new results on ladybirds (2009) were previously published in 2004 by the same authors in a german review (in German).
Additionally, we note that the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) of the German Federal Government (in charge of providing « scientific justification » for the MON810 suspension) is also joint author of a report called BEETLE recently available on Internet, which shows the extent of the knowledge acquired on GMO environmental safety and which contradicts its own justifications for the MON810 ban.

The original publication is available with open access at :

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r6052757667ng364/fulltext.pdf

Read more!

A placebo dose of skepticality:

Background reading for understanding of Organic farming:

From eSkeptic

But Placebos Do Work, Don’t They?

...In a study of pain after dental surgery, patients were given either intravenous morphine or a saline placebo. If they were told that the saline was a powerful new painkiller, they got just as much relief as the patients who received morphine. In another study, all patients were given morphine for post-op pain, but only half were told they were getting it. The patients who didn’t know they were getting it only experienced half as much pain relief. In a study of acupuncture for post-op dental pain, there was no difference between the "real" acupuncture and placebo "sham" acupuncture groups, but when they asked patients which group they thought they were in, they discovered that those who believed they were in the "real" group reported significantly more pain relief than those who believed they were in the "sham" group — regardless of which group they were actually in!
We not only know placebos "work," we know there is a hierarchy of effectiveness:

* Placebo surgery works better than placebo injections
* Placebo injections work better than placebo pills
* Sham acupuncture treatment works better than a placebo pill
* Capsules work better than tablets
* Big pills work better than small
* The more doses a day, the better
* The more expensive, the better
* The color of the pill makes a difference
* Telling the patient, "This will relieve your pain" works better than saying "This might help."

In one study patients were given the same aspirin in either a brand name bottle or an unlabelled bottle; it worked better if it was labeled as a brand they recognized. Our pharmacy used to stock two different brands of allergy pills that were made in the same factory and were identical except that one was green and the other was blue. When a patient said it wasn’t working any more, we’d switch him to the other brand and it would start working again.

Just because it's nonsense doesn't mean it does nothing,

Read more!

More detail on low yields of organic farming

England and Wales under organic agriculture: how much food could be produced?

Philip Jones with Richard Crane
Centre for Agricultural Strategy, Reading, UK, June 2009

Executive summary

1. Introduction

Whilst agriculture has many functions, the most important will always be the supply of sufficient food, at an affordable price, to feed the population.
Driven by both consumer demand and public subsidy, the fastest growing UK agricultural sector in recent years has been organic. Critics argue that, due to its lower yields, organic agriculture cannot produce enough food to feed the world. This criticism continues, in spite of studies contesting this accepted wisdom, particularly in relation to subsistence agriculture in the Southern Hemisphere, where it has been shown that yields might increase significantly under organic agriculture. For Northern Hemisphere agriculture, there is wide consensus that organic production results in yields perhaps 40% lower, on average, than under conventional agriculture.

At a time when there is growing interest in food and energy security, and reducing the carbon footprint of agriculture, the question of the capacity of organic agriculture to feed the UK population is increasingly relevant. Because conventional agriculture does not currently meet all our food requirements, it would be unfair to ask this of organic. A more reasonable question would be, could organic agriculture supply as much food as conventional agriculture currently does? There have been no recent major studies on this and past ones were limited by their simplistic assumptions, or lack of data on actual organic farming practice. The study reported here uses real organic farm data and, thus, is a unique examination of the likely impact on domestic food supply of full organic conversion.

Continues at link

Read more!