Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Biotechnology

GM Chickens for Therapeutic Drugs: A Note from Paul Williams

By

Hi Jennifer,

There has been quite a lot of discussion about Genetically Modified (GM) organisms related to vegetable products, but I wonder if readers are aware that GM, or transgenic animals are also a subject of study.

Here is a link to an article that describes the production of transgenic hens which can produce eggs containing therapeutic protein based drugs:

“We describe the generation of transgenic chickens that synthesize functional recombinant therapeutic protein specifically in the oviduct of laying hens as a component of egg white.”

Translation: How we bred GM chickens that produce eggs containing therapeutic drugs.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1783527

I wonder if people who oppose GM crops also oppose this type of research?

Regards,
Paul Williams
Mt Baker, South Australia

Europeans Don’t Regulate ‘Filth’ in Food, Just GM – A Note and Paper by Andrew Apel

By

The European Union does not regulate food ingredients which, in the US, would be considered “filth.” This seems at first to be an impossible conclusion, as it claims proof of a negative. Yet, that is the conclusion, and it’s not because these regulations have not yet been found. Rather, it’s because the European Union has specifically exempted such ingredients from regulation.

Even after reading the European legislation which exempts “extraneous matter, such as, for example, insect fragments, animal hair, etc.” from regulation, it remains difficult to believe. It becomes more understandable, though hardly more palatable, when placed in the context of the trade issues involved. In short, Europe has lowered its food standards in order to lower trade barriers between member nations. Scarcely anything could make this more explicit than the Commission’s declaration that trade disturbances based on the Precautionary Principle are problems which Europe must enact laws to prevent. Even so, there is something more explicit: the food regulation designed to address the ‘problem of precaution’ declares these contaminants are “not food,” and therefore, not subject to restrictions on food.

Much of the rhetoric which surrounds the use of engineered crops for food production makes use of the notion of ‘contamination,’ a theme avidly promoted by activists. It is interesting to consider what would happen if the European Union passed legislation which declared ingredients from engineered crops to be ‘contaminants’ on a par with insect fragments and animal hair. The result: they would either not be contaminants, and present a mere “quality” issue, or they would be ‘not food,’ and not subject to food law.

An obvious paradox arises when trade in safe food would flourish in Europe if it were legally defined as ‘contaminated.’ Likewise, another paradox when trade in food actually ‘contaminated’ is expressly exempted by food safety legislation. There is yet a third paradox–when the first two paradoxes coexist within the same legal system.

All this can easily be explained in a European system which gives priority to free trade among its member states over food safety and the precautionary principle, and inverts these interests to defend trade interests against outsiders…

Read ‘The Tolerance of Food Contamination in Europe’ by Andrew Apel here: http://www.cropgen.org/european_food.pdf

A Report on 10 Years of Genetically Modified Agriculture in Argentina

By

Dear All,

Please find below a link to a report entitled ’10 years of GM Crops in Argentina’ by Eduardo J. Trigo and Eugenio J. Cap, published by the Argentine Council for Information and Development of Biotechnology, released this week regarding the Argentine experience with GM soybean, maize and cotton.

The website is not in English but scroll down and you will find the report and media release in English.

The authors evaluated the economic and social impacts of the ten years of adoption of GM crops in Argentine agriculture, and concluded that this process of incorporation of new technologies has had a deep impact on the transformation of the Argentine agriculture, and beyond this, in the country’s economy as a whole.

The link is http://www.argenbio.com/h/nuevo_estudio/10anos.php

Happy reading,

Larissa

GM Canola Arrives in Australia by Ship

By

It is a pity that GM canola has arrived in Australia, not as a crop for farmers to grow, but as a shipment of seed grown in Canada ready for crushing in Australia.

Indeed yesterday a shipment of genetic engineered canola came into the Port of Newcastle.

Robert Green, from Cargill was interview by ABC radio Newcastle* and he said:

It is a matter of supply and demand. If we had not imported the grain there would have been companies shutting down and more oils being imported into the company. We consulted widely with the various government offices to make sure we were not breaching anything. Australian exports do not get preferential treatment for the GM free status. If you look at yields in export markets and trades our exports are falling behind. The canola will be used for oil and a protein meal. The customers who use the products will be within the food standard guidelines and labelling will be where it needs to be.

Greenpeace responded with comment that:

Australian crops could be at risk with now the first ever imported shipment of genetically engineered canola arrived in Newcastle.

I am not sure what Australia could be at risk from except more misinformation from Greenpeace. The bottomline is that Canadian farmers have been growing GM canola for about 10 years and much of the world eating the oil from this canalo for about as long.

The reality is that Greenpeace ran a campaign beginning in about 2001 to block the planting of GM canola varieties in Australia on the false premise that food from genetically modified (GM) crops is inherently dangerous. The NSW, Victorian, South Australian and Western Australian governments gave in to the Greenpeace campaigning and there is now a moratorium preventing the planting of GM food crops in those states. Cotton is exempt on the basis it is grown primarily for fibre, nevermind that locally grown cotton seed is crushed and turned into vegetable oil for Australian consumption.

As I recently explained in a piece for ABC Counterpoint, Australian agriculture is becoming increasingly uncompetitive as farmers give in to luddites: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1782111.htm

———–
* ABC Newcastle (Newcastle)
Mornings, 05/12/2006 09:49AM Compere: Garth Russell

Farming in Nigeria: A Note from Russell

By

In the following note from Russell, which was originally posted as a comment on a thread about how biotechnology benefits American farmers, he tells us something about farming in Nigeria and how white farmers from Zimbabwe are being invited to settle in Nigeria:

“Several comments refer to the link between agricultural subsidies and the impoverishment of African farmers.

Here in Nigeria (which has 20 percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s population) the two biggest causes of most farmers impoverishment in my opinion are a lack of access to capital, and a reluctance to embrace new technologies. These are two sides of the same coin as farmers have to be risk averse if they have no capital to risk on new approaches.

The cost of a bad yield here is starvation.

Much of the area farmed lies in the Guinea savannah and Sahel zones and rainfall varies in onset, duration and yield from year to year. Each year many farming communities go through a very lean period at the end of the dry season when last years stored crops run out. Off farm income is critical during this period.

Examination of farming practices demonstrates a risk minimisation strategy based upon a long history of subsistence farming within an unpredictable environment. A nice summary is given in Kathleen Bakers book “Indigenous Land Management in West Africa”.

Here in Nigeria the Banks are typically not interested in farmers as a market for loans as they perceive them (rightly) as high risk, and so it is virtually impossible for a farmer to get credit from a bank, and would farmers want credit, with interest rates ranging from 23-28 percednt?

A recent program instigated by the Kwara Sate governor which has invited Zimbabwean farmers to take up land in Kwara State has seen a small cohort of technologically saavy, capital rich white farmers take up the option of farming here.

Even these guys have not been able to get credit locally, but the most interesting aspect of their arrival has been the comments from local farmers over the high cropping densities and the monoculture plantings.

Local farmers consider the approach to be crazy, and from their capital poor perspective it is. However, it is also clear that many of the local farming practices are so deeply inculculated in the local culture that many potential forms of innovation are frowned upon. This may actually be a worthwhile risk minimisation strategy because if a farmer fails it is the other members of the family/clan/village who will have to help.

While there are wealthy landowners here who have the means to farm intensively on a much larger scale, the opportunity from cessation of EU and other subsidies might not have an immediate, or large impact on the greater mass of subsistence farmers without access to the capital required for them to enter the cotton market for example.

In fact the immediate effect of a rise in the price of cotton in this country where the wealthy have the power and influence and the poor have access to land which is not adequately protected by the land tenure system might be to push many subsistence farmers off the land and to lower the amount of land used for local food production.
Of course the economists would say this will create new opportunities, but a look at where the wealthy and powerful Nigerians invest their mostly stolen wealth (oil) reveals it goes overseas.

Against this background, which I suggest is a common feature of subsistence farmers everywhere in the savannah zones of the developing world, I am not sure I can agree with the sentiment that it is EU and US subsidies which keep the African farmer impoverished. Similarly, while I consider that GM foods can (and should) have a useful role in an African context, I am not sure that global acceptance of GM foods would also necessarily lead to a better world for African farmers.“

GM Crops Benefit US Farmers: New Report by Sujatha Sankula

By

A new report entitled ‘Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-
Derived Crops Planted in 2005’ by the US National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy begins with the key findings that:

“American growers continued to choose biotechnology-derived crops in 2005, the tenth year of their commercial planting, because they realized significant benefits from planting these crops. This report evaluated the reasons behind the adoption of biotechnology-derived crops on 123 million acres in the United States in their tenth year of commercial planting (2005) and analyzed the producer and crop production impacts that resulted from this widespread adoption.

American growers planted eight biotechnology-derived crops (alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, soybean, squash, and sweet corn) in 2005. Planted acreage was mainly concentrated in 13 different applications (herbicide-resistant alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, and soybean; virus-resistant squash and papaya; three applications of insect-resistant corn, two applications of insect-resistant cotton, and insect-resistant sweet corn). Though
the number of planted traits remained the same at three in 2005, similar to 2004, expanded acreage of 4 percent has led to overall increase in crop yield and farm income and further reduction in pesticide use.“

To read the executive summary (12 pages) click here: http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pdf/2005biotechExecSummary.pdf

To read the full report (110 pages) click here: http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pdf/2005biotechimpacts-finalversion.pdf