Agnet Dec. 1/03 -- II
Is
genetically modified our future food?
Food biotech
is risky business
GM goods
'will gain wider public acceptance'
African
biosciences facility
Pasture
grass fights wheat fungus danger to plants, animals, people
HIPPO
research at WSU: Identifying and harnessing HIPPOs for hop and grape pest
management
Pesticide
testing is ahead for many farmworkers in Washington state
Mini
watermelons: New crop for new markets
Erwinia Sp.,
lentil, chickpea - Canada (Saskatchewan): Correction
how to subscribe
Is
genetically modified our future food?
November 30, 2003
Chilliwack Progress
The debate about genetically modified agricultural products in Canada and in the
international food community is, according to this story, emotionally charged.
The story says that at this time there is no credible evidence that GM crops are
dangerous to human health although it is also true that not enough research has
been completed to cover and predict all eventual long-term consequences.
The story states that the question that ought to be driving the present global
debate is not whether GM crops and transgenics should or should not be pursued.
They are. Rather, what regulations need to be attached to these activities to
protect consumers and the environment. What ought to matter is how we manage
these risks to ensure that the technology delivers significantly more good
consequences than bad.
Health Canada is making a valiant effort to stay ahead of technical developments
by testing products; to date there is no persuasive evidence that GM foods are
harmful to human health.
In Canada, new labeling legislation has been introduced, it will soon to provide
consumers with a great deal more information about the food we consume than ever
before. Then, the market will pass judgment on these technologies. In the final
analysis, that is the prerogative and concluding say of well-informed consumers.
For more information on this work in progress, log on to Health Canada at:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/protection/index.html
Food
biotech is risky business
December 1, 2003
Wired News
Kristen Philipkoski
The genetically modified food industry may, according to this story, be
uninsurable.
Thomas Greany, senior vice president and national practice leader for medical
technology at Marsh, a risk-management fir,, was quoted as saying, "When it
comes to a drug or medical device, what underwriters look to as most important
is FDA oversight. It gives a great deal of comfort that FDA has high standards,
and if something happens, a method or standard operating procedure is in place
to handle adverse outcomes."
Michael Taylor, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, was cited as saying
the genetically modified foods currently on the market are likely safe, but with
the industry evolving toward more significant genetic changes,FDA oversight
would help ensure safety as well as encourage wider public acceptance. A recent
study found that 89 percent of Americans believe the FDA should regulate
genetically modified foods.
Craig Culp, a spokesman for the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C.,
promoting organic and sustainable agriculture, was quoted as saying,
"Insurers should be concerned about this. It doesn't take much in terms of
the regulatory landscape for them to suddenly find themselves in a position of
paying out a lot of money because of genetic contamination."
The story notes that the top five insurers in Great Britain recently declared
they'll have nothing to do with the genetically modified crop industry. Despite
fewer protests by American consumers against agricultural biotech products than
Europeans, U.S. insurers also express fears about class-action suits against GMO
producers.
Robert Hartwig, the chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, an
industry trade association in New York, was quoted as saying, "Genetically
modified foods are among the riskiest of all possible insurance exposures that
we have today. And there's a good reason. No one company knows where this path
of genetically modified foods is ultimately going to take us in terms of either
human health or environmental contamination."
Agricultural biotech companies say insurers should treat their products in the
same way they do conventionally grown crops.
GM
goods 'will gain wider public acceptance'
December 1, 2003
The Scotsman (UK)
Vic Robertson
http://www.business.scotsman.com/agriculture.cfm?id=1320162003
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
Cranfield University guru Sean Rickard was cited as telling delegates to the
first national Agricultural Industries Confederation conference at Cranfield
that genetically modified food will eventually win out over the traditional,
including organic foods, claims, and that this growth will be driven by
consumers’ desires for new food experiences and growing pressure on healthcare
budgets.
Rickard was further cited as saying that 84 million hectares of GM crops are
grown worldwide with no evidence of harm to human health, and that
nutraceuticals and other non-food products from GM technology would develop and
become accepted in the next 15 years, adding, "Consumers appear unwilling
to pay for such food, but this is situation is unlikely to pertain. Consumers’
willingness to pay will expand with the new market segments made possible by
genetic modification. … Despite repeated claims that demand for organic food
is the fastest growing of all food sectors, falling organic prices suggest this
is not the case and that organic products will remain a small, but important,
part of the food products space. Genetic modification will transform the agri-food
chain. Here in the UK, over time, the new technology will transform the
agricultural industry from suppliers of basic commodities into suppliers of
specific, added-value products. In such a world, much closer relationships will
be demanded between suppliers, farmers and processors. This points to a time
when it becomes possible for individual farms to produce differentiated
products."
Christine Tacon, general manager of Britain’s biggest farmer, Farmcare, which
oversees 85,000 acres under the Co-operative banner, was cited as saying the
company might have to revisit its recent announcement of a ban on GM products.
This had been driven by strong anti-views expressed by co-op members. But she
said this could have been driven by the lack of appreciation of
"accelerated natural development" caused by GM as opposed to reaction
to stories of combining fish and tomato genes. Further work on the public's
understanding of the issue might be needed.
African
biosciences facility
December 1, 2003
FAO – BiotechNews
http://www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp
A Biosciences Facility for Eastern and Central Africa is being established as
part of NEPAD's (New Partnership for Africa's Development) continent-wide
network of centres of excellence. Establishment of the new Facility has been
made possible by an initial investment of more than Canadian $30 million by the
Canada Fund for Africa through the Canadian International Development Agency.
The facilities will be hosted by the International Livestock Research Institute,
in Nairobi, Kenya. Biosciences embrace a wide range of biological
specialisations related to all living organisms, including animals, microbes,
plants and trees. See http://www.doylefoundation.org/BiosciencesBrochure.pdf
(1.68 MB) or contact ILRI-Kenya@cgiar.org for more information.
Pasture
grass fights wheat fungus danger to plants, animals, people
November 26, 2003
Purdue University
A western American pasture grass crossed with wheat can improve resistance to a
fungus that can be toxic to plants, animals and people, according to Purdue
University researchers.
Resistance genes in the grass that replaced genes in wheat increased protection
against Fusarium head blight, or wheat scab, the scientists said. In the
December issue of the journal Theoretical and Applied Genetics the researchers
also report that they located and mapped the small bits of DNA, or markers,
associated with the resistance gene in the grass, called tall wheatgrass.
"In the past 10 or 15 years, the fungus Fusarium graminearum has emerged as
one of the diseases of primary concern in wheat," said Herb Ohm, Purdue
agronomy professor. "This is because the widespread practice of reduced
tillage in fields provides a perfect environment for growth of the fungus."
Reduced tillage, meaning the soil is not plowed for planting, cuts farmers'
costs and helps prevent erosion, he said. In the eastern United States, the
upper Midwest and other places where large amounts of corn and wheat are both
grown, Fusarium is a major problem, especially when the weather is warm and
humid or rainy. Corn stalks left as natural mulch after harvest also foster
fungus growth.
The fungus causes head blight that leads to major wheat crop losses. In 1996,
crop losses due to Fusarium totaled at least $38 million just in Indiana,
according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"The disease has occurred most years since the early 1990s," Ohm said.
"Its increase in frequency and severity coincide with reduced soil tillage,
along with favorable weather - warm, humid conditions - for several weeks prior
to and during wheat flowering in mid- to late-May."
The fungus also produces a mycotoxin that sickens animals and people. Pigs,
cattle, horses, poultry and people can develop vomiting, loss of appetite,
diarrhea, staggering, skin irritation and immunosuppression when they eat grain
or hay infected by Fusarium. The most severe cases can be fatal.
Research has found evidence that these toxins may be cancer-causing. People
usually ingest the fungus when they eat contaminated grains and cereals.
According to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, people in
developing countries face the greatest risk from Fusarium mycotoxins.
"Fusarium production of mycotoxins is a more serious problem than wheat
production loss," Ohm said. "The toxin results in complete loss
because you can't use the grain to make food for people or livestock."
The fungus can infect most cereal grains, including corn, wheat, barley and some
oats.
Replacement of the wheat gene was done with conventional crossbreeding and
selection and didn't involve any genetic engineering. Because the two plants are
closely related, the wheat is not altered, except for the added protection
against Fusarium.
The newly identified resistance gene in the wheat grass is on a different
chromosome in the genome than other known resistance genes used in wheat. This
will enable researchers to combine the newly discovered effective resistance
gene from wheatgrass with other genes that protect wheat against Fusarium. This
breeding of a plant with more than one resistance gene is called gene
pyramiding.
"For some diseases, such as Fusarium, a single resistance gene will not
give you complete resistance," Ohm said. "So we try to identify genes
from different resistant varieties or sources that will give some resistance.
"Then we use genetics to determine whether resistance genes from two
different sources are on different locations in the genome. If they are, then we
can pyramid them."
Now that Ohm and his team of researchers know they can combine the tall
wheatgrass resistance gene with other resistance genes, they will try to produce
a line of wheat with several genes resistant to Fusarium. The seed will then be
available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research
Service laboratory in Aberdeen, Idaho, that is a seed repository for wheat lines
from around the world.
"The whole basis of plant breeding is to put the favorable genetic traits
of different parent lines into one progeny line," Ohm said. "Prior to
the DNA era, we had to rely on characterizing plants just on phenotype
(observable traits). For certain traits that's fairly easy to do. For many
traits it's difficult because of environmental effects.
"Some phenotypes have good crop yield in one environment but not in other
environments. This makes it difficult to determine which genes affect yield in
one wheat variety compared to another."
For instance, under perfect conditions, one wheat line might have a very high
yield but may not in an arid climate. By using DNA to compare traits,
environmental impact is not a factor because if a gene is present and activated,
then scientists can ascertain if a characteristic is genetic or environmental,
Ohm said. The bits of DNA known as markers allow scientists to determine more
quickly whether the gene carrying the desired trait is present in a plant.
Other researchers on this study were Xiaorong Shen and Lingrang Kong, both
postdoctoral fellows in Ohm's research group.
The Ag Alumni Seed Improvement Association and Purdue Agricultural Research
Programs provided funding for this research.
Writer: Susan A. Steeves, (765) 496-7481, ssteeves@purdue.edu
Source: Herbert Ohm, (765) 494-8072, hohm@purdue.edu
Related Web sites:
Herbert Ohm: http://www.agry.purdue.edu/staffbio/hwobio.htm
Department of Agronomy: http://www.agry.purdue.edu/
Purdue Genetics Program: http://www.biochem.purdue.edu/~genetics/
Purdue/USDA-ARS Wheat Genomics: http://www.btny.purdue.edu/usda-ars/wheatgen/
Theoretical and Applied Genetics, International Journal of Plant Breeding
Research:
http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/issue.asp?wasp=988hvprwmh5g4d2v9xaw&referrer=parent&backto=journal,1,101;browsepublicationsresults,457,500
HIPPO
research at WSU: Identifying and harnessing HIPPOs for hop and grape pest
management
November 2003
Agrichemical and Environmental News, Issue No. 211
Dr. David G. James and Tanya Price, Entomologists, WSU
To view the complete document of the following see:
http://www.aenews.wsu.edu/Nov03AENews/Nov03AENews.htm#HIPPOs
HIPPOs might seem to be a strange research focus for entomologists, but our
HIPPOs put some bite into pest management. These HIPPOs took center stage as the
result of some potentially groundbreaking field studies in biological insect
pest management at the Washington State University (WSU) Irrigated Agriculture
Research and Extension Center (IAREC) in Prosser last summer.
Pesticide
testing is ahead for many farmworkers in Washington state
December 1, 2003
Knight-Ridder Tribune
Andrew Garber, The Seattle Times
SUNNYSIDE, Yakima County, Wash.-- This week, the Washington state Department of
Labor and Industries is, according to this story, expected to adopt rules
requiring blood samples from workers who handle certain pesticides.
The story says that more than 1,000 workers would be checked for exposure
starting next year. By 2005, the regulation could cover about 3,000 people, at a
cost of more than $1 million annually.
The story explains that Labor and Industries is drafting the regulations, under
order by the state Supreme Court, six years after Columbia Legal Services filed
the lawsuit on behalf of Juan Rios and other farmworkers.
Some companies already test workers voluntarily, but there's no state
requirement. And there's heated opposition to the tests by many in the
agricultural industry, who argue they're expensive and unneeded and could push
some people out of business. Growers say they'll likely take their concerns to
the state Legislature next session.
There's also disagreement in the scientific community over the value of the
tests. Some, the story says, believe they're needed, others don't.
Allan Felsot, a toxicologist at Washington State University who serves on the
state's Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking panel (PIRT), was quoted as
saying, "It's a waste of everybody's time and money."
Dr. Matthew Keifer, head of prevention and intervention at the Pacific Northwest
Agricultural Safety and Health Center, was quoted as saying that although the
pesticides have gotten much safer to use over the years, they're still
"among the most toxic chemicals we routinely use."
The story says that about 825,000 pounds of organophosphate and carbamate
pesticides were sprayed on apple orchards in Washington in 2001, one of the main
crops that routinely uses the chemicals.
Overexposure can overstimulate the nervous system, causing flulike symptoms,
blurred vision, increased sweating, nausea, vomiting, muscle twitches, decreased
coordination and, in severe cases, death.
There are no accurate figures available for organophosphates and carbamates
poisonings, but a state Department of Health study indicates there were 88
confirmed or potential cases of pesticide-related illness among Washington
agricultural workers in 2000, the latest figures available.
Mini
watermelons: New crop for new markets
November 2003
Agrichemical and Environmental News, Issue No. 211
Dr. Carol Miles, Madhu Sonde, Martin Nicholson, and Sean-Paul Cunningham,
Vancouver Research and Extension Unit, WSU
To view the complete study of the following see:
http://www.aenews.wsu.edu/Nov03AENews/Nov03AENews.htm#CommentCoordinator
Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) seeds and leaves have been found in tombs in
Egypt dating back thousands of years. In 1850, explorer David Livingston found
wild watermelons in the Kalahari Desert. Based on these findings watermelon is
believed to originate in Africa. Watermelons made their way to America with
traders four hundred years ago, and the first written record of their
cultivation in this country was in Massachusetts in 1629. Today, the United
States ranks fourth in the world in watermelon production and in 2002 produced
1.86 million tons of watermelon on 15 million acres, and the crop value was $329
million. The primary watermelon producing states are Texas (26%), Florida (16%)
and Georgia (14%). Consumption of watermelon in the United States totaled 3.9
billion pounds in 2000, average per capita consumption was 15.1 pounds, and
Asian and Hispanic consumers were the strongest consumer groups. Watermelon is
consumed as plain fruit, dessert, fruit salad, snack, picnic food, plate
garnish, and as a fruit drink.
Watermelons are classified into groups according to fruit shape, rind color or
pattern, and weight. These groups are often named after a popular variety with
those characteristics (Table 1). Until two decades ago, watermelon was only a
seasonal fruit, but today imports combined with local production ensure a
year-round supply. With a rise in interest in local production and direct
marketing, farmers in Washington are looking to diversify crop varieties to meet
these demands. Miniature watermelons, commonly referred to as icebox
watermelons, weigh from 6 to 12 pounds and offer farmers in western Washington a
means of producing high quality watermelons locally. Mini watermelons were
introduced to the U.S. marketplace only a few years ago from Asia, and several
varieties have very recently been developed and released in the United States.
Mini watermelons are rapidly gaining popularity, as their smaller size is ideal
for small families and for storage in home refrigerators.
Mini Watermelon Study
In 2002, we planted three mini watermelon varieties to test their production
potential at the Washington State University (WSU) Vancouver Research and
Extension Unit. Based on the success of that study we planted an expanded
(non-replicated) observation study in 2003 that included nine varieties. The
study was conducted on certified organic land and was managed accordingly. The
primary objectives of this study were to:
1. Measure yield and size of mini watermelon varieties grown in western
Washington.
2. Investigate the potential of growing mini watermelons with drip and overhead
sprinkler irrigation systems.
3. Evaluate local consumer response to eating qualities of mini watermelon
varieties.
This report focuses on the development of mini watermelons as a new alternative
crop for our region, emphasizing the results from objectives 1 and 3, above.
While our mini watermelons were grown under drip and overhead sprinkler
irrigation systems, a malfunction of the drip irrigation system (explained
below) rendered a comparison of the two irrigation systems unfeasible. We were,
however, able to measure melon yields and sizes and to conduct a consumer
survey.
Mini watermelons are still new to the marketplace. They are grown by only a
handful of growers in the Pacific Northwest and seed for the crop is only now
becoming readily available in the United States. Studies are needed to determine
maturity dates, total yield, and size and weight of melons grown in the region.
Some of the varieties grown in this study are new to the United States and
growers may need to specially request seed.
Erwinia
Sp., lentil, chickpea - Canada (Saskatchewan): Correction
November 30, 2003
A ProMED-mail post
http://www.promedmail.org
From: Dick Hamilton
A reader recognized a serious error in my comments regarding the previous ProMED-Plant
posting on this subject (see reference below). I had unwittingly stated that
Erwinia rhapontici was a fungus. I stand corrected; Erwinia rhapontici is a
phytopathogenic bacterium.
I sincerely apologize for the oversight and I thank Nena Waight-Sharma for
noticing the error.
Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at
the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture
and Food, Plants Program at the University of Guelph, Agricultural Adaptation
Council (CanAdapt Program), AGCare, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors,
ConAgra Foods, Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Ag-West Biotech, Inc.,
Monsanto Canada, Meat and Livestock Australia, National Pork Board, Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Council for
Biotechnology Information, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Croplife Canada,
Syngenta Seeds Canada, Inc., Canadian Food Information Council, Saskatchewan
Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization, JIFSAN, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Food Processors Association, Ontario Agri-Food
Technologies, Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Ltd., BC Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Feedlot Health Management Services, Syngenta
Crop Protection, Ontario Corn Producers' Association, DuPont Canada, Inc.,
Office of Consumer Affairs, Burger King, Sobeys Ontario, McCain Produce Inc.,
Canadian Institute for Food Inspection and Regulation, Canadian Wheat Board,
National Meat Association, Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Ontario Soybean Growers,
Bunge, Ltd., UC Davis Biotechnology Program, Consumer Federation of America
Foundation, Optibrand, University of Idaho Department of Microbiology, Molecular
Biology and Biochemistry, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., Plant Bioscience
Ltd., CanAmera Foods, Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management, Inc.,
Hartono and Company, Agri Business Group, Inc., and Global Public Affairs.
To subscribe to the html version of Agnet (subscription is free), send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe agnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe agnet-L Doug Powell
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to subscribe to the text version of agnet)
To unsubscribe to the html version of Agnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff agnet-L
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to unsubscribe to the text version of agnet)
For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x54280
cell: 519-835-3015
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at "http://131.104.74.73:96/agnet-archives.htm