Agnet Dec. 24/03
Scientific
community backs agbiotech
Tax on maple
operations only tip of iceberg
Fly infests
olive crop in 2 counties
Specificity
determinants and diversification of the Brassica self-incompatibility pollen
ligand
Danish
ethics panel censured for critique of book
Pesticide
product; Registration applications
how to subscribe
Scientific
community backs agbiotech
December 2003
Rice World , v. 3, no. 12, p 15
Matthew Hisrich
Via AgBioview at www.agbioworld.org
With the increasing use of agricultural biotechnology has come increasing
controversy. The recent Gates Foundation grant to promote healthier produce
through genetics, for instance, sparked a wave of commentary on the future of
these technologies in agriculture.
Recently, Rice World had the opportunity to speak with Dr. C. S. Prakash,
Professor in Plant Molecular Genetics and Director of the Center for Plant
Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University in Alabama. Dr. Prakash is the
founder of AgBioWorld Foundation. This organization aims to provide
science-based information on agbiotech issues to various stakeholders across the
world.
RW: How did you first become interested in agricultural biotechnology? - I am by
training a plant breeder. During the mid 1980s when it became apparent that
biotechnology tools are vital to developing improved varieties of crop plants, I
started learning the techniques to better equip myself in my field.
RW: How long have you been working in the field? - About 25 years in plant
breeding and 17 years in biotech.
RW: Recent research has shown that both farmers and consumers are interested in
genetically modified agriculture that might benefit them, yet there is a strong
reluctance to using the technology. What do you feel is at the root of
opposition to the use of such tools? - Much of the opposition to this technology
is rooted in vested interests and not based on science or facts. Radical
environmentalists oppose this technology because it helps advance their agenda
of anti-development and anti-progress while appealing to gullible donors.
Organic food industry opposes biotechnology because it increases their sales by
creating fear among consumers. Europeans oppose biotechnology so that they can
restrict U.S. imports. Many NGOs oppose this technology for they fear the
companies.
RW: Britain is experiencing a "brain drain" as its best biotech
researchers depart under intense public backlash. Have you experienced any
negative reactions to your work? - Not much negative reaction to my research
because I work in the US. However, I have faced considerable opposition to my
views on biotechnology to my writings and at my lectures throughout the world.
RW: Are there any implications for the advancement of science generally from
these attitudes? - Science must go on and but increasingly it is apparent that
we must be cognizant of the public perception of technological advancement. Our
job as scientists now extends beyond the labs in making an effort to create an
awareness of the impact of science among the policy makers, media and the
general public.
RW: Do you feel there are any valid concerns? - Concerns about food safety and
the environmental impact of biotech crops are scrutinized thoroughly by the
regulators on a case-by-case basis and thus there should really be no issue
here. We have had absolutely no credible scientific reason to fear any of the
products we have on the market.
There is a larger concern that is difficult to address - control of the
technology. There are some understandable grounds for concern that a handful of
big companies control this technology. However, these companies have invested
billions in developing this technology and thus it is natural that they would
recoup their investment. But they have also shown willingness to share the
technology for larger public good such as with the Golden Rice patents. We must
have a collective will globally in harnessing this technology and channel it in
appropriate ways to target developing country problems such as focusing on rice,
cassava, millets etc. This can be done with strong public sector funding, and
creative partnerships with the private sector such as that which is being
experimented with in Africa through the African Agriculture Technology
Foundation.
RW: How important do you feel genetic modification is for future food security?
- In our past efforts, genetics was a major tool in addressing food security to
bring about the green revolution through improved varieties. Genetic
modification is a vital and powerful tool in our hands now to bring
unprecedented improvements in food and agriculture throughout the world. By
targeted use of genetic modification, we can help cut down losses on the farm
due to pests, disease and weeds, conserve losses beyond the farm through
improved shelf-life, cut down the use of chemicals on the farm, improve
productivity, help crops tolerate droughts and bad soils and make them more
nutritious. While genetic modification alone will not help ensure food security,
the task will be very elusive without the help of this innovative technology.
RW: Are there economic consequences as well? - I see it as a win-win situation.
There can only be positive economic consequences from improving agricultural
productivity in the developing world which in turn helps these struggling
economies, brings more food security, cuts down the inequity between the rural
poor and urban rich, helps improve exports, brings down food prices and also
conserves the natural resource base.
RW: Do regulations on GM products in developed nations (the EU in particular)
harm agricultural producers in developing nations? - Certainly. The EU has taken
an irrational path so far in regulating these products so harshly to the point
of stopping any further development. Further, the draconian tracing and labeling
requirements on their food imports will ensure that developing countries would
have no incentive to pursue biotechnology in their own agriculture.
RW: Is there a cost to developed nations as well, in the form of a chilling
effect? - Yes. Trade of farm products is an important component of most
developing countries. There is thus a global ripple effect from the EU all over
the world.
RW: Is it true that labeling requirements for biotech products might actually
reduce consumers' access to factual information about food safety? - Much of the
current labeling requirement from EU is very misleading to the consumer and it
does not protect the consumer in any scientific manner.
RW: China is moving fast to develop GM crops. In the U.S., the National Science
Foundation and other government bodies are awarding grants to such research. In
the Mississippi Delta, advocates are pushing for states to develop a
"biotech corridor" along the lines of Silicon Valley. What do you view
as the appropriate role for federal and state governments to play in the
development of biotechnology? - Governments all over the world have a
responsibility to promote basic research in biotechnology and those in
developing countries especially have a major responsibility in the application
of this technology to staple food crops. A larger role of governments here is in
ensuring policies that facilitate development of technology through meaningful
and science-based regulation without much red tape.
RW: Rice was one of the first genomes to be fully mapped, and 2004 has been
declared The International Year of Rice by the United Nations. How important do
you view the improvement of rice to international food security? - Rice is the
most important food crop in the world that much of the humanity depends on for
its survival. Any improvement in rice productivity is a march of progress. I
believe that rice would be the most important crop to deliver biotechnology
promise to the masses because so much more rice is needed to feed the burgeoning
population in the future. Rice is grown on tiny little farms around the world
and against great odds of weeds, pests, disease, drought and problem soils.
Biotechnology can help transform this miracle crop further into bounty of wonder
that can continue to sustain humanity.
RW: There is much concern in the news about an impending "water
crisis." Are you aware of any efforts to reduce rice's water demands
through genetic modification? - Certainly. There is much research on improving
drought tolerance of rice in many labs. This is a difficult target but already
much progress is being made. Genome research would clearly help in accelerating
such discoveries.
RW: Some commentators have suggested that developing nations should diversify
their agriculture and move away from a dependence on rice to ensure food
security. Does this type of response to food concerns eliminate the need for
technology advancements? - A recent report by IRRI has shown that because of
high productivity of new rice varieties, farmers in Asia have already
diversified much because they can produce more rice on less land leaving aside
more land for other crops. Technology advancements will thus be needed further
not only to diversify but also to continue to make productivity increases in
rice.
RW: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General Jacques
Diouf recently stated that impoverished countries in Africa need basic supplies
such as water and infrastructure more than they need GM seeds. Would you agree?
- It is not 'Either / Or' question and that is silly. Africa needs both.
RW: What is the Declaration of Support for Agricultural Biotechnology? - It is
simply a statement affirming the scientific community overwhelming support of ag
biotech and its potential to help advance human quality of life through
biotechnology. For more information, visit http://www.agbioworld.org/.
RW: How many scientists have expressed support for this document? - More than
3,500 so far, including 24 Nobel laureates.
RW: Do you feel that biotechnology's benefits will eventually win over the
public? - Yes, I am confident. Historically there has always been opposition and
suspicion of new technologies. However, once the people start recognizing the
benefits of new innovations and also understand that many of the risks are
non-existent or can be managed, they will embrace the technology.
Tax
on maple operations only tip of iceberg
December 22, 2003
AgriLink and Farm Market News
http://www.ridgetownc.com/services/agrilink/scoops.cfm
Maple syrup producers are hopping mad at the Provincial government's Assessment
Office and their apparent witch hunt. Right now, the province's maple syrup
producers are being advised that the property classification for their buildings
where they process and pack syrup will be going from agricultural to an
industrial rating.
But the Province's Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) is just
following up on complaints from some in the industry who say other maple syrup
producers should be taxed the same. "We are trying to apply common sense to
this process," said MPAC's Vice President of Property Values, Larry Hummel.
"Like wineries located on agricultural land, the maple syrup producers are
turning their commodity into a finished product through processing,"
explained Hummel. "We will applying the industrial assessments across the
province in a consistent manner," he added.
Blenheim area maple syrup producer, Don Giffin says this is going to put some of
his fellow members out of business. "Its totally ridiculous to go after
farmers who are making a bit of extra money in this off season enterprise and it
is just plain stupid"! But Giffin warns of what is next on the tax
assessor's agenda.
Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) President Ron Bonnet says this,
"has to be the goofiest interpretation of the tax rules he has ever heard
of." The OFA has set up a meeting with the Ontario Minister of Finance for
January 13 to wrestle with the issue. "We are going to ask the Minister to
have the MPAC people to go out and talk to the farm community and define what
agricultural buildings should include," said Bonnet.
Although the matter has been initiated by the MPAC employees in some regions of
Ontario, Bonnet and the Maple Syrup Producers are going the political route
because this reading of the property tax rules could also apply to grain dryers,
tobacco barns and roadside markets where home-grown food is prepared and sold.
"I just spoke to Ag Minister Peters yesterday (Sunday) and told him we want
this loophole closed."
Fly
infests olive crop in 2 counties
December 23, 2003
LA Times
A tiny fly is, according to this brief, responsible for destroying tons of
olives in Northern California.
The olive fly, which swept through Southern California five years ago, was found
in crops in Napa and Sonoma counties this fall.
Although the flies have been a longtime problem in Europe, they have appeared
relatively recently in California.
Traps this year caught 10 times more this year than they did a year ago.
Growers tried to control the pests by spraying, but many got to the fruit too
late.
Specificity
determinants and diversification of the Brassica self-incompatibility pollen
ligand
December 23, 2003
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073/pnas.2637116100
Thanat Chookajorn , Aardra Kachroo , Daniel R. Ripoll ¶, Andrew G. Clark ||,
and June B. Nasrallah ,
Department of Plant Biology, ¶Computational Biology Service Unit, Cornell
Theory Center, and ||Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY 14853
This contribution is part of the special series of Inaugural Articles by members
of the National Academy of Sciences elected on April 29, 2003.
Contributed by June B. Nasrallah, October 31, 2003
Self-incompatibility in crucifers is effected by allele-specific interactions
between the highly polymorphic stigmatic S locus receptor kinase (SRK) and its
pollen ligand, the S locus cysteine-rich protein (SCR). Here we show that
specificity in SCR function is determined by four contiguous amino acids in one
variant, indicating that the minimum sequence requirement for gaining a new
specificity can be low. We also provide evidence for an extraordinarily high
degree of evolutionary flexibility in SCR, whereby SCR can tolerate extensive
amino acid changes within the limits of maintaining the same predicted overall
structure. This remarkable adaptability suggests a hypothesis for generation of
new self-incompatibility specificities by gradual modification of SRK-SCR
affinities and, more generally, for functional specialization within families of
homologous ligands and receptors.
Danish
ethics panel censured for critique of book
December 23, 2003
New York Times
Andrew C. Revkin
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/science/earth/23RESE.html
A Danish government agency has, according to this story, concluded that a
scientific ethics panel erred earlier this year when it ruled that a popular
book on environmental trends, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," by Dr.
Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician, displayed "scientific
dishonesty."
Last January, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty said Dr. Lomborg
had used "systematic one-sidedness" in selecting data. The report led
to calls for Dr. Lomborg's removal from the directorship of a government agency
that examines environmental regulations.
But last week the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation was
cited as saying the committee had exhibited "significant neglect" by
failing to identify where the author had been dishonest, and had been
"clearly wrong" for failing to offer Dr. Lomborg a chance to respond
before its findings were published.
The story adds that the rebuke is not a formal rejection of the report. Most of
the ministry's criticisms were of the panel's methods, not its findings. About
those, the ministry said the panel had relied entirely on a review of previous
criticisms of the book.
In an e-mail message, Dr. Lomborg was cited as saying he felt vindicated,
adding, "It is clear from the Ministry of Science decision that the
committee's verdict cannot still be said to stand. With this smear exposed, it
means that we can get back to arguments over environmental prioritization based
on facts, not mudslinging."
Pesticide
product; Registration applications
December 24, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 247)]
[Page 74576-74578]
[DOCID:fr24de03-79]
[OPP-2003-0388; FRL-7338-2]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register
pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in
any previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of
section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), as amended.
DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket ID number OPP-2003-
0388, must be received on or before January 23, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or
through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as
provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Regulatory Action Leader,
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C)
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