Agnet Dec. 29/03
Line in the
sand being drawn over GMO-free zone: Premier's concern over possible genetic
pollution rattles farm gates
New
traceback system helps Hayden Produce to track all its loads of spuds
Readers give
Monsanto an earful
Patent
nonsense on GMOs should be debunked
A new
defense against insect pests
Filipino
farmers see Bt corn as welcome breakthrough
Food
industry to maintain image of being supplier of non-GM foods
GM decisions
'must examine all options', says report
Scientist
here hopes bioengineered crop will help African food supply
New sugar
beet line combines disease resistance, smooth roots
Iowa State
University researchers test consumer acceptance of GM food
USDA's
Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grants (BRAG) program
how to subscribe
Line
in the sand being drawn over GMO-free zone: Premier's concern over possible
genetic pollution rattles farm gates
December 29, 2003
The Guardian (Charlottetown)
A3
Steve Sharratt
MONTAGUE -- Turning Prince Edward Island into a GMO-free zone may sit well with
some farmers, but not, according to this story, for those in the cereal crop
business, who are totally against putting the boots to a plant technology they
say should be embraced instead of rebuked. Especially since the chemical bill --
and the water table -- was spared 80 per cent less chemical application last
summer to grow about 5,000 acres of soybeans.
Soybean grower David Mol near Hunter River, was quoted as saying, "I'm
quite surprised the premier said what he did without consulting with our
industry. We had no clue he was coming out with such an opinion."
The story says that recently, Premier Binns told The Guardian he was quite
prepared to explore the potential of creating policy that would make Prince
Edward Island a zone free of genetically modified organisms.
Mol, a member of the Canadian Seed Growers Association and chair of the
province's Grain and Protein Council, was further quoted as saying, "That
kind of technology should be trumpeted by environmentalists. I don't understand
why the benefits of such technology are being dumped on rather than
praised."
Binns was cited as saying he believed a majority of farmers favoured a GMO-free
zone as a way to secure a marketing advantage with major customers like Europe
who reject any GMO foods. The premier said the organic industry is growing 30
per cent every year and the province could take advantage of such distinction.
However, he also noted that he'd yet to hear from both sides of the issue.
New
traceback system helps Hayden Produce to track all its loads of spuds
December 29, 2003
The Guardian (Charlottetown)
A4
With a new traceback system now on stream at Hayden Produce, the company can,
according to this story, track any load of spuds it ships from field to the
consumer's table.
With funding help from the Prince Edward Island ADAPT Council, which administers
the Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development Fund in the province for
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), the company has, the story adds, purchased
three pieces of equipment to allow it to code its product.
A video jet printer codes the paper bags, while a bag closer and imprinter is
required to put the same information on product shipped in poly bags. The
company has also purchased a high-speed bagger to expand and pack the poly bags,
which are becoming more popular in the marketplace.
The system allows the company to identify all product shipped with a code that
will identify when it was packaged, the warehouse and field it came from, as
well as the chemicals and source of seed used to grow the product.
Jason Hayden, a third generation member of the family business, was quoted as
saying, "Our objective is to increase consumer confidence in our product so
they know steps are being taken to ensure they receive the best quality
products. Today, food safety and quality are front and foremost on people's
minds."
Hayden was further cited as saying that while the consumer may not understand
the code on the product, said they understand the company is taking ownership
and responsibility for the product and its safe consumption.
Readers
give Monsanto an earful
December 28, 2003
Vancouver Courier
11
Croft Woodruff of Vancouver writes in this letter to the editor that once again,
a Monsanto spin doctor demonstrates a passing acquaintance with the facts in the
Schmeiser/Monsanto seed patent case ("Farmer not so innocent, says
Monsanto," Letters," Dec. 21.
Woodruff says that during Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser's trial, it was
admitted in federal court that Mr. Schmeiser had neither purchased, borrowed,
stolen or otherwise illegally obtained Monsanto's genetically modified
herbicide-tolerant Round Up Ready canola seed. During the trial, it was well
established that the greatest concentration of Monsanto's GM Round Up ready
canola was in the gutters along the roads that ring Schmeiser's farm. A very
small amount of GM Round Up ready canola was found in Schmeiser's fields. The
former could only have come from Monsanto's GM canola seed carelessly spilled
from trucks delivering seed to other canola farmers in the area, while the field
contamination would have to be from seed and pollen wind drift.
As far as the federal court was concerned, all of this was irrelevant to the
fact there was some of Monsanto's GM canola in and around Mr. Schmeiser's
fields.
What would the spin doctors have to say if a special kind of patented manure was
accidentally dumped on their front porches, contaminating house and property,
and the patent law allowed the owner of this fertilizer act as the injured party
to sue and win in court big time, while at the same putting their homes and
fortunes at risk of forfeit? This is essentially what happened to Percy
Schmeiser at the hands of Monsanto and its misuse of Canadian patent law. What
sort of justice is there when a man's land is trespassed upon and contaminated
but as the injured party, he has to pay the price? Monsanto cannot prevent GM
seed contamination of other non-GM crops.
The problem in the Schmeiser/Monsanto case is that the federal court justices
who heard the appeal were too timid to strike down a flawed patent law passed by
a parliament that failed to take into account such unintended and avoidable
consequences suffered by Percy Schmeiser and other Canadian farmers.
David Askew of the Vancouver Chapter of the Council of Canadians writes that if
Monsanto has evidence that Percy Schmeiser illegally obtained and planted canola
seeds containing its genetically engineered gene, if they have evidence that he
did other than what he says he did, which was to save and plant seeds from his
own fields, why didn't Monsanto sue him for this?
Instead Monsanto sued Mr Schmeiser for patent infringement. Despite Trish
Jordan's (of Monsanto) insinuations to the contrary, the courts did not rule on
where the seed came from. The finding of the court was that it didn't matter
where the seed came from. The ruling of the courts was that Mr Schmeiser knew or
ought to have known that there were genetically engineered canola plants in his
fields. He was therefore infringing on Monsanto's patent and should not have
saved his own seed and replanted it the next year. This despite the fact that
this had been his practice in over 50 years of farming.
In a case that has implications for farmers and indeed anyone in the world
concerned about the unconfined release of man-made genes into the food supply
and the environment, Mr. Schmeiser has been given leave to appeal the lower
courts' decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada. The case will be argued in
Ottawa on Jan. 20, 2004.
Patent
nonsense on GMOs should be debunked
December 22, 2003
The Wall Street Journal Europe
Gregory Conko, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in
Washington, D.C., writes that it may now seem daring to say, but in a decade's
time GM foods are likely to be as widely accepted in kitchens as margarine and
microwave ovens are today. When that happens, we may look back and view Dec. 22,
2003 as a landmark date in the rehabilitation of biotechnology's currently
soiled public image. On that day, one of the anti-GM movement's most compelling
criticisms will begin to crumble irreparably as the first European patent on a
GM crop is set to expire.
The debate over GMOs usually focuses on their safety. But, as study after
scientific study continues to find that no unique or inherent risks arise from
biotechnology, people will slowly but increasingly come to accept GM foods.
Earlier this month, for example, the European Food Safety Authority announced
that a particular variety of GM maize was perfectly safe for human consumption.
Many other similar announcements are expected to follow.
Still, GM opponents have tried to slow the growing public confidence in
biotechnology -- for example, charging that it would lead to global corporate
control of the food supply or that resource-poor farmers in less developed
countries would be bankrupted by patent-wielding multinationals. Even many
biotechnology supporters worry that intellectual-property rights mean that GM
crops might forever remain the plaything of large agribusinesses and wealthy
farmers in industrialized countries. Many of us seem to have forgotten that only
diamonds are forever; patents are temporary.
The first GM plants were developed in 1982 and 1983 by four research teams
working independently -- one at the State University in Ghent, Belgium, the
others in the U.S. After nearly two decades of dispute, the European patent was
recently granted to the Belgian team, but it expires today. Two more European
patents, held by Monsanto, will expire in January. Over the next few years, many
other important patents will also expire.
Of course, even technologies still under patent have been put to productive use
in poorer countries. Today, over five million farmers in South Africa, China,
India, the Philippines and elsewhere already happily grow patented GM varieties
because they have higher yields, require fewer inputs and raise income.
Public research labs are creating other products for developing-world farmers.
These include potatoes, rice, maize and oilseeds with added or enhanced
nutrients, crops engineered to grow better in the acidic soils of the tropics,
and varieties improved to grow better in extremes of heat and drought. The
researchers involved almost invariably have access to patented technologies
under liberal exemptions. But these truths have never stopped anti-biotechnology
activists.
When Switzerland's Ingo Potrykus and Germany's Peter Beyer invented a rice
variety with beta-carotene, they needed permission from several different
holders of more than 70 patents before they could begin testing their Golden
Rice. Critics use this fact in their campaigns against GM. What they repeatedly
neglect to tell their audiences, however, is that those patent holders did
indeed grant Mr. Potrykus and Beyer exemptions for Golden Rice.
Mr. Potrykus says that, while obtaining those exemptions was time consuming, the
primary reason Golden Rice and other bio-fortified crops have not yet begun to
help resource-poor farmers is not patents but "regulatory obstacles based
on undue paranoia." He has argued that "those who oppose GM
technologies for political advantage or self-interest [should be] held
responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions of people with vitamin A
deficiency," which Golden Rice could help address.
The purpose of intellectual property is not, as is often believed, to provide
financial protection to those investing in product development or to encourage
research into new technologies. This is a valuable outcome of patents, but it is
not the primary goal. Rather, the chief purpose of patent laws has always been
to encourage the dissemination of information so that new technological
knowledge could be introduced into the public domain more quickly.
Innovators have long tried to keep the benefits of new processes, using various
contractual methods and "trade secrets." The contribution of patent
law to society was to offer innovators a financial inducement -- in the form of
a limited period of exclusivity -- in exchange for them making their inventions
public.
To qualify, inventors must provide a written description of the invention and
the process used to make it so that anyone skilled in the field can reproduce
the technology once the patent expires. This requirement is the root of all
patent systems and, combined with the financial rewards of protection, has
tended to accelerate the movement of new technologies into the public domain.
Biotechnology's critics and advocates alike should remember that, while the
wealthy are often first to adopt new products, in time we have all come to rely
on once-patented technologies as varied as automobiles and antibiotics. Perhaps
this year's best holiday gift will be the knowledge that, if we permit it, the
whole world will also benefit from GM foods.
A
new defense against insect pests
December 24, 2003
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
A new biological control developed by Agricultural Research Service scientists
may provide an important defense against some of the most destructive insect
pests that farmers face.
A bacterium called Chromobacterium suttsuga has been found to be effective
against Colorado potato beetles, corn rootworms, diamondback moths, silverleaf
whiteflies and green stinkbugs. These pests collectively cost farmers almost $3
billion annually in crop losses and control expenses.
The team of ARS scientists involved in the research includes microbiologist
Phyllis Martin, laboratory technician Ashaki Shropshire, molecular biologist
Dawn Gundersen-Rindal and entomologists Dale Gelman, Michael Blackburn and
Robert Farrar--all at the Insect Biocontrol Laboratory in Beltsville, Md.--plus
entomologist Jeffrey Aldrich and visiting scientist Edson Hirose at the
Chemicals Affecting Insect Behavior Laboratory, also in Beltsville. A patent
application for the discovery has been filed.
In lab tests, the scientists found that C. suttsuga seems to produce multiple
toxins that deliver a lethal blow to the pests. Preliminary results from field
tests have confirmed lab results, and more field tests are planned.
The bacterium's toxins can be combined with chemical compounds and then applied
to soil, plants or seeds. To control soil-dwelling pests, rice grains can be
treated with the toxins and applied to the soil, where pests will feed on the
treated grains.
Insect pests often develop resistance to chemical insecticides, so biological
compounds are regularly investigated for insecticidal properties. Biological
control agents can be an important addition or alternative to synthetic chemical
pesticides, and important in integrated pest management.
Other advantages of C. suttsuga are that it's stable in the environment, and
insects readily ingest it.
The discovery may ultimately provide a new control for agriculturally important
insect pests and give growers alternatives to chemical insecticides.
ARS is the chief scientific research agency of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Filipino
farmers see Bt corn as welcome breakthrough
December 26, 2003
Bangkok Post
Anchalee Kongrut
Farmer Roger Narvarro was cited as saying that he used to pray each year that
his maize crop would remain free of corn borer, a major pest in the Philippines,
but since switching to genetically modified Bt corn, he sleeps much better,
adding, "This Bt corn is a breakthrough. It gives farmers a choice. It
frees us from worries,."
Narvarro's family is also happier because they worry less about the chemicals he
formerly had to spray to keep the pests away.
The story says that Mr Narvarro is among the first group of farmers in the
Philippines to grow Bt corn on a commercial scale. In May last year the
Philippines became the first country in Southeast Asia to allow commercial
farming of GM crops.
Open-field trials of GM papaya are planned for 2005, followed by commercial
planting.
Farmers like Mr Narvarro expect to earn extra income growing Bt corn during the
off-season, when the corn-borer plague is at its peak but the price of corn is
also at its highest.
Mr Navarro still grows non-GM crops the rest of the year, when there are fewer
pests. Bt corn brings its benefits, but the seeds are more expensive and can
only be obtained from a supplier.
Food
industry to maintain image of being supplier of non-GM foods
December 28, 2003
The Financial Express
Ashok B Sharma
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=49365
New Delhi - The buoyant processed food industry in the country has, according to
this story, decided to maintain its image of a supplier of non-genetically
modified (GM) foods to the European Union, Japan and Korea and other principal
export destinations.
The story says that with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety now in force and
the consumers in the European Union expressing concerns about the safety of
genetically modified (GM) foods, the domestic food processing industry has
geared up to face this challenge.
The story adds that the 59th AGM of the All India Food Processors’ Association
(AIFPA) held in Delhi last week deliberated on various strategies for boosting
exports including those relating to the compliance with the importing countries
sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) norms and also for exporting certified non-GM
foods.
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety empowers importing countries to reject export
consignments if they contain traces of GM foods hazardous to health and
environment.
Food processing is a key industrial sector for India. It accounts for a gross
output of Rs 1.12 trillion, representing 6.3 per cent of GDP, involves 6 per
cent of the total industrial investment, 13 per cent of exports and employs 18
per cent of the country’s industrial labour force.
GM
decisions 'must examine all options', says report
December 29, 2003
Science and Development Network
David Dickson
Decisions on whether to allow the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops in
developing countries should compare the costs and benefits of all possible
options – including "the potential cost of doing nothing" –
according to Britain's top panel on the ethics of biological research.
In a discussion paper published today (28 December), the Nuffield Council on
Bioethics warns against considering GM technology in isolation, and argues that
there is an ethical obligation to explore the benefits that such crops could
offer people in the developing world
The council also underlines the importance of comparing the use of a GM crop to
alternatives, focussing on the specific situation in a particular country, and
weighing up all possible options.
"The possible costs, benefits and risks associated with particular GM crops
must be assessed on a case by case basis,” says Sandy Thomas, director of the
council.
The discussion paper follows up an earlier report on the topic, published in
1999, which argued that there was a moral imperative for making GM crops readily
and economically available to people who wnat them in developing countries.
The new discussion paper is based on a consultation held by the council earlier
this year, and reassesses the recommendations of the 1999 report in light of
developments in science and policy over the past four years.
Many of those consulted by the council agreed on the potential value of such
crops. But other argued that economic, political or social change was more
important than new technologies.
“We recognise that we are discussing only part of a much larger picture,"
says Thomas. "We do not claim that GM crops will feed the world. But we do
believe that, in specific cases, they could make a useful contribution to
improving the livelihood of poor farmers in developing countries.”
On the positive side, the discussion paper points out that GM crops could
address significant health issues in the developing world. It agrees, for
example, that rice modified to produce beta-carotene – so-called Golden Rice
– could help to prevent vitamin A deficiency.
But in other situations, the Nuffield Council accepts that the use of a GM crop
may be less appropriate. For example, it says that GM herbicide resistant crops
may lead to reduced demand for labour, which could hinder the reduction of
poverty in developing countries.
The discussion paper also endorses the widespread criticism that much GM
research serves the interests of large-scale farmers in developed countries. In
the light of this, the council recommends that research into GM crops should be
directed towards the needs of small-scale farmers in developing countries,
suggesting that national governments in Europe and elsewhere should increase
their funding for relevant research.
Full report: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/gmcrops
Scientist
here hopes bioengineered crop will help African food supply
December 29, 2003
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Eli Kintisch
Joseph Ndunguru had not, according to this story, seen his family in southern
Tanzania for three years, but when he arrived at his home village, Mapera, he
didn't even have time to eat dinner.
Ndunguru, a biologist, was in the midst of a grueling, 31-day adventure to
catalog geminiviruses, pathogens that cripple the cassava crop in sub-Saharan
Africa and in Asia. The root of the cassava is a food staple in Africa. Cassava
meal, called ugali in Tanzania, is used all over the continent.
Ramadhan Lugaila, an official with the Tanzanian ministry of agriculture, was
quoted as saying that in Tanzania, "most of the people say, when they have
food, they refer to having cassava."
The story says that on the September morning in 2002 when Ndunguru, 40,
surprised his relatives, they prepared a chicken feast for him as he took
infected plant samples from nearby farms. But when he returned around nightfall,
time was short. To purify DNA from the batch he needed to find a refrigerator
and power source immediately, or his samples would be lost. So he took the
dinner in his car to eat at a hotel, the usual site of his ad-hoc laboratories.
Now, Ndunguru is growing infected cassava plants brought back from Tanzania in
electrically powered growth chambers at the Donald Danforth Center in Creve
Coeur. As part of a doctoral thesis, he is analyzing the genetic sequences of
various viruses, and he hopes the project will lead to better crops for poor
farmers around the world.
Experts calculate that plant viruses in Africa have cut the annual yield of the
crucial crop by as much as 30 percent, and the viruses also attack the crops in
Asia and South America, and that over the last decade, a powerful new strain of
viruses has spread south into Tanzania from Uganda.
The Danforth-based International Laboratory is testing plants genetically
modified for viral resistance. Claude Fauquet, a biologist leading the group,
was cited as saying his team has shown impressive results with the plant in the
greenhouse and the group is set to test the plant soon in field trials in Kenya
and Nigeria.
Ndunguru was cited as saying he is aware that some feel that introducing
bioengineered food to the Third World is a form of neocolonization, adding,
"Many people do not understand what you are talking about with genetically
modified food," and that efforts to use traditional breeding to make
cassava plants that can withstand the virus had worked only marginally.
Scientists at the International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural
Biotechnology, based at the Danforth center, are growing new plants that are
resistant to the geminiviruses, and Ndunguru's work offers a molecular
description of the enemy.
New
sugar beet line combines disease resistance, smooth roots
December 29, 2003
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
The first smooth-root sugar beet line with resistance to an emerging disease
called rhizomania has been released by the Agricultural Research Service.
Rhizomania resistance can save a farmer's entire crop from ruin.
The new breeding line, EL0204, has shown good overall crop performance in three
years of testing in Saginaw, Mich., and two years of testing at Salinas, Calif.
J. Mitchell McGrath, an ARS geneticist at East Lansing, Mich., and Robert T.
Lewellen, an ARS geneticist at Salinas, developed the new line from plants
originally bred by J. Clair Theurer, formerly an ARS geneticist at East Lansing
and now retired.
This release is the first of many expected to add disease resistance to plants
that combine smooth roots with high sugar content. A key strength of the new
line is its resistance to rhizomania, a disease that was identified in Michigan
for the first time in 2002.
In a Salinas field infected with both rhizomania and leaf spot disease, the new
line yielded 12,154 pounds of recoverable sugar per acre, compared to 4,567
pounds on average for seven previous smooth-root releases from ARS.
The smooth-root characteristic promises to halve the amount of soil that sticks
to grooves in sugar beet roots and makes it into the processing line. This will
save the industry several million dollars a year in cleaning and disposal costs,
especially at facilities located in jurisdictions where disposal of the
washed-off soil is regulated.
Genetic material of this release has been deposited in the National Plant
Germplasm System, where it will be available for research purposes, including
development and commercialization of new sugar beet varieties. This should lead
to the first varieties combining smooth roots with high yield and sugar content
as well as disease resistance.
Sugar beets are grown on 1.2 million acres of U.S. cropland and bring farmers
$945 million in annual sales.
ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency.
Iowa
State University researchers test consumer acceptance of GM food
December 26, 2003
Seed Quest
Susan Thompson
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2003/december/7364.htm
How willing are consumers to buy genetically modified (GM) foods? What effect
does labeling have on food purchases? Who do consumers trust to provide
objective information on genetic modification? Those are three questions Iowa
State University researchers sought to answer in a project involving 300 people.
Wallace Huffman, Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor of Agriculture and
economics professor, led the research. Results are published in the December
issues of both the American Journal of Agricultural Economics and the Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Workers in the ISU Statistics Laboratory recruited randomly chosen people,
telling them they would be participating in research looking at consumer
decisions on food and household products. They were invited to come to locations
in Des Moines and St. Paul, Minnesota, in April and December of 2001.
Two types of food labels were used in the experiments. One label provided
nothing more than the contents of the package and its weight. The other provided
the same information, plus a statement that the product had been made using
genetic modification.
Participants received different kinds of background information. Three
statements on genetic modification were written that were typical of those made
by environmental groups that oppose the practice, by industry groups that
approve of the practice, and by an independent third party.
Participants were divided into small groups. Each group was presented with a
different combination of background information and food labels. Each person was
given $40 and asked to bid on three food items - vegetable oil, tortilla chips
and russet potatoes.
"In general, when consumers saw the GM label, they bid less by an average
of 14 percent," Huffman said. "This is an indication the industry
won't voluntarily label GM foods of the type tested, because consumers would pay
significantly less for them."
Huffman said the research also showed consumers are willing to pay the most for
food items that might be genetically modified if they hear only the industry
perspective, and the least if they hear only the environmental group
perspective. "The independent, third-party perspective is a significant
moderating force against the extremes of either of the other two
perspectives," he said.
Participants were asked who they trust to provide information on genetic
modification. The groups mentioned most often were universities, scientists or
other third-party entities, followed by government. "We found information
does affect the decisions consumers make about foods that might be genetically
modified," Huffman said.
USDA's
Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grants (BRAG) program
December 29, 2003
Via Agbioworld http://www.agbioworld.org
Application Form and BRAGP Program Information at
http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/funding/04/rfa_brag_04.htm
CSREES solicits applications for an estimated $3.0 million in grants for the
Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grants Program (BRAG). Applications must be
received by close of business February 10, 2004 The purpose of the BRAG is to
assist Federal regulatory agencies in making science-based decisions about the
effects of introducing into the environment genetically modified organisms,
including plants, microorganisms (including fungi, bacteria, and viruses),
arthropods, fish, birds, mammals, and other animals excluding humans.
***Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures – towards
genetic engineering for stress tolerance**
December 29, 2003
Planta. 218(1): 1 – 14
Wang, W. Vinocur, B., Altman, A.
Abiotic stresses, such as drought, salinity, extreme temps., chem. toxicity and
oxidative stress are serious threats to agriculture and the natural status of
the environment. Increased salinization of arable land is expected to have
devastating global effects, resulting in 30% land loss within the next 25 yr,
and up to 50% by the year 2050. Therefore, breeding for drought and salinity
stress tolerance in crop plants (for food supply) and in forest trees (a central
component of the global ecosystem) should be given high research priority in
plant biotechnol. programs.
Molecular control mechanisms for abiotic stress tolerance are based on the
activation and regulation of specific stress-related genes. These genes are
involved in the whole sequence of stress responses, such as signaling,
transcriptional control, protection of membranes and proteins, and free-radical
and toxic-compd. scavenging. Recently, research into the mol. mechanisms of
stress responses has started to bear fruit and, in parallel, genetic
modification of stress tolerance has also shown promising results that may
ultimately apply to agriculturally and ecologically important plants.
The present review summarizes the recent advances in elucidating stress-response
mechanisms and their biotechnol. applications. Emphasis is placed on transgenic
plants that have been engineered based on different stress-response mechanisms.
The review examines the following aspects: regulatory controls, metabolite
engineering, ion transport, antioxidants and detoxification, late embryogenesis
abundant (LEA) and heat-shock proteins.
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