Agnet Dec

Agnet Dec. 3/03

Consumers choose genetically engineered sweet corn over conventional varieties

Consumers want mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods

Plant biotechnology: Potential impact for improving pest management in European agriculture: A summary of nine case studies

Agricultural Biotechnology Council response to ACRE call for evidence on Farm Scale Evaluations

House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee conduct of the GM public debate

GM crops? Coexistence and liability. The AEBC report

ARS developing new, disease-resistant citrus rootstocks

how to subscribe

Consumers choose genetically engineered sweet corn over conventional varieties
December 3, 2003
Food Safety Network Press Release
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/gmo/choice.htm
Guelph, Ontario - According to research conducted by the University of Guelph's Food Safety Network and published in the latest issue of the British Food Journal, consumers preferred genetically engineered (GE) sweet corn over conventional sweet corn in a 2000 market experiment. By their own accounts, consumers in the study made choices based on taste and quality, as well as reduced use of chemical pesticides in the production of GE varieties. Despite widespread perceptions of consumer concerns regarding the use of genetic engineering in food production, GE varieties outsold conventional sweet corn by a margin of 3:2.
"The study shows that attitudes towards GE foods may depend on what benefits they offer," said Dr. Douglas Powell, scientific director of the Food Safety Network and lead researcher on the project. "In this case, many customers at the farm market chose GE sweet corn because they perceived advantages in the reduced use of chemical pesticides. Further studies are now needed to test these findings with a broader, more diverse audience."
In the farm-to-fork trial, sweet corn and potato varieties genetically engineered for resistance to specific crop pests were grown side-by-side with conventional varieties. Strict segregation protocols were maintained throughout production and harvesting, and products were voluntarily labeled to indicate whether they were GE or conventional varieties.
Customers in a local farm market were provided with information on the production protocols, including pest control measures, that were required to produce the different types of sweet corn. Researchers also analyzed production data from an economic perspective to compare the costs of GE vs. conventional production.
Unlike the conventional sweet corn tested in the trial, GE varieties required neither insecticide nor fungicide applications. Cool, wet weather in the 2000 growing season resulted in heavy pest pressure, requiring heavy applications of pesticides on conventional varieties, which also suffered more pest damage than GE varieties, despite the control measures.
The study indicated that, from an economic perspective, financial benefits may be realized by growers choosing GE varieties in years of medium to high pest pressure. Given the very specific and limited nature of the trial (one farm during one season), no conclusions can be drawn on whether the effects are scale-dependent.
The Food Safety Network (FSN) at the University of Guelph provides research, commentary, policy evaluation and public information on food safety issues from farm-to-fork. Food safety information can be obtained by contacting FSN at 1-866-503-7638 or fsnrsn@uoguelph.ca , or through the FSN websites at www.foodsafety.ksu.edu and www.eatwelleatsafe.ca

top

top

Plant biotechnology: Potential impact for improving pest management in European agriculture: A summary of nine case studies
December 3, 2003
Agricultural Biotechnology Council
http://www.abcinformation.org/news_display.php?news_id=82
For the complete report of the following see:
http://www.ncfap.org/reports/Europe/ExecutiveSummaryDecember.pdf
Key Findings
The widespread adoption of plant biotechnology in maize, oilseed rape, wheat, rice, tomatoes, potatoes, sugarbeets and stone fruit in Europe would result in significant yield increases, savings for growers and pesticide use reductions. All together, the nine biotech crops would increase yields by 8.5 billion kilograms per year, increase grower net income by 1.6 billion Euro per year and reduce pesticide use by 14.4 million kilograms per year, compared with existing practices that would be replaced. Of these six new case studies, the biotech tomato offers the greatest yield and grower income increase while herbicide tolerant maize would result in the largest pesticide use reduction. Introduction
Crop biotechnology has been widely discussed for the past decade. While the United States has planted millions of acres with genetically modified crops, in Europe, only Spain has any commercial biotech acres. The European Union and European countries are considering a variety of biotechnology regulations while a moratorium on approval of new biotech crops maintains the status quo. Questions remain about the potential impacts on agricultural production if biotech crops were to be commercialized in Europe.
Although a number of researchers have released studies of the potential impact of certain biotech crops in individual countries, no single study has used a consistent methodology to estimate multi-crop biotech adoption in multiple European countries.
In 2002, the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) released a study that estimated the current and potential impacts of biotechnology in the United States by examining 40 case studies to project economic impacts for 47 states. The study focused on biotech crops that would improve pest management for weeds, insects and plant diseases. During the research, NCFAP noted that many of the same crop pests were present in Europe and that European researchers were testing biotech crops for managing the pests. NCFAP received funds from Monsanto, Syngenta, EuropaBio and BIO to estimate the potential impacts of biotech crops on European agriculture. NCFAP’s proven methodology and strong ties to European researchers made it an ideal organization to conduct the first comprehensive study of how biotechnology could impact European agriculture.
In June 2003, NCFAP released the first three case studies to estimate the potential impact of biotechnology in Europe. These initial case studies are included herein as well as an additional six case studies that NCFAP researchers have recently completed.
Methodology
The same methodology that NCFAP researchers used in its U.S. study is employed in the European study. Case studies have been selected based on information that successful transformation of a crop has occurred and for which there are at least preliminary results for pest management purposes under European conditions. For each case study, NCFAP reviewed scientific literature, internet web sites and data from university and government research facilities. NCFAP interviewed European researchers who are testing biotech varieties, and they provided summaries of their research. NCFAP quantified the current use of pesticides, crop losses and costs of managing each pest problem in several countries by crop. Researchers estimated the acreage on which the biotech crop would be planted based on comparison of growers’ costs.
Economic impacts were analyzed in three categories: estimated changes in yield, changes in production value and changes in production costs, which were used to calculate changes in net income. Pesticide use changes were also calculated. Written case study analyses were sent to outside reviewers for comment. The reviewers’ comments were incorporated into the case study reports.

top

Agricultural Biotechnology Council response to ACRE call for evidence on Farm Scale Evaluations
December 1, 2003
Agricultural Biotechnology Council
http://www.abcinformation.org/incubator/applications/news/uploads/abc%20submission%20to%20ACRE%20(FINAL)submitted.doc
The Agricultural Biotechnology Council (abc) would like to thank ACRE for the opportunity to comment on the publication of the first three Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) and eagerly awaits the results of the fourth FSE in 2004. abc commends the farmers who took part in the process and the scientists involved in this unprecedented ecological study. We also wish to highlight the contribution of the agricultural biotechnology industry for their voluntary involvement in the trials, often above and beyond any statutory duties and for allowing free and unfettered access their products, without which, the studies would not have been completed. abc values the production of a large data set and 8 peer reviewed papers that represent a key contribution to our understanding of agriculture in the UK. However, while we commend the work in general, we have grave concerns about how the results were summarised and portrayed to millions of people globally and draw particular attention to the almost indiscriminate use of the word ‘harm’. This did little to portray the wealth of the data set, the care and effort put into the trials by the researchers and little for the UK within the scientific establishment around the world.
While the data set is impressive, it must be viewed in the perspective of what the trials were set up to achieve and should also be viewed in conjunction with a wealth of other research and information, as well as several years of practical large scale growing in other world areas.
From initial questions posed by English Nature as to the possibility that GM crops might have some impact on farmland biodiversity, the FSEs were developed to monitor such indirect effects, by comparing herbicide regimes and weed management practices that are possible using GMHT crops, with equivalent conventional crops and practices. The results do not reflect the effect of GMHT crops per se. These results must be considered in the context that the GMHT crops evaluated in these trials have already been thoroughly assessed and judged to be safe in terms of human health and their direct impact on the environment.
It is also important to view the results against the background that the single biggest challenge to biodiversity globally is agriculture. Put simply, land used for crop production is land not primarily used for sustaining wildlife, and while some agricultural practices can be ‘more sustainable’ or ‘less damaging’; in-field biodiversity and production are ultimately in competition. All aspects of agriculture including herbicide regime, crop choice, planting season and soil preparation are proven to effect biodiversity. Hence it is not a surprise to find that the specific herbicide regime used in the FSEs had both positive and negative effects. Specifically we wish to make following points:
Any real effects observed within the FSEs resulted indirectly from the weed control, not directly from the use of a GMHT crop. To quote the press notice: “The researchers stress that the differences…were not a result of the way in which the crops were genetically modified. They arose because these GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trial new options for weed control.” In fact, some positive effects, not possible without GMHT, have been observed, and more can be expected in the future. GMHT broadens the flexibility of herbicide use and weed management strategies, which the authors demonstrated are able to be used in a manner beneficial for biodiversity.
Observed differences in biodiversity were considerably more significant between the different crop species grown, rather than between different practices used within a crop. The results showed that Spring OSR, whether conventional or GMHT, was several times more beneficial to the selected biodiversity indicator species, than the other two crop species.
We believe the environmental profile of the companion herbicides used in the FSEs were not sufficiently considered. The crop protection industry constantly strives for pesticides and stewardship practices that will reduce the impact of farming. We would urge ACRE to consider such use in relation to current practice.
The herbicides associated with GMHT crops allow many secondary benefits to biodiversity that were not monitored in the FSEs. The longer-term implications to the farmland biodiversity of reduced in field passes for weed control and cultivation were not considered. These benefits would include both direct and indirect, on farm and off farm benefits of reduced fuel use with concomitant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, less packaging and waste and soil structural improvements. (1)
Herbicide use was reduced in the GMHT crop in the FSEs. This result reiterated similar findings that have emerged in other research, as well as globally during the commercial use of GMHT crops. (2)
Seed rain was reported to be reduced in two crops but the total seed bank remained above replacement levels in all crops. Specifically, there was actually an increase in the seed bank and emergence of several species under the GMHT regimes. Weed control with conventional herbicides is very effective but to use Beet as an example, calculations suggest that conventional weed control in the FSEs destroyed 95% of all weeds, while the GM fields resulted in a 96% loss. There was no evidence that weed seeds levels are reduced over a full arable rotation including beet or rape. Extrapolation of short-term observations of seed rain and seed bank to long-term effects, that do not take full rotational impacts into account, are purely speculative and its biological significance is questionable.
Several examples of increased numbers of invertebrate species were observed. These were presented within the depths of the papers, but surprisingly little was made of the benefit to these species in the summarisation of the results. Instead species negatively affected, however marginal, appeared to be highlighted or given prominence. To quote from the first paragraph in the discussion of the paper by Brooks et al: “..significantly larger abundances in GMHT crops were about as frequent as those in conventional crops”.
Conventional farms operating with less intensive practices were given preference in site selection, and certainly exaggerated any differences seen in the comparisons. Whilst we understand that there was a need to over-sample farms that are considered to be less intensive, it is clear that this results in an exaggerated difference and may not be truly representative of current UK agricultural practices.
There are significant opportunities for innovative use of these GMHT crops that go beyond the comparisons made in the FSEs. GMHT crops have the ability to offer the farmer a flexibility of timing of herbicide application that was not reflected in these trials. It is noted on page 17 of the summary booklet (3), that farmers within the FSEs often applied herbicides (in the GMHT field halves) too early to capitalise on the benefits for breeding birds of the higher numbers of weed seedlings at the start of the season, a critical time for food resources for chicks. A moderate change in the timing of application of herbicides could have resulted in very different results on biodiversity (4). We urge ACRE to study the papers published on other research that shows how different timings or cultivation techniques can critically affect the outcome (4,5).
We believe that the use of GMHT crops will allow for changes and improvements in crop management practices including reduced tillage, more targeted weed control, under sowing techniques, and band-spraying. It is also important to stress the relevance of spring crops to bio-diversity. Clearly any technique that will improve the profitability of spring crops compared to winter sown crops will result in an increase in the area cropped and so result in a concomitant increase in over-wintered stubbles. The yield increases and cost savings associated with GMHT crops could have a significant role to play in this dynamic. We also draw ACRE’s attention to the recent submission by abc to the EFRA select committee, studying biofuels. This paper not only gives key agronomic detail, but points out how this technology could also improve the environment by facilitating a cost-effective feed-stock for the biofuels industry.
abc members were disappointed by the sensational and inaccurate reporting of the FSE results. It is the view of abc that this was in part a result of misleading and unrepresentative wording in the popular summaries, as well as in the verbal presentation of the results, both on and around the publication date. We believe that there appears to be a bias in the summary and conclusions of the FSE that highlight a few negative effects rather than the large number of no effects. This is the current modus operandi of scientific publications where there is often greater emphasis on significant differences rather than the lack of difference or actual biological significance. We urge ACRE to publicly correct these misrepresentations when preparing their advice to Government and to learn from this ready for the publication of the winter sown crop results.
The abc also urges ACRE to place these results in clear agricultural perspective. It is important to remember that both biodiversity and production are possible, but that each ultimately impacts upon the other. However, relatively minor effects in crops of relatively minor usage should not be allocated a disproportionate significance when considering these wider conflicts between agriculture and countryside, merely because they coincide with high profile public campaign objectives.
From the analysis of these results and the real experience of how these crops are used in other world areas, we believe that on balance, GMHT crops do not present a significant or ongoing risk to farmland biodiversity, but in fact offer positive opportunities. The findings did not contradict the risk assessments by ACRE and many global authorities and years of practical experience that these crops are safe for the environment. The FSE results confirm significant environmental and economic benefits associated with more flexible GMHT crop weed management regimes.
Neither the FSE results or any of the studies published in recent years support the banning of any GM crops, but give a compelling case towards carefully managed commercialisation, on a case-by–case basis, of the three crops involved in the FSEs. Going forward, adoption will depend on consumer and farmer acceptance, which will only be realistically gauged once GM products are available to farmers and the public to choose. We look forward to this choice becoming a reality for UK farmers and consumers. We believe it is time for progress to be seen in the science-based approval process, and for the adoption of GMHT crops into UK agriculture, based on evidence from a wide range of sources.
REFERENCES
Abc written evidence to the Biofuels Enquiry by The Environment Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee 2003
Phipps, R., Park, J. 2002. Environmental Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops - Global and European Perspectives on Their Ability to Reduce Pesticide Use. Journal of Animal and Food Sciences. 11: 1-18.
Firbank, L. G., et al 2003. The Implication of spring-sown genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops for farmland biodiversity. Pages 1-37
May, M. 2003 Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Biol 142, 41-48
Booth, E. J., Walker, R. L., Walker, K., C. The use of herbicide tolerant oilseed rape with minimal cultivation techniques. Proceedings Crop Protection in Northern Britain 2002
Website www.abcinformation.org

top

House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee conduct of the GM public debate
November 27, 2003
Agricultural Biotechnology Council
http://www.abcinformation.org/news_display.php?news_id=81
For the complete report of the following see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmenvfru/1220/1220.pdf
The GM public debate was an imaginative and innovative attempt to inform and at the same time consult with the public over a controversial and complex matter. It aimed to encourage public participation in policy-making. Whilst it was modestly successful in some areas, and despite the hard work of many, especially on the debate’s Steering Board, overall the debate was an opportunity missed.
A debate is distinguished from an opinion poll because it sets out to educate and inform as well as to sample views. The GM public debate did not do so, in part because the information which was meant to underpin it – the Strategy Unit’s economic review, the GM Science Review Panel report, and the outcome of the farm-scale evaluations – was not released until late in the process or afterwards. The debate also did not engage people beyond a self-selecting group which already held views about GM. Thus the wider public was in the main not informed by the debate, and nor were their opinions canvassed.
The principal blame lies with two decisions made by the Government. It did not allocate sufficient resources to the debate, and it set an absurdly tight deadline for its conclusion. This affected the conduct of the debate, particularly the publicity it was able to obtain and what information was available to it. We ask in this report for the Government to explain those decisions.
We also ask what lessons the Government has learnt from the GM public debate. Other public debates and consultations are planned: they need to be more successful.

top

GM crops? Coexistence and liability. The AEBC report
November 25, 2003
Agricultural Biotechnology Council
http://www.abcinformation.org/news_display.php?news_id=83
For the complete document of the following see:
http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/coexistence_liability.shtml
The Agricultre and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) published its report GM Crops? Coexistence and Liability. The report looks at the key issues of coexistence and liability were GM crops to be grown commercially in the UK.
The Commission’s chairman, Professor Malcolm Grant, said, ”In our report we have made no assumption whether the commercial growing of GM crops will get the go ahead or not. What we have been doing is to examine in depth the implications of commercialisation and its future management.”
“Like the country as a whole, the Commission is made up of people with very different views on GM. This is one of its strengths. Crucially we have been able to agree on a series of recommendations which the Government will need to take into account.”
The report, which goes to Government, makes nine recommendations that would be required if GM crops were to be grown commercially.
1: The main aim of Government policy on coexistence of GM and other crops must be to facilitate consumer choice to the greatest possible extent, while allowing UK farmers to respond to present and future national and international market demand.
2: If GM crops were to be grown commercially, farmers growing them should be required to follow legally enforceable crop management protocols designed to achieve at least the 0.9% threshold.
3: If GM crops are commercialised, there should be an initial introductory period where there would be intensive monitoring and auditing of coexistence arrangements to determine whether and how far coexistence was actually being achieved.
4: The powers to impose coexistence protocols should allow for their ready amendment if data gathered in the introductory period showed that coexistence and the delivery of consumer choice was not being achieved and Government should be able, if necessary, to suspend production of a GM crop unless and until arrangements were made to overcome coexistence problems.
5: There should be special arrangements for compensation for farmers suffering financial loss as a result of their produce exceeding statutory thresholds through no fault of their own, with a view to an insurance market developing in due course.
6: Government should use the general approach of the draft EU Environmental Liability Directive to develop the UK’s liability regime for any damage caused by the release of GMOs to the environment.
7: The Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be amended to allow the competent regulatory authority to require environmental remediation where reasonable and appropriate in respect of environmental harm caused by the release of GMOs, irrespective of criminal liability.
8: the Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be further amended, reflecting the regime envisaged by the draft Directive. The means of dealing with any environmental effects from the release of GMOs, including diffuse effects, should be the responsibility of the competent regulatory authority, who will have a number of options at their disposal, including requiring remediation.
9: Active consideration should be given to the development of protocols for positive environmental management of the cultivation of GM and other crops, to operate alongside coexistence protocols.

top

ARS developing new, disease-resistant citrus rootstocks
December 3, 2003
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Three new citrus rootstocks developed by the Agricultural Research Service have emerged as strong candidates to help the U.S. citrus industry combat key diseases and the citrus root weevil.
The new rootstocks, called US-897, US-942 and US-802, were developed at the ARS U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory in Fort Pierce, Fla. Geneticist Kim D. Bowman, based at the lab, has been managing the agency's effort to develop new citrus rootstock for more than 10 years.
ARS research on citrus rootstocks goes back more than a century. It's only been in recent years, however, that the industry has felt an urgency to deal with growing rootstock problems, such as those caused by citrus tristeza virus, foot rot and root rot (Phytophthora species), the Diaprepes abbreviatus root weevil and inadequate soil adaptation. The citrus industry has a total economic impact exceeding $8 billion annually in the state of Florida.
Over the past few years, ARS citrus rootstock development efforts have been expanded and accelerated because of funding from the citrus industry through grants from the Florida Citrus Production Research Advisory Council. Collaborators are an important part of Bowman's research effort, helping to test new rootstocks for resistance to diseases and pests.
A quality rootstock can defend itself against these diseases and pests, while producing a high yield of quality fruit sustained over a long period of time--up to 50 years. Rootstocks are the bottom portions of grafted trees, to which are spliced tops with branches from trees that make the best fruit. These grafted trees produce citrus fruits much quicker than seedling trees.
All three of the top rootstocks are at least three to four years away from commercialization, but they have performed well in initial tests in damp coastal soil for combating Phytophthora nicotianae, P. palmivora and the diaprepes citrus root weevil. These two phytophthora, combined with diaprepes, can form a lethal combination that could devastate Florida's citrus-producing regions.
Read more about this research in the December issue of Agricultural Research magazine, available on the web at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/dec03/citrus1203.htm
ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's primary scientific research agency.

top

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