In
This Issue:
AfriCenter
Project Wins GDN Medal
"Biotechnology
to Benefit Small-Scale Banana Producers in Kenya" a project facilitated
by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotechnology
Applications (ISAAA) won the Global Development Network Medal (GDN).
The project is a collaborative effort among the Kenya Agricultural
Research Institute, the Institute of Tropical and Sub-tropical
Crops of South Africa, and two private companies Duroi Laboratories
and Genetics Technologies Limited. Kenyan farmers have been able
to double and even triple their banana yields by using tissue-cultured
banana plantlets from the project.
The
banana project was awarded a first prize medal and $10,000 cash
in the science and technology for development category. Semi-finalists
were invited to present papers describing their projects at the
Global Development Network Conference in Tokyo, Japan last December
1-14, 2000.
Tripp
Points to Stumbling Blocks for Biotech
Biotech
can help in developing countries, but there are real issues to
overcome in ensuring benefits can reach the poor. So argues Robert
Tripp of the Overseas Development Institute in a paper in Nature
Biotechnology.
While
biotech has the potential to help farmers in extreme environments
and without access to inputs "real value will only accrue to such
farmers if a number of largely nontechnical barriers can be overcome." Tripp
is particularly concerned that crops and traits that would be priorities
in pro-poor biotechnology have received little public investment.
He also thinks that the seed industry in many developing countries
is not up to delivering biotech seeds along with the information
required to the poorer farmers. There is also a problem in terms
of awareness of the potential of particular traits. "
Tripp
says he doesn't want to be "unduly pessimistic," but asks researchers
to be realistic in their approach to biotechnology's potential
contribution to agricultural development and poverty reduction. "Biotechnology
will only be effective if it is part of a package of broader changes
that include the provision of adequate information and the development
of seed delivery systems." ¨
Contact:
Robert Tripp, Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge
Road London SE1 7JD, UK.
Email: r.tripp@odi.org.uk
URL: http://www.odi.org.uk/index.html
EU
Passes Measure on GMOs
Europe's
unofficial moratorium on bioengineered seeds and food will soon
come to an end. The European Union Parliament passed a measure
on February 15, 2001 that sets strict rules on genetically modified
organisms. The rules govern the testing, planting and sale of crops
and food for humans and animals and the testing and sale of pharmaceuticals.
The
strictness of the new controls responds to the intense suspicions
about genetically modified foods. Under the rules, companies have
to apply for licenses that will last for 10 years and pass approval
processes. A central database will contain all information about
genetically altered products and also mark the location of all
crops.
By
April this year, a separate bill will be filed by David Bowe, a British
legislator, which will require food labeling and tracing requirements.
Under
European Union law, all 15 members countries are required to make
their laws conform to the new rules in 18 months. Bowe said that
the GMO laws are the toughest in the world.
Companies
Collaborate on DNA Detection Tools
GeneScan
Europe AG (GeneScan) and Clinical Micro Sensors (CMS), a business
unit of Motorola, Inc., have formed a technical collaboration to
develop and deliver new DNA detection tools for genetically modified
(GM) crops. The research will be based around Motorola's eSensorT DNA
detection system and should eventually lead to the possibility
of on site analyses using a hand held device.
The
eSensorT detection platform relies on bioelectronics. It uses organic
molecules to form electronic circuits that can detect and quantify
many different DNA targets at once. It is claimed to offer a single
test for several genetically engineered traits with the potential
for 'on site' analyses using future generations of the technology.
Contact: GeneScan,
Engesserstr. 4 b, 79108 Freiburg, Germany
Critics
of Biotech - Imperialists?
Opponents
of biotechnology, according to New York Times' Andrew Pollack,
are increasingly being called imperialists for opposing a technology
that could be used to develop improved crops for poor nations. Pollack
cites the case of Kenya where anti-biotechnology groups urged the
government to reject corn donated by the US and Canada because
some of it was genetically modified. At that time, 5 million people
were facing starvation because of a severe drought.
"To
deny desperately hungry people the means to control their futures
by presuming to know what is best for them is not only paternalistic
but morally wrong," Hassan Adamu, Nigeria's formerl minister of
agriculture and rural development, wrote in The Washington Post.
Dr.
Ingo Potrykus, the Swiss scientist who led the development of golden
rice said that opponents have a "hidden political agenda." "It is not
so much the concern about the environment, or the health of the consumer,
or help for the poor and disadvantaged. It is a radical fight against
a technology and for political success."
US
Farmers to Increase Use of Biotech Seeds
A
report from 13 US agricultural and commodity organizations and
the Council for Biotechnology Information indicates that the controversy
brought about by Starlink corn has not dampened farmers' enthusiasm
for biotechnology.
This
report is collaborated by an online survey by AgWeb.com which showed
that 45 percent would plant either the same or a greater percentage
of biotech corn for the next planting season. Some
29 percent said they would plant a reduced percentage or no biotech
corn in 2001. The use of biotech products in soybeans as well as
cotton has likewise increased through the years.
Farmers
are opting to use biotech seeds because they offer insect protection,
herbicide tolerance and the combination of traits. They find that these
products offer significant value.
Scientists
Least Likely to Get Media Coverage
Major
newspapers like the New York Times and the Times of London are
increasingly using environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace,
then Environmental Defense Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists,
rather than scientists as sources of news stories on genetically
modified organisms (GMOs).
Eric
Abbott, professor of the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communications, Iowa
State University (ISU), studied media coverage of GMOs in England
and the US from 1997 to 2000. By
September 2000, only 12% of news stories quoted a scientist.
The
ISU professor found out that the newspapers are more than twice
as likely to use a quote from one of the environmental groups as
one from scientists in their stories. They are also more likely
to quote a public official such as a politician or regulatory official. |
