In This
Issue:
THAI
S&T MINISTER SUPPORTS GM PAPAYA
Gen.
Chettha Thanajaro, Science and Technology Minister of Thailand,
said that the Ministry will support funding for GM papaya R&D.
General Chetha who visited Kasetsart University’s GM papaya
research station recently believes that the use of modern biotechnology
can provide solutions to overcome major problems affecting Thailand’s
papaya industry, particularly papaya ring spot virus and post harvest
losses, and. provide greater benefits to farmers. “Biotechnology
can directly benefit mankind particularly those in the Asian region”,
said Gen. Chettha.
“I
believe GM crops do not do any harm to the environment. Thais are
scared of GMOs even though we do not know all about them. The same
could be said of people’s fear of ghosts, as we do not know
whether or not there are ghosts,” he said to local reporters.
“From
our trial, it proves that GM papaya can solve the problem of ring
spot disease, extend the ripening time, and if the government allows
to grow it, farmers can get the seed for free” said Dr. Supat
Attathom, faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University who oversees
GM papaya research of the Plant Genetic Engineering Unit (PGEU).
Gen.
Chettha was invited on Wednesday by PGEU to formally open the 6th
Annual Technical and Coordination Meeting of the Papaya Biotechnology
Network of Southeast Asia. PGEU is a member institute of the papaya
network, including national research institutes from Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam. The network is being facilitated
by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA).
During
the said meeting, the members of the Papaya Biotechnology Network
led by Dr. Randy Hautea, ISAAA Director, expressed to Minister
Thanajaro that Thailand is ahead of the rest of the member countries
in developing the desired GM papaya resistant to the papaya ringspot
virus. “The small scale field trial of the Thailand group
has demonstrated that the country now has a solution that is ready
for the next stage of development,” the members said. Hence,
the Network endorsed the need for multi-locational field trials
across different regions of the country to demonstrate the crop’s
safety and economic value. It expressed hope that the Thai government
would eventually come up with the technology policy favorable to
the adoption of GM papaya noting that it would not only benefit
Thailand’s economy but that of other member countries as
well.
For
more activities of ISAAA, visit http://www.isaaa.org
80% OF GLOBAL
MAIZE AREA SOWN TO IMPROVED VARIETIES
Eighty percent (80%) of the global maize area of 140 million hectares is sown
to improved varieties - with approximately two-thirds sown to hybrids, 13%
planted to open pollinated varieties (OPVs), and only 20% to farmer-saved seed.
All of the latter is sown by subsistence farmers in developing countries. In
industrial countries, 94% is sown to hybrids and the balance of 4% to OPVs
with no farmers saving seed. In developing countries it is encouraging that
70% of the maize area is sown with improved varieties (54% to hybrids and 16%
to OPV) with 30% sown to farmer saved seed. Thus, there are almost 68 million
hectares of maize sown to improved seed in developing countries.
It is
striking that in East and South Africa 92% of the maize area is
sown to improved varieties, mainly hybrids. In fact, six regions,
East Asia, East and South Africa, West Asia, the Southern Cone
and Andean Region of South America, and South East Asia sow more
than 70% of maize to improved varieties, the majority of which
is hybrid as opposed to OPVs. South Asia and North Africa sow equal
amounts of improved and farmer saved seed. It is only two regions,
Mexico and Central America, and West Central Africa, where approx.
70% of the maize area is sown with farmer saved seed by subsistence
farmers.
The
salient conclusion from the data above is that contrary to the
rhetoric of some critics of biotechnology, there is a large community
of maize farmers in the developing world, farming 70% of the maize
area, that have already adopted improved varieties, mainly hybrids,
and therefore could have ready access to Bt maize through the same
seed supply channels. That farmers of developing countries use
only farmer-saved seed and, therefore, would be denied access to
the new technologies provided through hybrids, is a misconception
as is shown by the evidence presented above. For example, in China
alone there are 105 million maize farmers farming one-quarter of
a hectare of maize on average, 90% of whom already purchase improved
seed at a premium, with 84% of the farmers purchasing hybrid seed
annually because of the higher returns it provides.
Download
the Executive Summary of Clive James’ “Global Review
of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2002 Feature: Bt Maize” at http://www.isaaa.org/kc.
PROSPECTS FOR
BT MAIZE BETTER THAN ANY GM PRODUCT
From
a global perspective, the potential for Bt maize in the near term
is considered better than any other GM product. Four reasons were
cited for this, namely:
- The
cry1Ab gene has provided effective control of several primary
pests of maize (stem borers), and intermediate control for other
pests (armyworm and earworm).
- New
Bt products are being launched - the cry3Bb1 gene for corn rootworm
control in the US, and the cry1Fa2 gene (which has enhanced control
for fall armyworm and black cutworm).
- Bt
technology offers safer feed and food products than conventional
maize due to its lower levels of mycotoxins. Food and feed safety
issues are presently becoming key concerns.
- Among
the three major staples (maize, wheat and rice), maize solely
offers alternatives to the diverse needs of the environments
via the significant benefits of biotechnology. This is seen applicable
to the mega-environments of the key countries involved in maize
production.
Overall,
the cry1Ab gene has the potential to increase maize production
by 35 million MT valued at $3.7 billion, and decrease losses by
half from 9% to 4.5%. The current family of Bt genes will also
be complemented by five new gene products in the next three years.
This includes: the dual gene cryAb1/ cry3Bb1, the dual gene cry34Ab1/cry35Ab1,
a full length cry1Ab, the stacked genes of full length cry1Ab/vip3a,
and a full length modified cry3Aa.
Download
the Executive Summary of Clive James’ “Global Review
of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2002 Feature: Bt Maize” at http://www.isaaa.org/kc.
IT’S GO
FOR GM SOYBEANS IN BRAZIL
Brazilian
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has signed a provisional decree
which allows farmers to plant biotech soybeans for the 2004-2005
harvest. The decree only allows for the planting of biotech soybeans
by farmers who already hold the seeds since it is still illegal
to sell biotech seeds. Associated Press estimates that 10-20 percent
of Brazil's soy crop is grown with seeds smuggled in from neighboring
countries. It was noted that Brazilian farmers have been vocal
about the benefits from the biotech variety, citing the increase
in income from planting GM soybean.
LESSONS FOR
GM BANANAS/FRUITS
Public
perceptions toward genetically modified (GM) fruits are likely
to be negative. This is one lesson that policy makers should take
into consideration in understanding consumer attitude toward GM
bananas or similar tropical fruits. C. Marris forwards five lessons
in a paper entitled "Issues concerning public awareness and
attitudes towards genetically modified bananas and tropical fruits" prepared
for the Third Session of the Intergovernmental Group on Bananas
and Tropical Fruits to be held on 11-15 December 2003 in Puerto
de la Cruz, Canary Islands, Spain.
The
paper commissioned by the Food and Agriculture Organization cites
four other lessons:
Attitudes
to pest resistant Cavendish bananas are likely to be reticent.
The first GM banana products in the research and development pipeline
might provoke negative reactions because they have a set of characteristics
which are similar to “first generation GM crops”, i.e.
benefits apply to large-scale intensive monoculture exploitation
of Cavendish for export.
GM
is a revelator of current agricultural practice. A debate on the
use of GM bananas could catalyze controversies about the (un)sustainability
of large-scale export-oriented commercial banana plantations.
A PR
campaign should not be assumed to improve consumer acceptability
if it is not connected to issues regarding the policy process.
Public
concerns need to be taken into account by various stakeholders
from industry, research, commerce and distribution. These have
to be taken account when dealing with regulations and trade issues.
See
the full paper online at http://www.fao.org/es/ESC/en/20953/20987/
21306/event_34607en.html or
a copy can be requested from Daniela.Piergentili@fao.org.
ENSURING FOOD
SECURITY THRU IPR
“Small-scale
farmers, traditional knowledge holders, environmental groups and
developing countries will need to play a larger role in IPR policy-making
at all levels if biotechnology is to benefit the poorest and most
vulnerable groups in the global economy,” says Farhana Yamin
of the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex in
Brighton, United Kingdom.
Yamin’s
paper examined the relationship between food security, agricultural
biotechnology and intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the context
of developing countries. The author suggested that developing countries
should think more carefully about the promotion and expansion of
IPRs – especially in agriculture.
IPRs,
in the long term, encourages research and development (R&D),
but promote unsustainable and, possibly, unsafe forms of agriculture
in poor countries. Data shows that the cost of strengthening one’s
IPR outweighs the potential gains. Gains are realized over a long
period but costs are accrued immediately making R&D more expensive
in developing countries.
The
author concluded that the lack of negotiating power and policy
expertise of developing countries within the World Trade Organization
(WTO) could put them at a disadvantage. Yamin explained that the
strategic forum-shifting in the IPR playing field by more developed
countries need to be monitored to ensure that R&D will indeed
benefit the poor. Agriculture applications that could improve their
food security must, likewise, be encouraged.
The
paper entitled “Intellectual property rights, biotechnology
and food security” can be downloaded at http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp203.pdf.
US FARMERS HAVE
LITTLE FEAR OF SCIENCE SAYS CORN GROWER
Positive
farmer attitudes in the United States have played a major part
in the rapid acceptance of genetically modified (GM) crops. “Farmers
have little fear of science, says James Andrew, manager of the
Andrew Farms, Inc. in Iowa, who spoke of his experiences as a US
farmer during the Farmer to Farmer: Sharing Experiences Related
to Agricultural Biotechnology” capacity building workshop
held in Manila, Philippines.
Among
the reasons cited by Andrew for the rapid adoption of Bt corn were:
- Bt
corn eliminates damage caused by the corn borer. It improves
stalk quality and leads to higher yields of corn per acre.
- Fewer
ears fall off the stalk at harvest.
- Harvest
is easier when plants are healthy and standing.
- Generally,
Bt corn contains fewer mytotoxins and dangerous molds in the
grain.
- Bt
corn requires no insecticide application which benefits the environment.
- Yields
are higher accounting for 10 per cent yield gains when compared
to traditional varieties that improve yields one half percent
per year.
The
farmer’s experiences are validated by a recent study by C.
Ford Runge, director of the Center for International Food and Agricultural
Policy at the University of Minnesota. He noted that the adoption
of agricultural biotechnology in the US continues to grow, offering
increasing economic and environmental benefits.
The
Philippine workshop was co-organized by the International Service
for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, University of
the Philippines Los Banos, SEARCA, Cornell University, and the
United States Government under the auspices of APEC. It was during
this workshop that farmers from six Asian countries formed a regional
network called Asian Farmers Regional Network or ASFARNET to promote
the active exchange of experiences and knowledge on alternative
modern farming technologies.
For
more information on the Farmers Network, email Dr. Randy Hautea,
ISAAA Southeast Asia Center director at r.hautea@isaaa.org.
FOOD PRODUCERS
SKEPTICAL ABOUT CROP SEGREGATION
Many
food producers from the developed and developing world are examining
the potential of diversifying production in order to exploit both
the organic and genetically modified (GM) food markets. However,
there is skepticism on their part regarding whether organic and
GM crops can be effectively segregated to a level that will be
acceptable to consumers worldwide. Issues of market threats and
freedom of choice in line with the risk of gene flow currently
affect food producers and consumers.
These
were the observations made by Dominic Glover of the Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex in Brighton, United Kingdom.
In his paper entitled “GMOs and the Politics of International
Trade,” Glover discussed the politics of biotechnology and
international trade as heavily impacted by the European Union’s
(EU) de facto moratorium in 1999.
The
author also observed that advocates of biotechnology, particularly
the American Soybean Association, have argued that segregation
will be quite expensive, and is technically impossible to achieve.
The recommended contamination level of 0.1% is very low and is
not applicable to all crops and farm types. Segregation is also
seen as unlikely in smallholder farming systems in developing countries
since this practice would demand significant changes in farming
practices for some crops and could impose additional costs.
Read
the full paper at http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/PDFs/%20Briefing5.pdf.
NEW K-SHEETS
ON BT COTTON AND BT MAIZE
The
Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology (KC) has released
six new Knowledge Sheets (K-Sheets) on Bt cotton and Bt maize.
These are condensed versions of selected portions of the Briefs
published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA) and written by Clive James, Chair, ISAAA Board.
Download the K-Sheets at http://www.isaaa.org/kc. | 
