 |
Funding for agricultural and food research has traditionally been a dry patch compared to the well-watered scientific fields supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Now its supporters are hoping that a recent report from a blue-ribbon panel will lead to a bumper crop of basic agricultural research. But first they have to figure out where to plant the seeds.
In 2002, on orders from Congress, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) asked a group of eminent scientists to ponder a national institute of food and agricultural science. This summer the panel, led by Chancellor Emeritus William Danforth of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, concluded that the greatest need was for an institute that would award extramural, peer-reviewed grants for basic research.* "We felt a whole new culture has to be created that is more similar to NSF and NIH," says Danforth.
Last month Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), who chairs the panel that sets NSF's budget, took Danforth at his word. He introduced a bill (S.3009) that would place the institute within NSF's biology directorate but give it an unusual degree of independence and its own advisory council. Although the bill has expired, Bond has said he acted quickly to stimulate discussion. And ag lobbyists are thrilled: "We've gotten to the starting line," says R. Thomas Van Arsdall, executive director of the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, an advocacy group based in Savoy, Illinois.
The task force found that basic research has been shortchanged. More than 90% of USDA's $2.4 billion research budget is not awarded by peer review. Instead, funds are distributed directly to land-grant universities and spent on intramural, mainly applied, activities through the Agricultural Research Service. Even the $180 million a year awarded competitively through the National Research Initiative (NRI) has its drawbacks: USDA grants are smaller and shorter than those of NSF or NIH and come from a much smaller pot (see chart). The task force recommended that the proposed new institute have an annual budget of $1 billion after 5 years. In addition, the number of grants should be doubled, to 1000, and their size boosted by 187%, to $225,000 per year.
Lobbyists say that they aren't worried about confusion over whether the new institute should be part of USDA or NSF. "Focus on the broader message: We need to boost federal support for basic research in the agricultural sciences," says Howard Gobstein, vice president for governmental affairs at Michigan State University in East Lansing, who also works on behalf of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, to which MSU belongs.
|
Scientists have published a detailed analysis of the chicken genome, the biochemical "code" in the bird's cells that makes the animal what it is.
The data should help us understand better our own biology and may give us fresh insight on avian-borne diseases such as salmonella and bird flu.
It could also lead to a step-change in the food industry with the development of more productive and healthier birds.
The International Chicken Sequencing Consortium reports its work in Nature.
"The chicken is the first bird as well as the first agricultural animal to have its genome sequenced and analysed," said Richard Wilson, of the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, US, and a lead researcher on the project.
The primary subject for the study was the red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus), the wild species from which domestic poultry was bred several thousand years ago.
|
By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Biotech crops are flourishing in the United States, but they're also taking root across the globe, accounting for about $44 billion in crops in five leading countries, according to a report Wednesday by an industry group.
Argentina has planted $8.9 billion worth of genetically engineered soybeans and corn. In China, biotech cotton is worth $3.9 billion. There are $2 billion in genetically altered canola, corn and soybeans growing in Canada, and Brazil has biotech soybeans worth $1.6 billion.
The United States eclipses them all with its nearly $28 billion in biotech soybeans, corn, cotton and canola.
The report, by a University of Minnesota researcher for the industry's Council for Biotechnology Information, anticipates that growth of these gene-altered crops will soar, particularly in Asia, Latin America and parts of Africa.
"What I'm suggesting is that we are probably at the threshold of a much larger and more extensive adoption of plant biotechnology," said C. Ford Runge, director of Minnesota's Center for International Food and Agriculture Policy. "You can conclude there are many more crops in the pipeline than the four major ones that I mention."
The study found that more than half of the world's soybeans are now biotech varieties. Thirty percent of all cotton comes from biotech seeds, and 15 percent of corn and canola are genetically engineered, the study said.
Traditional plant breeding requires growing generation after generation of plants to develop a specific trait, such as corn that resists insects or potatoes that bruise less easily. Genetic engineering is like a high-tech shortcut; scientists transfer certain traits by attaching genes from one organism to another.
|
More biotech crop plantings expected in Asia, Latin America and Africa
Less than a decade after the first biotech crop was commercialized in 1996, biotech crops are now being grown in 18 countries, and research and development is being conducted in another 45, according to a study by a leading U.S. food and trade policy analyst.
"The international adoption and diffusion of biotech crops has gone global and is poised to transform production and development around the world," said C. Ford Runge, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy and Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law. "Tens of thousands of lab, greenhouse or field trials have been conducted on about 57 food and fiber crops in countries on every continent."
The study, "The Global Diffusion of Plant Biotechnology: International Adoption and Research in 2004," reported the global commercial value of biotech crops grown in the 2003–2004 crop year at US$44 billion, with 98 percent of that value produced in five countries — the United States, Argentina, China, Canada and Brazil — that grew one or more of four biotech-enhanced crops: soybeans, cotton, corn and canola.
North America continues to be the leader in producing biotech crops and conducting research. The value in the United States in 2003–2004 from growing biotech-enhanced soybeans, corn, cotton and canola was $27.5 billion, about 62 percent of the global total value of biotech crops. And Canada has researched a larger number of crops than any other country, according to the study, which was supported by the Council for Biotechnology Information.
But by the next decade, as more developing countries grant approval to grow these and other biotech crops in development, the global value of biotech crops is expected to increase to $210 billion. Adoption of these crops in developing countries could raise the gross domestic product in developing countries by 2 percent, said the report.
In addition, more than half of the 63 countries engaged in biotech research, development and production are developing countries.
|
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Some Republican legislators say Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's proposal for a $375 million biomedical and technology research institute could have a hard time getting funding through the GOP-controlled Wisconsin Legislature.
"With the state's limited dollars, it's going to be extremely tough," said state Rep. Dean Kaufert of Neenah, a co-chairman of the Joint Finance Committee. "I mean, the governor's going to have to pull one out of his hat as far as coming up with some funds (for) this program."
Doyle proposed last month that a Wisconsin Institute for Discovery be built on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus as a center for stem cell and other biomedical research.
"There is broad consensus on the goal here, but we have to wait and see the details in what he proposes in his budget to see exactly where the money is coming from, who's paying for it, how much and what it's being used for," said Steve Baas, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker John Gard, R-Peshtigo.
Legislators are concerned governor will seek funds from some other state fund to come up with the money, Baas said.
State Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, the other co-chairman of the Joint Finance Committee, said details are still too unclear to predict the fate of Doyle's plan.
Ethical concerns are also likely to come into play in deciding whether to approve such funding, he said.
"If it can't be demonstrated that what is going on at the UW is being done in an ethical way, then they are going to have a rough go of it, absolutely," Fitzgerald said.
|
PORTLAND - An AIDS vaccine in a breakfast cereal?
It could happen. But a group of doctors and others don't want it happening in Oregon - at least not yet.
They will ask the Legislature next month to impose a four-year moratorium on biopharming, crops genetically altered to fight or prevent human diseases.
The state chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility is concerned that such crops would infiltrate the environment, exposing residents to drugs they don't need.
Biopharming represents the latest twist on genetic modification in agriculture.
Biotechnology companies already have produced corn varieties containing a protein found in HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Their goal is to manufacture food products, such as breakfast cereals, to orally deliver an AIDS vaccine.
Various transgenic seed projects under development and expected to be available commercially in the next few years include producing a topical gel that prevents the spread of herpes simplex virus and oral vaccines against hepatitis B and E. coli.
Rick North, project director of the nonprofit group's Campaign for Safe Food, said biopharming threatens to expose the public to microscopic levels of medicines drifting through the air.
"I want to take a drug when I have a need for it," he said. "I don't want to be exposed to it without knowledge of what it does and what its side effects are."
Oregon currently has no biopharmaceutical crops permitted for cultivation. But North said the physicians group, which numbers about 850 and includes nondoctors, wants to ensure that state residents don't risk allergic reaction from pharmaceuticals if conventional crops become contaminated by modified genes in the future.
|
By Craig Simons
Gu Riliang works long days tending the white and green sprouts growing in petri dishes at Beijing's Center for Plant Transformation. When the sprouts are big enough, Gu moves them to 20-centimeter-tall glass jars filled with a clear, gelatinous nutrient. Because the building's temperature and light are strictly controlled to avoid disturbing the sensitive plants, it's easy to forget whether it's day or night.
The work is tedious, but important. The sprouts are the first growths of corn seeds that Gu's professors at China Agricultural University have genetically engineered. Some of the strains are made to live longer than natural varieties, others to require less fertilizer, resist disease or be more nutritious. Gu, a 26-year-old grad student, doesn't allow himself to speculate whether the sprouts will be sequestered in the greenhouse behind the labs, along with other genetically modified crops, or be planted one day in a farmer's field. "I only test them," he says. "Policy isn't our responsibility."
Beyond the lab's eerie blandness, the work of Gu and his colleagues is causing a fierce debate over the future of the world's agriculture. At issue is whether genetically modified (GM) plants, like Gu's corn, should be used to supply the world with abundant and cheap staple crops. At present, the bulk of GM corn and soybean produced in the United States and other countries is intended for animal feed. Some scientists argue that the health effects of GM foods should be studied at length before the technology is adopted widely. This dispute is at the heart of a trade clash between Europe—which embraces the environmentalists' argument—and the United States, the world's largest producer of GM crops. For the last few years, China, one of the world's biggest agricultural powers, has been the wild card in this dispute. After taking an early lead in GM technology, China backed off in the late 1990s, largely because of Europe's caution. China's scientists have had to keep their seedlings locked away in the labs.
Now China is on the threshold of allowing the commercial planting of one of the world's biggest staple crops: rice. Six strains of GM rice have already passed a gantlet of field trials and studies, setting the stage for final approval by a meeting of ministers, perhaps as early as January. According to scientists advising the Agriculture Ministry, approval will most likely be forthcoming, which means that China could start planting GM rice as soon as spring 2006. Shortly thereafter GM rice could end up on millions of Chinese dinner tables.
|
Last Thursday, the Nanfang Weekend reported that authorities are still mulling over a decision about whether to commercialize genetically modified rice in China.
The Ministry of Agriculture, which is in charge of granting safety certificates for GM plants, will not make the decision until early next year.
The official decision is up in the air.
Even if some strains of GM rice are certified, the ministry says it will carry out field studies about its safety for at least two years.
There are concerns over GM rice although they have eased somewhat thanks to the authorities' prudence on the issue.
In recent years, the genetically modified organism (GMO) has been gaining popularity in many countries. Genetically altered soybean, cotton, corn and rape seed crops are available in the market.
China has approved field trials for rice, rape seed, corn, wheat, potato and soybeans derived from biotechnology since 1997. The Ministry of Agriculture only granted safety certificates for insect-resistant cotton, tomato, pimento and a species of morning glory.
So far, all these GM plants have only been used in clothing, food processing and animal feed.
There has not been any commonly accepted conclusion about the safety of GM food.
|
An international team of scientists has completed the sequencing of the rice genome, an accomplishment that should lead to the development of new varieties of rice to meet different needs, including resistance to disease.
Takuji Sasaki of the National Institute of Agrobiological Science (left) presents farm minister Yoshinobu Shimamura with data on the sequencing of the rice genome at the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry.
Researcher Takuji Sasaki of the National Institute of Agrobiological Science and head of the Japanese team in the international effort, said Monday that scientists from 10 economies completed mapping some 370 million out of 390 million base pairs -- or 95 percent of the genome -- with an accuracy of 99.99 percent.
The team made the report to agriculture minister Yoshinobu Shimamura.
Analysts say they expect the research to contribute to the identification of useful genetic functions and lead to rapid improvement of crop varieties and an increase in food production.
The results could also be used for production of new varieties of maize and wheat that have similar features in their genetic maps to rice.
The rice used for the research was a Japanese variety called Nippon Bare, in which the researchers found an estimated 40,000 genes.
Japan took the lead in deciphering the rice genome in 1991 and continued to play a central role after the international joint research team began decoding the genome in 1998, and was responsible for studying six of the 12 chromosomes found in rice, team members said.
The international team declared in December 2002 that it had deciphered the genome after mapping 92 percent of it but has continued the project to map the remainder.
The researchers said they are the first to release the results of precise deciphering of the rice genome. The results have a margin of error of less than one-10,000th, the researchers said earlier.
The international team includes researchers from the United States, Taiwan, Thailand, China, South Korea, India, France, Britain, Brazil and Japan.
|
TSUKUBA, Ibaraki Pref. (Kyodo) Genetically modified corn and soybeans have been found growing wild near Shimizu port in Shizuoka Prefecture, citizens' groups opposing GM foods said Monday.
The groups also said GM rapeseed has been found growing wild near Fukuoka's Hakata port. Members of the groups suspect the plant was spilled during the transport process.
The discovery of GM rapeseed follows its detection at ports in Ibaraki, Chiba, Kanagawa, Aichi, Mie and Hyogo prefectures.
"Corn and soybean seeds are less likely to disperse than rapeseed, and it's amazing that they grow wild," said Masaharu Kawata, a lecturer of chemical biology at Yokkaichi University in Mie Prefecture.
Groups including Stop GM Seeds Network Japan conducted the study by collecting the plants and testing them.
The GM corn includes genes that kill insects such as moth worms, while the GM soybeans are engineered to be more resistant to weed killer.
|
GABORONE US ambassador Joseph Huggins has urged Botswana to exchange ideas on bio-technology and genetically modified foods (GMOs) in order to come up with a comprehensive national framework on bio-safety.
Speaking at a seminar on biotechnology organised by the US mission and the government on Monday, he said: "In order to have a better understanding and to better put together ideas on strategic bio-safety framework, it is critical to understand GMOs technology." He said GMOs and biotechnology could make Botswana move from food deficiency to food self-sufficiency and reduce dependence of imported food from other countries.
"Biotechnology may lead to more harvest with little effort and help improve food security in Botswana as excessive imports on food products from South Africa and other neighbouring states," Huggins said.
He said the Pandamatenga farms, where some farmers are using the biotechnology products, would help boost the country's agricultural sectors.
Huggins was also hopeful that NAMPAADD and the use of technology would allow farmers to grow more crops with little use of pesticides.
Botswana is in the process of finalising a national framework on bio-safety, which is a combination of policies, legal administrative and technical instruments to address safety for the environment and human health in relation to modern biotechnology.
Some African countries had however in the past refused GMO foods aid questioning whether it was safe Huggins said the refusal to accept aid was political mainly due to the EU community even though aid on their side (EU) was not forthcoming and the "African states should make well informed choices and consider what is best for their people".
|
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican lawmakers approved a new law on Tuesday to regulate genetically modified crops, but opponents said it catered more to the interests of big business than to the protection of centuries-old biodiversity.
Legislators in Mexico's lower house of Congress approved the law by a vote of 319 to 105, with 17 abstentions.
Supporters said it would enable the regulation of GM crops in Mexico and an evaluation of any possible risks to human health and the environment.
Opposition to the law came mostly from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, which claimed, along with environmental groups like Greenpeace, that the new law would endanger corn diversity in Mexico, the birthplace of the grain.
"It's important to make clear that we are not completely satisfied with the result, given it does not express many of the demands we come across in the course of our work," said PRD deputy Jose Luis Cabrera.
Greenpeace has called the new legislation the "Monsanto Law," claiming it protects the economic interests of the multinational producer of genetically modified crops from policies that could cut into profits.
"This only benefits multinationals and supports the interests of a tiny elite in Mexico and goes against thousands of farmers," Greenpeace spokeswoman Cecilia Navarro told local media after one of the group's activists briefly entered the debating chamber in Congress.
|
By GREGORY L. WHITE in Moscow; Scott Kilman, Ark.; and ROGER THUROW in Ptitsegrad, Russia
The gray van carrying the Russian inspector arrived at dawn outside a complex in Springdale, Ark. Uniformed American guards stood outside as Major General Vitaly Romensky toured the facility. He had come to verify that America was living up to an agreement reached between high-level U.S. and Russian negotiators.
After 2½ hours, the poker-faced inspector came striding out of the building. The metal security gate rattled open and the van whisked him away.
Mr. Romensky's checklist included a section on radioactive fallout. But he wasn't inspecting nuclear weapons. He is a Russian government veterinarian. The facility is a chicken-slaughtering plant. He was inspecting drumsticks.
This cloak-and-dagger routine is more than just Cold War leftovers in the freezer section. As new food powers emerge, the drive for free trade around the world is blunting the traditional tactics governments once employed to shield their domestic industries. Now, food safety is becoming the stealth weapon of protectionism in the $522 billion market for global agricultural exports.
"As quotas and tariffs become less important trade barriers, sanitary measures are becoming a relatively much bigger problem," says J.B. Penn, an under secretary of the U.S. Agriculture Department.
Russian veterinarians with military-style ranks -- one earned the nickname "Chicken Napoleon" from U.S. executives -- have blacklisted scores of U.S. poultry plants from exporting to Russia. They are among the world's most aggressive in using their power to close off markets, trade experts say. Russian officials concede their stringent standards don't necessarily improve the meat's quality and some are blunt about the inspectors' real purpose.
"The only tool of trade policy the Agriculture Ministry has left are our veterinarians," then-First Deputy Minister of Agriculture Sergei Dankvert told an industry meeting in late 2002, according to Russian press reports. Mr. Dankvert is now head of Russia's state veterinary agency. A spokeswoman confirmed his comments, adding: "That's why we don't let him talk to the press anymore."
|