Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on
ag-biotech.


Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives

Subscribe

 


SEARCH:     

Date:

September 10, 2001

Subject:

Monarchs, Biosafety protocol, Agbioforum, Safety Testing

 

Today's Topics:

* Monarch info
* Biosafety Protocol
* Agbioforum Newsletter
* Safety Testing
* Healthy alternative for Monarchs
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 11 Sep 2001 11:21:45 -0000
From: Wink Sutton
To: AgBioWorld-feedback-1191@lb.bcentral.com
Subject: Re: Experts, Monarchs, Testing, European Union

I very much like the info sent by AgBioWorld. Have a question re the . What was the death rate in the controls?
i. e. Those Monarch Butterflies larvae feed under exactly conditions on
the same sample of milkweed but without any pollen. My experience in
New Zealand is that Monarch Butterfly larvae are always giving up and
dying. A 2% loss must be very near to the normal loss one could expect
in young populations of Monarch Butterflies.

All the best.

Regards,

Wink Sutton,
Plantation Focus Limited,
24 Kerswell Terrace,
Rotorua,
New Zealand.

Phone +64 7 348 5583

email winkbev@xtra.co.nz
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Subject: Re: Bush administration to withdraw from Biosafety Protocol
To: agbioworld@yahoo.com
From: "David Duthie" | Block Address | Add to Address Book
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:20:59 +0300


In the AgBioView posting "BUSH ON WRONG SIDE OF FOOD LABELING" BY JOHN
NICHOLS of the September 4, 2001 Tuesday edition of the Capital Times
(Madison, WI), we are told that:

"The Bush administration is reportedly taking steps to withdraw from
the international Biosafety Protocol, an agreement in which the Clinton
administration acknowledged growing concerns about genetic modification
of food."

I would be interested in knowing how the US plans to withdraw, since
they are not, at the moment, a part of the Protocol. This is because they
are not a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and thus
cannot become a Party to any Protocol attached to the CBD, including the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The US signed the CBD on 4th June 1993, but
has not ratified/acceded, in spite of the CBD now having 181 Parties .

Should the US become a Party to the CBD and accede to the Protocol,
then they could withdraw in accordance with Article 39. Withdrawal, which
states that:

1. At any time after two years from the date on which this Protocol has entered
into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from the Protocol by giving written
notification to the Depositary.

2. Any such withdrawal shall take place upon expiryof one year after the date of
its receipt by the Depositary, or on such later date as may be specified in the
notification of the withdrawal.

To date, 103 countries have signed and 5 have ratified/acceded
(Bulgaria, Fiji, Norway, Trinidad & Tobago, and St Kitts & Nevis). The Protocol
will enter into force 90 days after the 50th ratification/accession,
probably sometime in 2003. Meanwhile, the second INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE
FOR THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY meeting will be held in Nairobi
from 1-5th October 2001. The US has observer status at these meetings.

Best wishes

David Duthie
E-mail: david.duthie@unep.org
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:52:06 -0500
From: "Marks, Leonie"
Subject: Latest Issue of AgBioForum on Role of Codex Alimentarius Commissi on
in GM Food Labeling

*** If you prefer, you can view an html version of this newsletter at http://www.agbioforum.org/vol3no4/newsletter.htm***

Just to let you know -- the latest issue of AgBioForum is now available on-line. Please would you inform the members of AgBioView about the issue. Articles in
this issue discuss the role of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (or Codex) in international labeling of biotech foods. Below is the table of contents for this
issue.

Leonie Marks, Ph.D.; Managing Editor of AgBioForum http://www.agbioforum.org/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 10 Sep 2001 19:19:53 -0000
From: "Bob MacGregor"
To:
Subject: Testing

Safety testing of GM crops certainly far exceeds that of
conventionally-bred crop varieties. What assurances do we have that any of the hundreds
of new crop varieties introduced into the world's cropping systems each
year are safe for humans and the environment? With all these varieties,
the assumption is that they are substantially equivalent to their
predecessors; at least this claim for GM varieties has some scientific investigation
to back it up.

BOB
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 10 Sep 2001 17:06:34 -0000
From: Andrew Apel AgBioWorld-feedback-1182@lb.bcentral.com
Subject: Bt: The Healthier Alternative For Monarchs

Colleagues,

Here's a remarkable new study. It shows that Bt is healthier for
monarch butter larvae than the alternative =96 pesticide. Strange that we had
to wait so long for a study like this. It=92s also strange the
scientists say they now want further studies on =93long term exposure=94 to Bt
pollen when the study shows the most valid concern should now be over
exposure of monarch larvae to chemical poisons instead.

You will wish to note that most of the Bt corn grown in the US is from
event MON810, an event very similar to event Bt11. The comparative
amounts of Bt toxin in events 176 and MON810 are 7.1 micrograms and 0.9
micrograms Bt toxin/g fresh weight of pollen, respectively. Most data suggest
that pollen from event 176, compared with all the other Bt events, poses
the highest risk to monarch larvae, making it the best Bt event to use in
tests if the intended outcome is to kill monarch larvae in statistically
significant quantities. In the real world, the potential risks to monarch
populations from event 176 are minimal, because sales of 176 corn hybrids
in 1999 represented only approximately two percent of total corn.

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF CRY1AB-EXPRESSING CORN POLLEN ON MONARCH
BUTTERFLY LARVAE IN FIELD STUDIES September 11, 2001 PNAS (Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences)

Diane E. Stanley-Horn, Galen P. Dively, Richard L. Hellmich, Heather R.
Mattila, Mark K. Sears, Robyn Rose, Laura C. H. Jesse, John E. Losey,
John J. Obrycki, and Les Lewis.

Survival and growth of monarch larvae, Danaus plexippus (L.), after
exposure to Cry1Ab-expressing pollen from three Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
corn (Zea mays L.) events differing in toxin expression or to the
insecticide, l-cyhalothrin, were examined in field studies. First instars
exposed to low doses (22 grains per cm 2) of event-176 pollen gained 18% less
weight than those exposed to Bt11 or Mon810 pollen after a 5-day exposure
period. Larvae exposed to 67 pollen grains per cm 2 on milkweed leaves
from within an event-176 field exhibited 60% lower survivorship and 42%
less weight gain compared with those exposed to leaves from outside the
field.

In contrast, Bt11 pollen had no effect on growth to adulthood or
survival of first or third instars exposed for 5 days to =9155 and 97 pollen
grains per cm 2 , respectively. Similarly, no differences in larval
survivorship were observed after a 4-day exposure period to leaves with
504AD586 (within fields) or 18=AD22 (outside the field) pollen
grains per cm 2 collected from Bt11 and non-Bt sweet-corn fields.

However, survivorship and weight gain were drastically reduced in
non-Bt fields treated with l-cyhalothrin. The effects of Bt11 and Mon810
pollen on the survivorship of larvae feeding 14 to 22 days on milkweeds in
fields were negligible. Further studies should examine the lifetime and
reproductive impact of Bt11 and Mon810 pollen on monarchs after long-term
exposure to naturally deposited pollen.