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:

June 10, 2002

Subject:

Greenpeace China Study, Suzuki, Africa and GM, Green Propaganda, New Zealand, Rootworm

 

Today in AgBioView: June 11, 2002:

* Phosphorus Query
* Greenpeace China Study
* Bt in China
* Greenpeace China BT "study"
* David Suzuki, No Music Lover
* Africa ëneeds GM crops to surviveí
* Cyberspace, search engines and Green propaganda
* A Conference organised by the European Science Foundation
Programme
* Biotech controversy ensnares US food donations
* PM needs to stamp on Greens
* Thirtieth Anniversary of Misguided Ban on DDT
* BIOTECH CROPS BOOST FARM INCOMES, YIELDS - US STUDY
* NORTH CENTRAL REGION TECHNICAL RESEARCH
COMMITTEE (NCR-46) ON CORN
ROOTWORMS OFFERS SUPPORT FOR A CONDITIONAL
REGISTRATION OF CORN ROOTWORM
TRANSGENIC EVENT

From: "Kershen, Drew L"
Subject: Query re Phosphorous
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 15:02:51 -0500

I need to have information about published studies on transgenic
grain
that would lower the phosphorous content of excrement (urine or
manure) of
monogastic animals (i.e. primiarily chickens and hogs). I also
need to
know the names of persons who have worked on these transgenic
crops
(probably the same as authors of the published studies).

I also need to know about published studies, if any, on transgenic
chickens that would better utilize the (phytase?) (phytate?) in the
feed
rations so as to have less in their excrement. I have the
newspaper
accounts and the published studies about the University of Guelph
Enviropig which is for swine what I am asking about for chickens. I
also
need to know the names of persons who have worked on these
transgenic
chickens, if any.

Finally, I also need to know about published studies, if any, on
transgenic forages (fescues, alfalfas, grasses) that better utilize
phosphorous fertilizers. I would like to know the names of the
researchers
on these transgenic forages too.

This is a very time-sensitive request. I need this information as
quickly
as possible.

Thank you in advance to anyone and all who may be able to assist
me. Best
regards,

Drew

Drew L. Kershen
Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law
University of Oklahoma College of Law
Norman, Oklahoma 73019-5081 U.S.A.
Ph.: 1-405-325-4784
FAX: 1-405-325-0389
dkershen@ou.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Note:

Anyone interested in reading the original report about Bt cotton in
China,
published by Greenpeace, can see it at:

http://www.botanischergarten.ch/debate/XUEdayuan.pdf
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 11:22:30 -0500
From: "Wayne Parrott"
Subject: Re: Biodevastation Funding Exposed, Canadian Patent
Recommendation, Patrick Moore, Fields of Gold ...

>From: "parul malhotra"
>Subject: Greenpeace and China Study

>What did however concern me was the assertion that Bt cotton
had an
>adverse impact on natural enemies of bollworm and that it
encouraged the
>spread of other pests. If that were to be true, that'll be enough for
the
>eco-warriors, right? So, we come back to the scientific validity of
the
>results...anything to suggest that they might be flawed? are they
>peer-reviewed?

As far as impact of Bt cotton on natural enemies of bollworm goes,
Greenpeace sites four separate studies to support its case. I am
having a
very difficult time interpreting the data. None of the data have any
statistics associated with themónot even a standard error, and
there is no
description of experimental techniqueóthere is no way of telling if
the
trials were even replicated. Hence, there is absolutely no way to
judge
the relevance of the data.

The first study says that ìpredator populations of ladybeetles,
lacewings,
and spiders in Bt cotton (were) higher than in conventional cotton
grown
using chemicals and much lower than in conventional cotton
grown without
chemicals.î

As far as I am concerned the only realistic comparison here is
between Bt
cotton and cotton with chemicals. I am not convinced to what
extent, if
any, growing nontransgenic cotton without any pesticides is
realistic. In
this case, Bt was better than the only other viable option.

Graph 1 is impossible to interpret. The y-axis is labeled as
ìbollworm
number per 100 plantsî while the title for the graph is ìpopulation
dynamics of natural enemies in different cotton fields.î I have no
clue
how they got from bollworms per 100 plants to population
dynamics of
natural enemies.

In the second study, graphs show a greater presence of Microplitis
and
Campoletis in non Bt cotton than in ìconventionalî cotton. The
problem
here is that it is not stated if conventional cotton uses pesticides or
not. The previous example differentiated between conventional
cotton with
pesticides, and conventional cotton without pesticides.

The third study is straight-forward: ìNo obvious difference between
Bt
cotton and non Bt cotton for population of most predators, which
the
exception that a larger population of Propylacea japonicaî was
found in Bt
cotton.

Study 4 is a laboratory study which claims that Microplitis feeding
on a
Bt-resistant strain of bollworm showed reduced rates of
parasitism. First,
only 2 of 3 Bt varieties show this pattern. Secondly, I doubt the
reductions are statistically significant (eg, reduced cacoon rate
from
51.9 in one Bt variety vs 47.3 in the non-Bt). Finally, since this
resistant strain only exists in the laboratory, example 4 is
completely
irrelevant to current field conditions. Study 4 also claims reduced
survival of ladybeetle first instar larvae, but this claim is based on
ìunpublished report.î I have no faith on any reports that have not
been
peer reviewed and published.

Study 4 also covers field resultsóin this case, which are said to
show a
slight impact on the rate of parasitization of bollworm eggs.
Looking at
the data, the rates were reduced from 3 to 2.63 and from 1.38 to
1.22. I
will be extremely surprised if these data turn out to be statistically
significant.

To conclude, I do not think any of the data even come close to
supporting
the assertion that Bt cotton is bad for predators of bollworm. Even
if the
data did support the assertion, I will show my bias here by saying
that
the whole system is highly artificial anyway. If no cotton was grown,
there would be no cotton bollworm, and the predators of cotton
bollworms
would starve to death anyway.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++

From: "Malcolm"
Subject: Bt in China
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 14:14:13 -0400

Re: Parul Mahotraís comment on Bt cotton having an adverse
effect on
bollwormís natural predators.

It may well be simply that, if all the bollworms are being killed by
Bt,
then the natural predators might have very little to eat. It is possible
that these predators are normally present in the environment in
small
numbers (perhaps even less than the numbers found in Bt cotton
fields) but
their population has increased in cotton monocultures because of
the ready
availability of a choice food source ñ bollworm.

It is also probably the case that if Bt cotton were replaced by
conventional cotton that farmers would have to spray insecticides
that
would kill all insects (some do, some donít).

Malcolm Livingstone
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "parul malhotra"
Subject: Greenpeace-China Study

Alex,

I completely agree with your conclusions. As a journalist for an
Indian
daily with an interest in biotech, I immediately checked out the new
Chinese report and came to the same conclusions. Some stuff is
what we
already know (abt subsequent generations losing resistance, for
example);
other stuff in no way points to significant env damage (such as
what
you've pointed out). Additionally, I noted that the report was a
collation
of 4 academic researchers' works, some of which have been
carried out in
labs and others in the field for a grand period of 1 year...not the
best
indicators of Bt cotton's long term performance in the field, are
they? My
newspaper's carried an editorial comment on it today "Chinese
Checkers"
(The Financial Express June 7) making some of these points,
including that
of the report's Greenpeace connection. I'm also going to write a
signed
piece wherein there's scope to make a stronger point. What did
however
concern me was the assertion that Bt cotton had an adverse
impact on
natural enemies of bollworm and that it encouraged the spread of
other
pests. If that were to be true, that'll be enough for the eco-warriors,
right? So, we come back to the scientific validity of the
results...anything to suggest that they might be flawed? are they
peer-reviewed?

Thanks.

Parul Malhotra
-------------------------

Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:13:12 -0400
From: "Alex Avery"
Subject: Greenpeace China BT "study"

Parul,

Thank you for the reply and posting on Agbiovew. I must ask you
why you
feel that an adverse impact on the natural predators of cotton
bollworm
should be considered a "negative environmental impact"?
Seriously, the
only reason there are any significant numbers of bollworms, and,
therefore, any significant numbers of insect predators of
bollworms is
because humans are growing artificially large amounts of cotton
plants--plants that wouldn't be there without human intervention.
That in
and of itself could be considered a "negative environmental
impact"
because those fields are displacing whatever natural flora and
fauna that
would grow there naturally. Those cotton fields are an artificial
agro-ecosystem. Therefore, just because we're successfully
suppressing a
significant pest of cotton (pests that simply wouldn't be in the
environment in any significant measure without human fields of
cotton) and
thus the populations of predators of the pest (populations of which
are
artificially high because of our human fields of cotton), we're
merely
stopping the artificial proliferation of insects and pests that arise
because of the cotton fields. I simply can't accept that this is a
"negative environmental impact."

I'm not about to dispute the validity of the research because I think
it's
accurate and illustrates the reason why farmers grow Bt crops.
These
results are positive, not negative. Unless you are a deep green
eco-activists, who often hope for crop failures and famines at the
hand of
mother nature, to reliever her of the "burden" of humanity. I'd rather
do
that by increasing yields on existing crop acreage and reducing the
off-farm impacts of farming (such as artificially inflated populations
of
crop pests and associated predatory species).

Am I making any sense?

Alex Avery
Hudson Institute
------------------------

From: "parul malhotra"
Subject: Greenpeace-China Study

Dear Alex,

Thanks very much for your insight. Ok, i did some thinking myself
after
receiving yr e-mail. Here's what I've come up with -- I started off by
by
being concerned about 2 findings of the study. One, that Bt cotton
encouraged the spread of other secondary pests, and two, that it
harmed
the natural enemies of the bollworm. I'm inclined to think that
there's
absolutely nothing to suggest the former's an adverse env impact.
In fact,
the greens ought to be relieved that Bt's not harming (only
encouraging!)
non-target organisms. If anybody has to, it's the farmer who ought
to
worry abt this.

It's the latter that continues to worry me. Ok, so i gladly accept your
argument that one needs a bit of perspective here. Of course,
stopping the
proliferation of insects cannot and should not be a greater env evil
than
say, increased chemical usage or the destruction of limited natural
resources -- all which is likely to happen if we don't use Bt cotton.
Granted. But, the fact remains that here's an instance (the
first-ever, i
might add) of Bt cotton harming (actually harming) a non-target
organism.
Unlike the Monarch case, this one actually seems valid. Worse
still, Bt
cotton's harming a bug which is a natural enemy of the bollworm,
the same
bug that Bt cotton acts against. How is that a positive result? I for
one
will find it hard to disagree with the greens if and when they pick
this
up. Am I crazy??!!

Parul Malhotra
-----------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 09:17:46 -0400
From: "Alex Avery"
Subject: Re: Greenpeace China BT "study"

If there is an artificially elevated population of a predatory insect
because of an artificially inflated population of it's prey insect -- all
because of an artificial environment full of a host crop planted by
mankind -- then effects on the predatory insect's population that
occur
after we surpress the pest population (all because of our artificial
agro-ecosystem) should not be considered an "environmental
negative."
These population scale effects -- as a result of reduced numbers
of the
prey insect -- is wholly different then directly toxic effects such as
those that were hypothesized might occur to the Monarch butterfly
from
toxic Bt pollen.

So, no I don't think you're crazy, but I don't think you are thinking far
enough back on this. The predatory insect population was only
elevated
because of our crop plantings which created the artificially high
populations of bollworms. In many respects, that artificially high
population of bollworms could be considered an environmental
negative
(because of secondary impacts and disrupting the "natural
balance" of
insect populations) and therefore, by surpressing the bollworms,
we're
restoring the natural balance.

Am I crazy?

Alex Avery
Hudson Institute
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Shantu Shantharam

Here is my own review of Bt Cotton in China report published by
Greenpeace.

A Scientific Review of the "A Summary of Research On The
Environmental
Impacta of Bt-Cotton in China" by Dayuan Xue, Nanjing Institute of
Environmental Sciences, The State Environmental Protection
Administration
of China, and published by Greenpeace. Disclaimers: These are
my personal
and professional opinions and do not represent the opinion of any
organization I am affiliated or employed with. I have almost fifteen
years
of regulatory experience with GMO, and mostly with the number
one category
of plants that have been field tested and commercialised in the
USA, which
is Bt gene expressing plants. In addition, I am a trained botanist,
microbiologist, and a molecular biologist. I have no specialized
background in entomology and training, but have acquired
sufficient
knowledge thru my experience as a regulatory scientist.

General Comments:

1. First of all it is a summary that seems to provide the appearance
of a
research paper, and it is not. The quality tells it all.

2. But, there are some tell tale lessons that anyone who cares to
steward
Bt crops in the field, should take cognisance of as far as
resistance
management issues are concerned. Not that people are not
aware of it, but
this report serves to remind about it just once more.

2. The author of the report is affiliated with the Government of
China,
and how Greenpeace is publishing his report is a big conundrum.
I would
like to know the opinion of Government of China on this report and
also
that of Chinese scientists and regulatory authorities.

3. By and large, the whole report is flooded with just one season
data in
the form of tables and graphs without any statistical analysis and
significance shown.

4. The report is in effect a risk assessment of Bt cotton under
Chinese
conditions. It is critical that fopr any meaningful risk assessment,
the
author should have conducted multivariate analysis of various
factors
before coming to any conclusion, and on that basis alone the
report is on
very weak ground to mean much.

5. It does not seem to have been peer reviewed. I say this
because, how
can one publish a scientific report in this day and age by ignoring
important publications of Carl Prey et al in SCIENCE and the a
review on
the subject in Annual Review of Entomology (2001). Any peer
reviewer would
have immediately caught this. I would like to see that this report is
reviewed by at least half a dozen different varieties of scientific
experts who can check on the conclusions.

6. Some conclusions were well known to all who understated the
basic
biology of insect resistance and insect population dynamics in
agricultural fields. Nothing-new there.

7. Most of the generalized conclusions seem to be invalid, as they
are not
substantiated by credible data.

8. It is really hard to review a report such as this without
scrutinizing
the raw data and also the methodology used to collect the data
and carry
out data analysis.

9. This report cannot be taken seriously, and would need
additional
rigorous data that has statistical significance.


Specific Comments:

1. Page 3; executive summary; item 1: the two sentences
contradict each
other: Item 2: Nothing new as far as the first sentence is
concerned as
Cry1Ac is specific to cotton bollworm. One will have to spray
appropriate
insecticides for other pests. It has never been suggested that Bt
cotton
will completely displace all chemical sprays; instead it significantly
reduces certain kinds of chemical sprays. The last sentence;
although a
possibility in the long term, it is highly improbable in such a short
time. Hard to believe that primary pest was replaced by other pests
in
four years. Item 3: Pest stability is low because of the selection
pressure of Bt. There is nothing new about it. Possibility of
outbreak of
some other pests is higher is a mere speculation. Should be
monitored
under field conditions before coming to such conclusions. Item 4:
Development of resistance to Bt is an established scientific fact
and it
is because of that reason there is so much scientific efforts to
design
the deployment of Bt crops in a manner to minimize the resistance
development. Resistance development is a dosage dependent
phenomenon and
is well known to scientists. Item 5: Is not simply true.
Unsubstantiated
claim. Item 6: Second sentence: It is not difficult to obtain high
dosage
expression in this day and age. Technologies are available and
have been
used. It speaks to the strength of the promoter sequences. High
dose
assumption and regulation have theoretical limits is may be true.
But
there are many creative ideas and designs that need to be tested
out and
are being tested to manage insect resistance under field
conditions.
Continuous progress is being made on that front. That clearly
warrants
that regulatory authorities in cooperation with scientists, extension
agents and company officials monitor the situation. I think this is
being
done admirably wherever Bt crops are being deployed.

2. Page 4; item 2: If Monsanto's Bt cotton occupies 65% of Bt
cotton area
in China, more power to Monsanto as it is the only company that is
marketing Bt cotton in China against feeble competition from the
public
sector.

3. Page 5: Lat Para clearly indicates that the author of the report is
using other scientist's data (which we don't get to see throughout
the
report), and has used his fertile imagination run wild with his
conclusions.

4. Page 6: Item 1 (1): There is no obvious cause and effect
relationship
established to come to that conclusion. Graph 1 shows just one 4
months
data. There is no way one can come to any valid conclusions from
such a
scant data.

5. Page 7: Graph 2 once again shows just one season study. Not
acceptable.

6. Page 7; item (3): seems to be a positive line for Bt cotton, but no
data shown. Item (4): Hard to review without examining the raw
data.

7. Page 8; item B: first Para, last sentence: What is meant by slight
impact? It should be insignificant impact, but once again where is
the
data to support it? Beet armyworm has become a serious pest in
China needs
substantiation. Are other scientists sleeping over this problem?
Hard to
believe! Only 70% of the armyworm is controlled by Bt cotton. No
one ahs
promised that Bt cotton would kill 100 %.

8. Page 10; item C: A statement of ingenious fact that we all
should just
swallow. There is no data and no reference to any other
publication. Item
D. Bt cotton could not have anything to do with this observation.
Graph 5:
Does not this graph show it is still better to grow Bt cotton than
non-Bt
cotton and also use chemical spray? Item (2) some secondary
pests become
primary pests in the absence of bollworm are simply astounding!
And
unbelievable.

9. Page 6; graph 6: Again one season studies no statistical
analysis and
no methodology described. Graph 6 and & look suspicious and
doctored to
me.

10. Page 12; Item C: graph belies the claim of 346% increase in
thrips.
Item D: all the claims of 68.3%, 288% and 57% all seem very hard
to
believe. Need supporting data.

11. Page 13; graph 9: None of the graphs show any significance
divergence
based on just one season study. I cannot understand how the
author could
come to any reasonable conclusion with that kind of meagre data.

12. Page 14; graphs 10 and 11: At best has no effect on Bt!

13. Page 15; graphs 12, 13, and 14: Also show Bt cotton in good
light, but
hard to believe in light of meagre data.

14. Page 17; item (1): the whole para is a bogus claim. It seems
the
author fancies the words insect diversity when in fact all that he is
talking about is simple and straightforward insect populations.
Diversity
is a complex issue and I don't think any one of the field trials have
studies the insect biodiversity in all its complexity. It does not
impress
me at all.

15. Page 18; second Para after Table 7: how long was this study
conducted
and where is the statistics?

16. Page 19; item 1: When an author says it is commonly
recognized, it is
nothing but an euphemism to cover up author's own baseless
assumptions and
beliefs. Common? How common? Para after graph 16. Needs
verification.

17. Page 20: first Para; second sentence: Bt pesticide>Bt
protoxin>Bt
cottonÖ surprise, surprise!!!! Cross-resistance phenomenon is
also well
known Fred Gould published it in PNAS years ago. There is
nothing new.
Industry is well aware of the issue and has taken enormous care
to steward
the product very ably in the USA where it has been grown for more
than six
years and field resistance has yet been discovered in spite of
monitoring.
Para 2 and 3: Observations are nothing new and allow ell known.
Needlessly, it has been painted in a negative way. Item (2); first
Para:
not unexpected. Para 2: done under artificial conditions and cannot
be
extrapolated to field conditions at all. Observations are good, but
need
verification.

18. Page 21: first Para: No relevance to field conditions. Item 2:
What is
crucial here is the design of the refuge and a white paper on the
subject
that has been peer reviewed has been put out by EPA on its
website.

19. Page 21; item (1) continuing on page 22 first two paras: The
reasoning
is good. But, no one has ever suggested that refuge is a silver
bullet,
but is an integral part of other strategies like gene stacking, high
dose
expression, and even gene modification. What this points out to is
one
more reminder that companies stewarding the Bt crops under field
conditions will have to pay special attention to the problem and
find
practical solutions. I think companies are acutely aware of it from
the
day 1, and doing their best.

20. Page 20; item (3): This might as well be. No one variety of Bt
cotton
will work in all geographical locations, and companies are well
advised to
pay heed to this observation and develop suitable Bt varieties for
different agro climatic conditions.

21. Page 23; item (4): All I can say "may be"! But gene stacking
must be
explored further to see if it is really a useful option.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++

Subject: David Suzuki, No Music Lover
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:54:29 -0400
From: "Greg Conko"

It seems that scientist-turned-activist David Suzuki knows as little
about
music as he does about biotechnology. In the article below, heís
quoted
saying, "If you took Bono out of U2 and stuck him in the Toronto
Symphony
and said make music, noise would come out but you have no way
of knowing
what it would sound like."

Of course, some readers may not appreciate the music of U2. But
the
broader point here is just the opposite of what Suzuki intended:
That is,
just as DNA bases are read in the same way whether they are in
plant,
bacteria, or animal cells, so is music read in the same way
whether it is
performed by a symphony orchestra or by a rock and roll band. A
gene is a
gene. And a professional musician is a professional musician.

The only question that remains is, now that Suzuki is on record
disparaging U2ís musical aptitude, can Bono be convinced to join
the
pro-biotechnology movement?

-Greg Conko
--------------------

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/wire/sns-ap-genetically-mo
dified-zood0610jun10.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dhealth%2Dheadl
ines


White House Opposes Biotech Labels

Associated Press
06/10/2002

TORONTO (AP) - The Bush administration opposes the labeling of
genetically
engineered food, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson told
the world's premier biotechnology industry gathering.

"Mandatory labeling will only frighten consumers," he said during a
breakfast speech Monday at the BIO 2002 conference. "Labeling
implies that
biotechnology products are unsafe."

Labeling food produced through genetic engineering is a touchy
subject for
the U.S. biotech industry, both at home and abroad. Domestically,
the
industry worries that labels would sour consumer demand.

Abroad, however, 19 countries require labeling and the European
Union has
since 1998 banned the sale of any new engineered products. The
ban has
angered U.S. exporters and hampered the growth of European
agricultural
biotech firms. The EU is expected to consider lifting the ban later
this
year, but may require labeling.

Some 70 percent of the world's biotech food is grown in the United
States.
Soy and corn genetically engineered to be pest- or
herbicide-resistant are
used in a wide variety of foods and drinks. The Food and Drug
Administration says the ingredients are just as safe as those
produced by
conventional methods.

U.S. officials have said the labeling could cost U.S. companies $4
billion
a year.

Thompson said biotechnology can lead to safer food that are
better for the
environment because of improved crop yields, among other
benefits.

Critics complain that not enough testing has been done to
determine the
long-term health effects of splicing the genes of two species
together to
create food.

"The science is so immature, we don't know what we are doing,"
Canadian
genetics professor David Suzuki said at an anti-biotech rally in a
Toronto
park on Sunday. If you took Bono out of U2 and stuck him in the
Toronto
Symphony and said make music, noise would come out but you
have no way of
knowing what it would sound like."

Thompson on Monday also called on drug makers to lower their
costs and
promised to overhaul the approval process of the FDA.

"We are creating an FDA where risk management is the rule and
not the
exception," he said. "You will not recognize the FDA a year from
now."

He said the FDA currently treats all applications the same, whether
its
for cosmetics or lifesaving drugs.

While the FDA is streamlining its application process, Thompson
called on
drug makers to lower the cost of their products.

"They're looked at as part of the problem instead of part of the
solution," he told a news conference. Some drugs sold in the
United States
sell for 40 percent less in other countries, including Canada,
Thompson
noted.

If drug companies don't heed the call to lower their prices, public
and
regulatory pressure could ultimately lead to price controls, he said.

Thompson also said that the impact on his department of
President Bush's
proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security have not
yet been
detailed. Bush proposed to move 300 workers, mostly involved
with
bioterrorism research, and $4 billion from Thompson's agency to
the new
department.

Thompson also said a permanent FDA chief could be nominated
"within a few
weeks." The post has been vacant since Bush's inauguration.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.africaonline.co.zw/mirror/stage/archive/020608/busines
s25247.html


The Sunday Mirror
8 June, 2002

Africa ëneeds GM crops to surviveí

MANY African scientists believe genetically modified (GM) crops
offer the
only hope of avoiding mass starvation on the continent.

The claim is made in a TV programme. It says that in dozens of
African
countries, ìbio-technology has sparked a mood of optimismî. The
programme
recognises the long-term fears of anti-GM campaigners, but says
Africaís
dilemma is acute. And it says many people in Africa think
biotechnology
can offer better health and prosperity as well. The programme is
The
High-Tech Harvest, made by Television Trust For The Environment
(TVE). It
is part of TVEís Earth Report series, shown on BBC World. It is
able to
produce fruit which mature faster, give much higher yields, and are
disease-free. Dr John Wafula is director of African Biotechnology, a
consortium set up by the industry, which helped to fund the making
of the
programme. He told TVE: ìIf you take a country like Kenya, over 80
percent
of our people are involved in farming, and yet they cannot provide
adequate food for a population of 30 million people. ìAs an African,
my
crusade is to ensure that my people are not dying of starvation. If
there
is anything I can do to contribute, I would be very willing to do that.î
Africa can barely feed its people now, the programme says - and
by 2050
its population will probably have doubled. To keep pace with
current
consumption, world food production ìhas to double by 2020 - an
unlikely
targetî. Tests of a GM sweet potato developed by scientists in
Kenya
suggest it could increase yields by up to 80%. Professor Nora
Olembo is
director of Kenyaís Industrial Property Office. She says: ìIf our
people
are hungry and there is a way of getting food produced with
resources that
are donated, then we should put those resources where they are
needed to
produce that food.î Cholera is a serious problem in South Africa,
but
experts say vaccinating everyone at risk would be prohibitively
expensive.
The vaccineís stability depends on temperature, too, so it could be
useless before it reached people in rural areas. South African
cotton
farmers tell TVE they can increase yields using a GM variety, and
cut
pesticide spraying. One says inhaling the spray can be fatal, and
he
thinks the new cotton will save lives. But Isabella Masinde of the
Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) tells the
programme: ìI
am scared. I need more information, just like all the other farmers
in
Africa. ìEven the policy-makers do not have this information.
Theyíre just
listening to debate from the developed world.î
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:23:05 -0500
From: "Tom DeGregori"
Subject: Cyberspace, search engines and Green propaganda

Recently, I have gone online using search engines - primarily
Google - to
research the succession of "frankenfears" that have regularly been
generated over the last decade. Much to my dismay, on topic after
topic,
when one punches in the key words, one is flooded with a variety
of wacko
"green" articles. Frequently, I have had to navigate through a long
array
to find even one article countering them. The question that I raise
here
is whether anyone else has had the same