July headlines

Return to July article index

GM tomato could open up vast new agricultural lands

July 31
The Guardian (UK)

The genetically modified tomato is the world's first crop that is tolerant of salt. Developed at the University of California, the fruit should not taste any different to standard tomatoes whether in your salad, your sandwich or your pasta sauce, say researchers.

The US and Canadian scientists who created the plant reported their findings to the journal Nature Biotechnology yesterday and hope that modifying other crops in the same way will transform poor quality, salty areas into productive land.

An estimated 10m hectares (24.7m acres) worldwide - equivalent to nearly half of the UK - is lost to agriculture each year because the land has become too salty, especially farmland in Africa and the developing world.

Modern irrigation methods often leave large salt deposits in the soil which can render farming impossible. Over time, sodium, calcium, magnesium and chloride build up and upset the ability of crops to draw water through their roots. When salt concentrations in soil run too high, the crop dehydrates and dies.

The new salt-proof tomato counteracts this by isolating salt from the soil, transporting it to its leaves and holding it there - trapped in compartments within its cells called vacuoles - away from the fruit.

More importantly, the new strain of plant "cleans" the soil by removing its salt. And because the salt is stored in the leaves, it does not taste salty.

The scientists manipulated a naturally occurring "transport protein" in the tomato into carrying salt around the plant. This was achieved by inserting a gene from the laboratory plant, thale cress.

The GM tomato can grow and produce fruit in irrigation water that is 50 times saltier than normal.

Eduardo Blumwald, from the University of California at Davis, who led the research, said: "Because environmental stress due to salinity is one of the most serious factors limiting the productivity of crops, this innovation will have significant implications for agriculture worldwide."

His team suggested that the tomato could help against food shortages; it is estimated that over the next 30 years food production needs to rise by 20% in the west, and 60% in the developing world to feed the expanding population.

Professor Blumwald hoped it would be possible to produce commercially useful salt-proof tomato plants in three years.

Michael Stocking of the University of East Anglia, a specialist in small farm agricultural development in the Tropics, said that salinity was one of the biggest problems for farming in the developing world, but it would not be solved by a single technological fix.

Prof Stocking said: "On small farm holdings run cooperatively, salinity is often a question of poor crop maintenance and poor economics. This tomato plant might be a short-term palliative measure, but it would not work unless the major economic issues were tackled."

Sites of gene-altered wheat secret: Ottawa

July 31
National Post

The federal government is refusing to disclose the locations of experimental fields of genetically modified wheat in five provinces, raising concerns about contamination of neighboring conventional crops.

Spokesman Stephen Yarrow said the Canadian Food Inspection Agency cannot reveal the locations of more than 50 test sites because the companies conducting the tests have expressed concerns about vandalism and industrial espionage.

Researchers are growing genetically modified strands of wheat in confined test sites in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. They are testing for increased herbicide tolerance and fungal resistance.

``If we can solve a problem like micro-toxins, then we're ensuring a healthier grain for public consumption,`` said Tom Francis, director of research with Syngenta, one of two companies conducting the trials.

Monsanto Canada Inc. did not return telephone calls yesterday.

Environmental groups argue the secrecy serves only to protect the corporations that are doing the testing.

``The decision to protect the interests of the company are taking precedence over the interest of Canadian wheat farmers and all Canadian citizens,`` said Cathy Holtslander of the Saskatchewan Eco Network.

But Mr. Francis said the secrecy protects the companies from acts of eco-terrorism such as the destruction of fields of genetically modified crops in Britain.

Mitchell Murphy, the Minister of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island, asked the food inspection agency this year where the tests were conducted last year in the province and who handled any complications, but he was told the information was strictly confidential.

``We didn't get any answers to any important questions and I absolutely think that the province has the right to know,`` Mr. Murphy said.

``In a perfect society we should know all this information,`` said Hal Cushon, director of policy and program development with Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, ``but in an imperfect one I think good science-based rules are the most important thing.``

The federal agency has strict guidelines for field-testing genetically modified crops. The guidelines include an ``isolation zone`` where the test crop must be grown at least 10 meters from any conventional crops to avoid any risk of cross-pollination.

Environmental groups are still concerned. ``I don't think they have studied the pollen flow issue enough to be sure this distance is adequate,`` Ms. Holtslander said.

Last year, the isolation zone was 10 meters, she said. ``What if next year we find out it has to be 100 meters or 500 meters to be safe?`` she added.

According to Syngenta`s Mr. Francis, the concern with wheat is not cross-pollination but the mechanical movement of the seeds. ``We can't guarantee that every single seed will stay, but the chance of that [movement] happening is minuscule,`` he said.

``There's never a 100% guarantee,`` agreed Mr. Cushon. ``We're more concerned with making sure we have the right protocol, rules and regulations around testing,`` than with location, he said.

Canadians, however, are concerned about what they eat, said Kevin Jeffrey, director of the Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network.

``People feel they have very little control over major environmental things,`` Mr. Jeffrey said. ``One of the few things we can control is personal food supply. If foods aren't labeled or are being contaminated, then we've lost control over that as well.``

With regard to public knowledge about the test sites, ``that's something we're struggling with,`` Mr. Yarrow said, ``but we are restricted under the freedom of information act`` as to which details can be released.

South Korea won't buy US corn despite EPA rules on StarLink

July 31
Dow Jones Newswire

SINGAPORE -- South Korea is not keen on buying edible corn from the U.S. despite new rules set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on genetically modified corn, an industry official said Tuesday.

The EPA said Friday it won't allow any amount of genetically modified Starlink corn in food products, since it hasn't been proven safe for human consumption. The new rules are the EPA`s response to a request by Aventis Crop Science, a division of Aventis S.A. (AVE), Starlink`s developer, to allow small amounts of Starlink corn in food products.

Despite this development, South Korea, one of Asia`s biggest buyers of edible U.S. corn, is still not keen on purchasing any U.S. corn.

A spokesman for the Seoul-based Korea Corn Processing Industrial Association, or Kocopia, said the association will not import any edible U.S. corn because the South Korean government is still not allowing its entry.

Until the ban is lifted, Kocopia can`t buy U.S. corn, the spokesman said. He said Kocopia is now buying edible corn from South America, Europe and South Africa.

South Korea`s ban on U.S. edible corn was imposed shortly after officials discovered early this month that several batches of imported edible U.S. corn were mixed with Starlink corn.

Kocopia is the only Seoul-based buying group for food-grade corn. It comprises South Korean cornstarch manufacturers and imports roughly 2 million metric tons of edible corn a year.

Crop of clones thrills farmers, worries critics

Biotech firms have been asked to keep such animals out of the food chain until a safety study is complete. But research proceeds

July 29
Los Angeles Times

DeFOREST, Wis. -- She has a case of silver trophies and blue ribbons and in almost every show she has entered, she has walked off a winner. Toronto. Hartford. Madison. Mandy is a celebrity and she seems to know it.

Her name has generated big buzz--in Holstein circles. Her pedigree is impeccable, her production of milk nearly twice that of the average cow.

So it seemed natural when her owner got the call. One Mandy was great, so how about a clone? Think of it. Those strong legs. That broad chest. That large udder that seemed welded under her belly. What about a carbon copy of this all-star bovine? Ron Bader had grown up on a dairy farm and had raised thousands of cattle over 30 years, but he wasn't keen on "tinkering with Mother Nature."

A visit to Infigen Inc., a biotechnology firm in this central Wisconsin town, erased his doubts. He saw healthy-looking clones and agreed.

"As you get older, you open your mind a little," the 69-year-old Bader says. "Years ago, this would have been a Buck Rogers-type thing. You wouldn't expect that it would ever happen."

But it did. Dolly proved that.

The birth of the sheep in Scotland in 1996--the first mammal cloned from an adult--was a landmark, turning the stuff of science fiction into a four-legged reality. Dolly offered a new way of reproducing and genetically modifying animals, a technology some say could save thousands of lives and generate billions of dollars.

Critics, however, say cloning is fraught with too many unknowns and potential hazards. A recent study in the journal Science reported that scientists doing cloning experiments found that even apparently normal animals develop disorders later in life.

Those reservations haven't stopped research.

Scientists are cloning elite cows and bulls--those that produce the most milk or the most tender beef.

They're copying pigs for organ and tissue transplants and genetically altering goats, cows and sheep to carry drugs in their milk.

They're duplicating disease-resistant farm animals. And coming soon, they predict, cats and dogs.

"We were dreaming about this 15 years ago, but certainly it was just a dream," says Chuck Long, general manager of Genetic Savings & Clone, a Texas-based biotechnology company with clients worldwide who have banked cells in hopes of copying their animals.

Pigs, cattle, goats, sheep and mice already have been cloned. And a team of scientists at Texas A&M University is working on "Missyplicity," a $3.7-million project to copy a 14-year-old dog financed by the pooch's owners.

Cloning also is being used to make transgenic animals--those altered with extra genetic material to enhance a trait--to serve as drug "factories," producing human proteins in their milk to fight diseases such as hemophilia and hepatitis.

But cloning is not limited to the research lab.

Last fall, Mandy appeared at an auction at the World Dairy Expo in Madison, entering the ring with the accouterments of a rock star--fog, a spotlight, the strains of music from "2001: A Space Odyssey."

"She kind of considers herself a queen," Bader says.

Her appearance that day was on behalf of her clone, which fetched $82,000 at the auction.

"If we get an exact clone of Mandy, it's going to be a piece of work," beams Spencer Landswerk, a lifelong dairyman and one of 14 members of a syndicate--including Bader--that bought the unborn clone, due this September.

At the Minnesota Zoo, Gene, a cloned bull, holds court with two cloned heifers, Carbon and Copy, all produced by Infigen.

Clones, contrary to Hollywood notions, aren't always the spitting image of their donors. Their color and markings may differ because of environmental factors.

Proponents say cloning could someday be an enormous benefit to everyone from farmers to people with genetic diseases.

"This technology is really an incredibly powerful tool for good," says Kevin Wells, a former Agriculture Department scientist who has worked on cloning.

But opponents argue that cloning is a way of playing God, that it allows scientists to produce animals they know could be abnormal and that it poses the danger of shrinking the genetic pool.

The recent study in the journal Science found that genes used in cloning often don't work properly, causing abnormalities in mice--a finding that bolsters the argument against human cloning.

Also, most cloned embryos die early during gestation. Those that survive frequently have health problems such as enlarged hearts, underdeveloped lungs or immune deficiencies. Some animals have been obese.

"All of those great promises about saving mankind--first of all, I don't believe it and I don't believe it's right," said Kathy Guillermo of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "We oppose using animals as test tubes with tails."

Cloning supporters say the kinks eventually will be worked out, but for now, cloning is inefficient.

It took 277 attempts before Dolly was produced. It took 95 for Millie, a heifer at the University of Tennessee that died in June of a bacterial infection.

"If a drug for headaches worked only 2% of the time, the FDA wouldn't approve it," says Wells, now at PPL Therapeutics, which financed the production of Dolly. "That's where we're at."

Low success means high costs: about $25,000 to $50,000 to clone an animal, up to $150,000 if there are genetic modifications, Wells says.

Most scientists predict costs will fall sharply, but some farmers still will find it a hassle, says Dr. Mark Westhusin, an associate professor at Texas A&M's college of veterinary medicine in charge of "Missyplicity."

But Bishop, Infigen's president, predicts "farmers will accept any technology that's affordable and makes them more money."

Researchers also say cloning could save farmers billions if disease-resistant animals were copied--which could eliminate the need for antibiotics.

Texas A&M has produced "Bull 86 Squared" from the frozen cells of his deceased Angus donor, "Bull 86," which was naturally resistant to brucellosis, tuberculosis and salmonellosis, all serious diseases.

How soon cloning reaches the average farmer depends partly on the federal government.

Biotech companies have been asked to keep cloned livestock out of the food chain until the National Academy of Sciences finishes a study of the technology's safety.

But some farmers and ranchers are forging ahead.

Bob Schauf, a Wisconsin farmer, had Blackrose, his prize-winning Holstein, cloned by Infigen. There are four copies.

"Our cow was like a one-in-a-lifetime deal," Schauf says. "Our dream would be to trot out one of the clones and have them win and bring her back."

Ralph and Sandra Fisher already have realized their dream. Texas A&M cloned their Brahman, Chance, who appeared in a movie and on David Letterman. The bull died before his copy was born.

But the Texas couple is elated to have his clone--Second Chance.

"We all look at him and shake our heads and hug each other and say, 'My God, we've got him back!' " Fisher says. "I don't think we'll ever lose that sense of awe. It's like you're in a plane wreck and your wife is missing for two weeks and you get her back."