Unapproved GM Wheat Discovered Again in the U.S.

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Dear Friends and Colleagues

GM wheat that has not been approved for sale or commercial production in the U.S has been found growing in a field in Washington state. No GM wheat has ever been commercialised, but GM wheat was authorised for field trials in the U.S. between 2000-2003. The GM wheat had previously been discovered growing in Oregon in 2013, and in Montana in 2014.

With best wishes,

Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net
________________________________________________________________________


http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/
content/news/articles/ap/2016/07/29/GMO_wheat_found_in_Washington_state_could_affect_US_trade.html

GMO wheat found in Washington state could affect US trade
By PHUONG LE,
July 29, 2016

Bt toxins can harm non-target organisms, with stronger combinatorial effects

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1237

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE 

Cry-toxin genes originating from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) are inserted into genetically modified (GM) plants, often called Bt-plants, to confer insect resistance to pests. Industry has consistently claimed that such insect protection is specific to target pests only i.e., not harmful to non-target species and biodiversity. 

A new study exposed Daphnia magna (a waterflea which is an important filter-feeder in aquatic ecosystems worldwide) to purified Cry1Ab and Cry2Aa toxins for the full lifespan of the animals. Animals exposed to 4.5 mg/L (ppm) of Cry1Ab, Cry2Aa and the combination of both showed markedly higher mortality, smaller body size and very low juvenile production compared to controls. Moreover, exposure to two Cry-toxins gave stronger effects in combination. In addition the herbicide Roundup stimulated animals to strong early reproductive output at the cost of later rapid mortality. 

This shows that Cry-toxins can have alternative modes-of-action in non-target organisms. The study also raises the concern that stacked GM plants that co-produce several Cry-toxins, and/or herbicide tolerance traits may have stronger negative effects on non-target organisms as compared to single-trait plants.

The researchers recommend more detailed studies on the combinatorial effects of multiple Cry-toxins and herbicides (like glyphosate/Roundup) that co-occur in the environment and on the physiological effects of different Cry-toxins. This will enable regulatory authorities to better assess the risks of releasing GM plants into the environment and the fate of residues of transgenic material and Cry-toxins in run-off to aquatic environments.  

With best wishes, 

Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

---

DAPHNIA MAGNA NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY CHRONIC EXPOSURE TO PURIFIED CRY-TOXINS 

Thomas Bøhn, Carina Macagnan Rover, Philipp Robert Semenchukhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691516300722 

GM Cotton's Future in Africa on Shaky Ground

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1218

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) insect-resistant (Bt) cotton is grown in South Africa and Burkina Faso. A recently published journal paper explains how within 10 years of its introduction, most growers had abandoned Bt cotton altogether in Makhathini, South Africa, and why Burkina Faso has begun a complete phase out of GM cotton, in spite of being Africa's top cotton producer.

Burkina Faso's conventional cotton traditionally had a stellar international reputation and commanded a premium price based on its high quality, namely, its high ginning ratio and long staple length. Both qualities have seriously declined with the GM cotton, seriously undermining the reputation and value of Burkinabè cotton on the international market and compromising the profits of Burkinabè cotton companies. The companies are reportedly demanding that Monsanto compensate them to the tune of USD 280 million for losses incurred due to declines in quality since 2010.

The Burkina Faso case points to the risks of unintended effects in GM crops, in this instance, the insertion of the Bt trait into the local variety appears to have interfered unexpectedly with some of its most important characteristics, affecting commercial value. Also the exclusive focus on pest mitigation contrasts sharply with the Francophone West African breeding programmes, which have spent decades successfully integrating a broad spectrum of adaptability (to local growing conditions) and fibre quality characteristics. While yields were high, the experience of Burkina Faso demonstrate that focus on yield is not the defining factor of a crop’s success.

One possible implication of this phase out is that other Francophone African countries may be reluctant to adopt Bt cotton given the risks to their own highly valued reputations. It may also discourage other African countries that are considering the adoption of Bt cotton in the next few years. According to the paper, a key determinant will be the extent to which African governments and citizens are reassured that the transplantation of GM traits into their own cultivars will leave their most valued characteristics unchanged.

A Systems-Based Assessment of GMOs Urgently Needed

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1176

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Over the past 20 years, agricultural biotechnologies have generated chronically unresolved political controversies. Their governance has largely been restricted to regulation through a technical assessment of risks to human health and the environment. Resistance to the commercialisation of GMOs, however, stems from a wide spectrum of concerns, covering issues well beyond the scope of risk assessment such as socio-economic impacts.

A new paper looks at this situation from a systems perspective.

The authors cite how researchers have typically conceived and assessed genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as neutral, autonomous and individualised technological objects, ignoring the fact that they operate as socio-technical and socio-ecological systems. They argue that a systems-based approach to GMOs is required to (a) acknowledge and account for the way in which all technologies are inevitably entangled in complex networks of material and conceptual relations; and (b) to adequately capture, consider and assess the full range of concerns the public has regarding GMOs.

The authors of the paper review available work from across different disciplines and traditions and propose a set of methodological guidelines for creating comparative cartographies of "agri/cultures" for the purpose of advancing a systems-based approach to our understanding and assessment of GMOs.

With best wishes

Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twn@twnetwork.org
Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/
To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to biosafety@twnetwork.org
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

---

SEEING GMOS FROM A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE: THE NEED FOR COMPARATIVE CARTOGRAPHIES OF AGRI/CULTURES FOR SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Amaranta Herrero, Fern Wickson and Rosa Binimelis

www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Abstract

Over the past twenty years, agricultural biotechnologies have generated chronically unresolved political controversies. The standard tool of risk assessment has proven to be highly limited in its ability to address the panoply of concerns that exist about these hybrid techno/organisms. It has also failed to account for both the conceptual and material networks of relations agricultural biotechnologies require, create and/or perform. This paper takes as a starting point that agricultural biotechnologies cannot be usefully assessed as isolated technological entities but need to be evaluated within the context of the broader socio-ecological system that they embody and engender. The paper then explores, compares and contrasts some of the methodological tools available for advancing this systems-based perspective. The article concludes by outlining a new synthesis approach of comparative cartographies of agri/cultures generated through multi-sited ethnographic case-studies, which is proposed as a way to generate system maps and enable the comparison of genetically modified (GM) food with both conventional and alternative agri-food networks for sustainability assessment. The paper aims to make a unique theoretical and methodological contribution by advancing a systems-based approach to conceptualising and assessing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and proposing a synthesised methodology for mapping networks of relations across different agri/cultures.

No substantial equivalence

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1172

Biosafety Information Centre →

Systems Biology Study Finds GMOs not “substantially equivalent”

The safety assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a contentious topic. In the U.S., the debate centres around the methodology used to determine the criteria for substantial equivalence (whether GMOs are “equivalent” to their non-GMO counterparts).

A new peer reviewed study (Item 1), based on a computational systems biology analysis, has found that the genetic modification/engineering of soy disrupts the plant’s natural ability to control stress and causes an accumulation of formaldehyde, a known Class 1 carcinogen, as well as a dramatic depletion of glutathione, an important anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification. Systems biology looks at the complexity of the whole organism as a system rather than just studying its parts, which the authors contend would provide a framework for more appropriate criteria to measure how GMOs affect the emergent properties of a whole system.

The study concludes the U.S. government’s current standard for safety assessment of GMOs, based on the principle of “substantial equivalence,” is outdated and unscientific for genetically engineered food as it was originally developed for assessing the safety of medical devices in the 1970s. If formaldehyde and glutathione were used as distinguishing criteria, the GM soy would likely not be deemed “equivalent” to its non-GMO counterpart. This calls into question the FDA’s food safety standards for the entire country. (Item 2)

The study underscores the urgent need to modernize safety assessments of GMOs, and the author argues that “This is not a pro- or anti-GMO question. But, are we following the scientific method to ensure the safety of our food supply? Right now, the answer is ‘no’. We need to, and we can, if we engage in open, transparent, and collaborative scientific discourse, based on a systems biology approach.”

Where are the studies on social impacts of GM crops?

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1173

Comprehensive Studies on the Social Impacts of GM Crops Seriously Lacking

A review of 99 peer-reviewed journal articles published since 2004 on the social impacts of GM crops has been done, summarising current knowledge and identifying research gaps, with the aim of determining the current state of knowledge in order to contribute to a more evidence-based and less polarised dialogue on GM crops in agriculture.

The review found that very few studies took a comprehensive view of the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture. The literature was dominated by studies on economic impacts which presented a more positive picture of the role of GM crops in socially sustainable agriculture than was warranted. The review showed that economic impacts for different groups of farmers were in fact very mixed and that the political and regulatory context had significant impact on the ability of different groups of farmers in different locations to benefit. In addition, while wellbeing was frequently discussed, it was rarely studied and cultural heritage and farm level risk from GM crops were rarely covered.

Another finding was that the way in which GM crops were governed today reinforced market dominance by private industry and particularly reduced the possibilities for GM crops to benefit poorer and more marginalised farmers. In addition, there was a clear lack of knowledge regarding the social impacts of GM crops on farmers in the Global North. Existing literature focused almost exclusively on farming in the Global South.

Moreover, the review found that two-thirds of publications are based on previously published empirical evidence, indicating a need for new empirical investigations into the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture.

The Abstract, Discussions and Conclusions of the paper are reproduced below.

With best wishes

Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twn@twnetwork.org
Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/
To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to biosafety@twnetwork.org
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

---

SOCIAL IMPACTS OF GM CROPS IN AGRICULTURE: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

by Fischer, K., Ekener-Petersen, E., Rydhmer, L., & Björnberg, K. E.
Sustainability, 7(7), 8598-8620.
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/7/8598/htm

Abstract

It has recently been argued that the fragmented knowledge on the social impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops is contributing to the polarised debate on the matter. This paper addresses this issue by systematically reviewing 99 peer-reviewed journal articles published since 2004 on the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture; summarising current knowledge, and identifying research gaps. Economic impact studies currently dominate the literature and mainly report that GM crops provide economic benefits for farmers. Other social impacts are less well studied, but present a more complex picture. Studies on access to and benefits of GM crops show that these vary significantly depending on the political and regulatory setting. Substantial evidence indicates that intellectual property rights (IPR) and the private industry’s dominance limit the access and utility of available GM crops to many farmers. Wellbeing is frequently discussed in the literature, but rarely investigated empirically. Existing evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. Impact studies from the Global North are virtually non-existent. Moreover, two-thirds of publications are based on previously published empirical evidence, indicating a need for new empirical investigations into the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture.

Compelling Evidence of Human Health Effects of Pesticides

THIRD WORLD NETWORK INFORMATION SERVICE ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Dear Friends and Colleagues 

The use of synthetic chemical pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.) in agriculture around the world began in the 1950s with the onset of industrial agriculture through the ‘Green Revolution’. Since then, industrial agriculture has come to rely increasingly on the use of these chemicals, many of which have become extremely pervasive and persistent in the environment as a result of their widespread repeated use. Pesticideshave been found in every habitat on earth and are routinely detected in both marine and terrestrial mammals.

A report by Greenpeace examines the growing body of research relating to known and suspected human health effects of pesticides, given that the general population is exposed to a cocktail of pesticides daily through food and polluted air, water and soil. Among the many active ingredients that are potentially dangerous to health are the currently approved organophosphates, chlorpyrifos and malathion. Some groups of people are particularly exposed/vulnerable such as farmers and pesticide applicators, young children and fetuses in the womb. The report cites compelling evidence showing correlations between pesticide exposure and incidences of childhood leukemia, several types of cancer, neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, and endocrine and immune system disruptions along with transgenerational effects.

The report calls for an urgent paradigm shift from industrial agriculture with its heavy reliance on chemical additives towards the full implementation of ecological farming as the only means of feeding the world healthy and safe food and protecting the ecosystems we live in. With this, it underscores the necessity of a phase-out of synthetic chemical pesticides, through legally binding national and international agreements and targets.

The Executive Summary of the report is reproduced below. The full report can be accessed athttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Agriculture/Pesticides-and-our-Health/

With best wishes,

Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twn@twnetwork.org
Websites: http://www.biosafety-info.net/and http://www.twn.my/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

---

PESTICIDES AND OUR HEALTH - A GROWING CONCERN

Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Agriculture/Pesticides-and-our-Health/

Executive Summary

Since 1950, the human population has doubled, yet the area of arable land used to feed these people has increased by only 10%. There are huge pressures to provide food, at low cost, on land that is becoming more and more degraded as nutrients are stripped from the soil. Reliance on external inputs – fertilisers and pesticides – continues to be the short-term solution for large-scale commercially intensive agricultural systems.

Synthetic pesticides have been widely used in industrial agriculture throughout the world since the 1950s. Over time, many of these chemicals have become extremely pervasive in our environment as a result of their widespread repeated use and, in some cases, their environmental persistence. Some take an extremely long time to degrade, such that even those banned decades ago, including DDT and its secondary products, are routinely found in the environment today.

As a consequence of this persistence, and potential hazards to wildlife, effect-related research on the impact of pesticides has increased exponentially over the past 30 years (Köhler and Triebskorn 2013). It is now clear that these effects are wide and varied. Over the same period, scientific understanding of the effects of pesticides on human health and their mechanisms of action has also expanded rapidly, with studies revealing statistical associations between pesticide exposure and enhanced risks of developmental impairments, neurological and immune disorders and some cancers.

Nevertheless, proving definitively that exposure to a particular pesticide causes a disease or other condition in humans presents a considerable challenge. There are no groups in the human population that are completely unexposed to pesticides, and most diseases are multi-causal giving considerable complexity to public health assessments (Meyer-Baron et al. 2015). Furthermore, most people are exposed to complex and ever changing mixtures of chemicals, not just pesticides, in their daily lives, through multiple routes of exposure. Pesticides contribute further to this toxic burden.

What next after a ban on glyphosate?

June 30, 2015

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE Dear Friends and Colleagues The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), the Network for a GE Free Latin America (RALLT) and the Third World Network have today released a briefing titled, What next after a ban on glyphosate—more toxic chemicals and GM crops? Or the transformation of global food systems.? The briefing has been prompted by the recent conclusion of the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC), of the World Health Organization (WHO), that glyphosate, the world’s most-used chemical ingredient for weed control, is a “probable human carcinogen”. In recent years, the use of glyphosate has come to be associated with herbicide-tolerant (HT) genetically modified (GM) crops, with glyphosate use increasing dramatically in all major GM HT crop-producing countries. The consequences for human health and the environment have been disastrous in many communities. A number of countries have already taken action to reduce or halt the use of glyphosate in response to the IARC assessment. While glyphosate is still in use and is heavily relied upon for GM soya production in particular, Monsanto and other biotechnology and agro-chemical companies are already planning for business after glyphosate. A plethora of GM crops that are tolerant to multiple toxic herbicides – including 2,4-D and dicamba – are already approved for the market, while Monsanto has recently sought the potential acquisition of Syngenta, the world’s largest producer of herbicides. The groups are calling for a ban on glyphosate, given the evidence. However, they insist that other toxic herbicides must similarly also come under urgent review and that adequate measures must be put in place to ensure that more toxic chemicals do not replace glyphosate.   Further, they argue that it is imperative that the IARC’s findings take the debate further—into deeper conversations about the characteristics of our food and agriculture systems and how they interact with and impact upon people and the environment. A shift is urgently needed from chemical-input agriculture to agro-ecology.  The groups are also calling for appropriate international bodies to initiate programmes for the fair and equitable reparations to affected people as well as the restoration and remediation of contaminated environments. The briefing is attached below. With best wishes Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twn@twnetwork.org Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/ To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to biosafety@twnetwork.org To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

Printer friendly version

Download document(s): » Glyphosate report web.pdf (English - pdf - 1109 Kb)

Agroecology: A Proven Plan of Action to Ensure Food Security and Sovereignty

THIRD WORLD NETWORK INFORMATION SERVICE ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Dear Friends and Colleagues

Agroecology is necessary for social and ecological transformation and is the best solution to ending hunger and ensuring climate change resilience and environmental sustainability. This is the conclusion of social movements and grassroots organizations that are working on agroecology as captured in anew publication by WhyHunger which shares the perspectives of some of these groups as well as the social, political, cultural, nutritional, and spiritual meaning of agroecology to their communities.

For indigenous people and peasants, agroecology is regarded as a way of life.It frees people from the dangers of chemical pesticides and fertilizers andbrings communities together in the creation of their own solutions to conserve soil and water, and produce healthy food and healthy communities. “A social and political project and methodology enacted at the base in rural communities” which always involves “participatory and local decisions about what, how and when to produce”, it advances the peasant struggle for productive resources and self-determination.In a nutshell: “Food sovereignty is the concept. Agroecology is the plan of action.”

The publication discusses what is necessary to “bring agroecology to scale” which involves scaling upagroecology by increasing research, training, and supportive policies; and scaling outby supporting the dissemination of peasant-led agroecological practices through peasant-to-peasant exchanges and training.

The Preface of the publication is reproduced below.

With best wishes,

Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twn@twnetwork.org
Websites: http://www.biosafety-info.net/and http://www.twn.my/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

---

AGROECOLOGY – PUTTING FOOD SOVEREIGNTY INTO ACTION

by WhyHunger

http://www.whyhunger.org/getinfo/showArticle/articleId/4137

Preface

Agroecology is a science and practice defined in the daily lives of millions of families worldwide. It represents both a form of agricultural production and a process for organizing and building community self-determination. As Ibrahima Coulibaly from Mali says, “Agroecology is not an alternative.” This publication shows that agroecology is a way of life and is one of the paths to end hunger and transform society.

Agroecology brings communities together in the creation of their own solutions to produce healthy food and conserve soil and water. Agroecology is based on communities having access to and control of local resources like land, water and seeds and on working toward local food sovereignty. Because it is developed by communities and maintained through democratic social movements, agroecology nourishes the local and global struggle for food sovereignty and climate justice, which is growing more urgent every day. Though agroecology relies on local knowledge and local resources, the efforts to “scale up” and “scale out” agroecology are global. “Scaling up” — increasing support from institutions and policymakers — and “scaling out” — spreading agroecology to other farmers and communities — are critical, and the movement is strengthened through sharing the different practices of agroecology from around the world.

This publication is not a technical guide to agroecology. It does not discuss or share the science behind agroecological farming, and it does not include examples of farming practices. This publication does not try to present agroecology as a new technological fix or as a set of farming practices that can be learned and replicated with a “how to” manual. Instead, this publication shares the perspectives of members of social movements and grassroots organizations that are building agroecology and highlights the social, political, cultural, nutritional, and spiritual meaning of agroecology to their communities.

La Via Campesina, a global social movement, says, “the origin of agroecology is the accumulated knowledge of rural people, systematized and further developed through a dialogue of different kinds of knowledge: scientific knowledge, knowledge of organizing communities, and the everyday practical knowledge of agroecology and food production.” This publication embodies the ongoing dialogue of grassroots knowledge and features peasant and indigenous men, women, and youth who are the stewards of agroecology in the US and the Global South. Agroecology belongs to communities, so we hope that the knowledge summarized here will help to generate dialogue in other communities and among consumers and food producers. And further we hope this publication will expand our collective struggle for justice and international solidarity and support the leadership of communities around the world facing the impacts of the commodification of food and the growing influence of international agribusinesses in our food system.

"Scaling Up" Agroecology

The question of how agroecology can make an impact at a greater scale has been at the center of the debates among NGOs, scholars, and policymakers at national and international levels. The question of how to increase the number of people and places impacted by agroecology everyday is important, and we must recognize that peasant and small farmer communities are at the center of agroecology, both as a science and as a way of life. Bringing agroecology to scale means both “scaling up” and “scaling out” agroecology — scaling up agroecology by increasing research, training, and supportive policies; and scaling out by supporting the dissemination of peasant-led agroecological practices through peasant-to-peasant exchanges and training. Specifically, scaling agroecology up and out needs:

• Increased funding for social movements’ priorities.
• Support for the rights to land, seeds, and water of local communities.
• Substantial government commitment, away from policies that subsidize international agribusinesses and toward significant funding for technical assistance for farmers; farmer-led research of agroecological practices; and basic infrastructure of roads, schools, and other services still lacking in many rural communities.
• Democratic reviews of free trade agreements and other international agreements that disregard and even curb farmers’ rights to multiply, store, and share seeds.

GM Contamination Register Logs 396 Incidents over 17 Years

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1118

November 26, 2014

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE     Article 17 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety addresses unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures to be taken in the case of such movements. The Protocol requires Parties to take appropriate measures to notify affected or potentially affected States when it knows of a release leading to an unintentional transboundary movement of an GMO that is likely to have significant adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health.  Many cases of unintentional transboundary movements have taken place since the introduction of GMOs. Some of these are also illegal transboundary movements, which are addressed by Article 25 of the Protocol.  In the absence of a global monitoring system, GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International launched the GM Contamination Register database (www.contaminationregister.org) in 2005 to record all publically documented incidents of contamination arising from the intentional or accidental release of GM organisms as well as illegal plantings of GM crops and reported adverse agricultural side-effects. An analysis of the Register database has been recently published. From 1997 to the end of 2013, 396 incidents in 63 countries were recorded. There have also been nine cases of contamination associated with GM lines with no authorisation for cultivation anywhere in the world, hence these have not been risk assessed. An analysis of the data concludes that “GM contamination can occur independently of commercialisation”, as evidenced by GM rice which has never been grown commercially but which records the highest number of contamination incidents. GM maize, soya and oilseed rape, all grown commercially, rate next.  Once GM contamination has happened, it can be difficult to contain it. However, the detection of GM contamination is dependent on routine and targeted regimes, which is inconsistent across countries. Furthermore, the lack of analytical methodology to detect GM crops at the field trial stage poses an obstacle to detecting any arising contamination. The Abstract and Conclusions of the paper are reproduced below.  With best wishes  Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/ To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to news@biosafety-info.net To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net http://www.foodcontaminationjournal.com/content/1/1/5 THE GM CONTAMINATION REGISTER: A REVIEW OF RECORDED CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS ASSOCIATED WITH GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOS), 1997–2013  Becky Price and Janet Cotter International Journal of Food Contamination 2014, 1:5 doi:10.1186/s40550-014-0005-8 Abstract Background Since large-scale commercial planting of genetically modified (GM) crops began in 1996, a concern has been that non-GM crops may become contaminated by GM crops and that wild or weedy relatives of GM crops growing outside of cultivated areas could become contaminated. The GM Contamination Register contains records of GM contamination incidents since 1997 and forms a unique database. By the end of 2013, 396 incidents across 63 countries had been recorded.

Genome Editing Requires Scientific Caution and Regulation

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1122

December 03, 2014

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE  Genome editing is an advanced genetic engineering technology that can directly modify a gene within a genome. Examples include genome editing with nucleases such as zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and the clustered regularly inter-spaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas system. Scientists have warned that some organisms modified by genome editing may appear almost identical to naturally occurring organisms, making genetic characterization difficult. While acknowledging that genome editing demonstrates efficient and effective genetic engineering, they caution that it is creating indistinct regulatory boundaries between naturally occurring and modified organisms. They also cite other risks such as unforeseen functional losses or gains in the modified organisms, which may threaten biodiversity. Furthermore, unforeseen immunogenicity or toxicity in agricultural products could have adverse health impacts. Strict scientific scrutiny of these organisms is therefore required before any environmental release or placing on the market is considered.  One major issue raised is whether some techniques of genome editing will fall under current regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The scientists call for scientific accountability in R&D to “avoid misleading society” and for the establishment of appropriate regulations to govern the technology. With best wishes  Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/ To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to news@biosafety-info.net To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net http://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/pdf/S0167-7799(14)00055-9.pdf CAUTION REQUIRED FOR HANDLING GENOME EDITING TECHNOLOGY By Motoko Araki1, Kumie Nojima2, and Tetsuya Ishii1 Trends in Biotechnology May 2014, Vol. 32, No. 5 doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.03.005 1 Office of Health and Safety, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0808, Japan 2 Molecular Imaging Center, National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Chiba 263-8555, Japan  Genome-editing technology, although a robust tool for genetic engineering, is creating indistinct regulatory boundaries between naturally occurring and modified organisms. However, researchers must act with caution in research and development to avoid misleading society. Furthermore, appropriate regulations should be proactively discussed and established for handling genome-editing technology.

Changing Course to Feed the World in 2050

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1120

December 01, 2014

THIRD WORLD NETWORK INFORMATION SERVICE ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE  The theme for this year's World Food Prize was: “The Greatest Challenge in Human History: Can We Sustainably Feed the 9 Billion People on our Planet by the Year 2050?” A report by ActionAid USA states that feeding the world is possible only if we change course, moving away from the current destructive model of industrial agriculture which has been fueled by the gross misconception that hunger is due to inadequate food production rather than the real cause: inequitable access to food and food-producing resources. The real threats to food security are identified as expansions in biofuel production, inadequate investment in climate-resilient small-scale agriculture, poor support for smallholder and women food producers, and spoilage and waste of one third of the food produced. Pro-biofuelpolicies in particular are projected to divert as much as 13% from cereal production by 2030. The recommendations to change course call for scaling back on industrial agriculture and biofuel production; establishing policies to reduce food wastage, and unfair distribution and access; and investing in sustainable small-scale food production in developing countries where most of the hungry live and rely primarily on agriculture for their livelihoods. An article on the report, and the report’s Executive Summary are reproduced below as Items 1 and 2, respectively. With best wishes Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/and http://www.twn.my/ To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net Item 1 http://foodtank.com/news/2014/10/to-feed-the-world-in-2050-we-have-to-change-course?utm_source=GDAE+Subscribers&utm_campaign=15f4860d6b-FoodTank_Feed_World_10_17_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_72d4918ff9-15f4860d6b-52161433 To Feed the World in 2050 We Have to Change Course by Timothy A. Wise and Kristin Sundell 17 OCTOBER 2014 The 2008 global food price spikes were a wake-up call to global policymakers, shaking them from the lethargic slumber of the overfed. The rhetorical responses were swift, but policies and practices have changed little. That is in part because they relied on the tried-and-failed solution of increasing commodity food production. Item 2 Rising to the Challenge: Changing Course to Feed the World in 2050 Action Aid USA October 2013 Since the 2007-8 food price crisis, alarms have sounded regarding our ability to feed a growing population in 2050. Some warn that we need to double food production; others estimate that food production must increase by 60-70%. All feed the alarmist notion that global hunger is the result of flagging food production amid looming resource constraints. The misguided policy prescriptions that follow typically call for the expansion of industrial-scale agricultural development, ignoring the true threats to our global food supply: biofuels expansion, inadequate investment in climate-resilient agriculture, lagging support for small-scale and women food producers, and the massive loss of food to spoilage and waste.

Altering Wild Populations through “Gene Drives” – Weighing the Risks

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1117

November 24, 2014

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE     “Gene drives” enable traits to spread rapidly through wild populations over many generations. The use of genetically engineered gene drives has, to date, remained largely theoretical due to technical constraints. However technological advances have meant that powerful and efficient techniques for genome engineering can be applied to enable the development of an increasing number of tools well-suited to rapidly building and testing gene drives.  Because gene drives offer the prospect of manipulating many generations of a wild species, the risks have to be very carefully weighed against the potential benefits. In a paper published in the journaleLife, scientists from Havard call for public debate on gene drives. Given the potential for gene drives to alter entire wild populations and therefore ecosystems, they affirm that the development of this technology must include robust safeguards and methods of control. Another paper simultaneously published in the journal Science, written by the same authors together with others including policy experts, outlines the limitations of the technology as well as regulatory gaps that need to be first addressed. The scientists recommend that regulators adopt “a function-based approach that defines risk in terms of the ability to influence any key biological component the loss of which would be sufficient to cause harm to humans or other species of interest.” They caution that “gene drives present environmental and security challenges” and cite 10 steps to manage these risks, stressing that “It is crucial that this rapidly developing technology is evaluated before its use outside the laboratory becomes a reality”.   An article on this issue is reproduced below as Item 1 while the abstract and excerpts from the two journal papers appear as Items 2 and 3, respectively.   With best wishes  Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/ To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to news@biosafety-info.net To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net Item 1 http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2014/07/17/harvard-scientists-propose-gene-technology-that-could-alter-organisms-wild/Ae4XBtXhwOLOeKPQlabbcP/story.html Harvard scientists want gene-manipulation debate  By Carolyn Y. Johnson The Boston Globe, July 17, 2014 A powerful new technology could be used to “edit” the genomes of organisms in the wild, enabling researchers to block mosquitoes’ ability to spread malaria, for example, or make weeds more vulnerable to pesticides, Harvard scientists proposed Thursday. Item 2 http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/07/17/eLife.03401  Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations  Kevin M Esvelt, Andrea L Smidler, Flaminia Catteruccia, George M Church  DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03401 Published July 17, 2014 Abstract  Gene drives may be capable of addressing ecological problems by altering entire populations of wild organisms, but their use has remained largely theoretical due to technical constraints. Here we consider the potential for RNA-guided gene drives based on the CRISPR nuclease Cas9 to serve as a general method for spreading altered traits through wild populations over many generations. We detail likely capabilities, discuss limitations, and provide novel precautionary strategies to control the spread of gene drives and reverse genomic changes. The ability to edit populations of sexual species would offer substantial benefits to humanity and the environment. For example, RNA-guided gene drives could potentially prevent the spread of disease, support agriculture by reversing pesticide and herbicide resistance in insects and weeds, and control damaging invasive species. However, the possibility of unwanted ecological effects and near-certainty of spread across political borders demand careful assessment of each potential application. We call for thoughtful, inclusive, and well-informed public discussions to explore the responsible use of this currently theoretical technology. Item 3 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6197/626.full REGULATING GENE DRIVES  Kenneth A. Oye, Kevin Esvelt, Evan Appleton, Flaminia Catteruccia, George Church, Todd Kuiken, Shlomiya Bar-Yam Lightfoot, Julie McNamara, Andrea Smidler, James P. Collins  [EXCERPTS]  Genes in sexually reproducing organisms normally have, on average, a 50% chance of being inherited, but some genes have a higher chance of being inherited. These “selfish” genes can increase in relative frequency in a population even if they reduce the odds that each organism will reproduce. Aided by technological advances, scientists are investigating how similar methods might be used to alter populations by adding, disrupting, or editing genes and to suppress populations by propagating traits that reduce reproductive capacity. Potential beneficial uses of such “gene drives” include reprogramming mosquito genomes to eliminate malaria, reversing the development of pesticide and herbicide resistance, and locally eradicating invasive species. However, drives may present environmental and security challenges as well as benefits.

Herbicides Used with GM Crops Cause Steep Monarch Butterfly Decline in North America

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1105

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

A news report cites an alarming 90% drop in the Monarch butterfly population in North America, attributed to the decline in milkweed, which is the only food the caterpillars eat. The Monarch (Danaus plexippus) is one of the world’s greatest insect migrators; it flies some 4,800 km from Canada to Mexico over four generations.

The huge reduction in milkweed is attributed by scientists to the widespread cultivation of Roundup Ready GM crops in the U.S., which uses massive amounts of the herbicide, glyphosate. Monarch numbers have dropped from one billion in the mid-90s to only 35 million in 2013-2014.

Organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, and the Xerces Society have filed a petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Monarch as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

“The monarch is the canary in the cornfield,” says Lincoln Brower, a Monarch expert, “a harbinger of environmental change that we’ve brought about on such a broad scale that many species of pollinators are now at risk if we don’t take action to protect them.”

With best wishes 

Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang

Malaysia

Email: twnet@po.jaring.my
Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/
To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to news@biosafety-info.net

To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

'CANARY IN THE CORNFIELD': MONARCH BUTTERFLY MAY GET THREATENED SPECIES STATUS
Morgan Erickson-Davis, mongabay.com

http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0908-morgan-monarch-esa.html 

Monarch butterflies were once a common sight throughout the North American heartland. In Mexico, where they overwinter, single trees would often be covered in thousands. But declines in milkweed – their caterpillars’ only source of food – have led to a 90 percent decline in monarch numbers. Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is reviewing a petition that would grant the iconic species protection through the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Review Finds GM Herbicide-Resistant Crops Will Bring About Further Loss of Biodiversity

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1104

October 21, 2014

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE    First introduced in the 1990s, 84.6% of all genetically modified (GM) crops worldwide carried herbicide resistance traits (144 mil. ha) by 2012. Herbicide-resistant (HR) crops occupy about 59% of the 170.3 million hectares under GM cultivation globally, with GM crops with stacked traits (basically herbicide and insect resistance) covering 25.6%. Many studies have been done on HR crop use patterns and impacts. A review of these studies has been jointly conducted by three government agencies from Germany, Switzerland and Austria, to extract the lessons learnt, paying particular attention to the impact on biodiversity. Scientific studies have established that agricultural intensification and pesticide use are among the main drivers of biodiversity loss. There are concerns that HR crops will help to further intensify farming and may therefore increase pressure on biodiversity. The review finds evidence to conclude that HR crops cannot reduce herbicide use in the longer term, and will in fact be associated with a further loss of biodiversity including whole food webs, wild flora, seeds, and ecosystem functions in agricultural fields. Other concerns raised include observations that in regions where HR crops are widely adopted, less crop rotation and crop diversification takes place, with a clear trend towards monoculture; the development of herbicide resistant weeds, resulting in farmers resorting to higher herbicide doses and the use of other herbicides; and the spatial and temporal spread of the HR trait, which is a particular concern in centres of crop origin and regions where interfertile and weedy hybrids occur. In addition, there has been little, if any, contribution of HR crops to increase crop yields. According to the review, “…herbicide resistant crops are not part of the solution, but part of the problem”. It makes a call to stop the loss of biodiversity, reverse the current development trend in agriculture, and increase biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems with more environmentally friendly practices and less dependence on pesticides. The Executive Summary of the paper and the link to the full paper are given below. With best wishes Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/ To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to news@biosafety-info.net To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net AGRONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE CULTIVATION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED HERBICIDE-RESISTANT PLANTS - A joint paper of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) Germany, Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) Switzerland and Environment Agency Austria. Edited by Tappeser, B., Reichenbecher, W., & Teichmann, H. BfN (2014). http://www.bfn.info/fileadmin/MDB/documents/service/skript362.pdf EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conservation of biodiversity is high on the agenda of international and national environmental policies though not very present in public awareness. The need to protect biodiversity and stop the loss was acknowledged in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), internationally agreed on in 1992, and underscored by relevant decisions since then. It has been known for some time that intensive high input farming is one of the main drivers of ongoing biodiversity losses in agricultural landscapes. An indicator for such losses is the diversity and abundance of weed flora. Transgenic crops resistant to the herbicides glyphosate (accounting for the great majority) and glufosinate have first been cultivated commercially in the nineties of the last century. Since then, a wealth of information has been collected on use patterns and on impacts of herbicide-resistant (HR) crops. There are concerns that HR crops will help to further intensify farming and may therefore increase pressure on biodiversity. The need to study potential environmental consequences of changes in herbicide usage due to transgenic HR plants has recently been underlined by the Council (of Environment Ministers) of the European Union (EU). This paper summarizes the lessons that can be learned from the experience up to now.