 |
| About Bioline | All Journals | Testimonials | Membership | News |
|
||||||
|
||||||
Australasian Biotechnology, Vol. 10 No. 1, 2000, pp. 26-27 GM NEWS Code Number: au00010
MONSANTO SEEKS COMMERCIAL GMO RELEASE Monsanto has applied to the Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (IOGTR) for approval for a general commercial release of genetically modified Roundup Ready cotton. Monsanto is proposing that the cotton be grown in the southern areas of Queensland and in NSW for commercial production, harvesting and use. The proposal will undergo assessment of environmental and human health risks by the IOGTR, and the Australia New Zealand Food Authority will assess any products from Roundup Ready cotton, such as cotton seed oil and cotton lint, that might be used in food from a safety perspective. The National Registration Authority (NRA) for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals will regulate the amount of herbicide that can be applied to the crop, and how it can be applied. This includes assessing all environmental and human health risks associated with the herbicide used. The cotton plants have been modified to express the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate -3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) gene from the soil bacterium, Agrobacterium, which confers tolerance to glyphosate. They also express a selectable market gene, neomycin phophotransferase, from E. coli which confers resistance to the antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin. This gene was inserted to allow selection of the transgenic plants from non-modified plants during regeneration in tissue culture. The inserted DNA also contains a bacterial gene encoding resistance to spectinomycin and streptomycin. This gene, which is not expressed in the transgenic plants, was used as a selectable marker for the genetic manipulations in the bacterial hosts before the transfer of the gene to the cotton plants. An assessment by GMAC has concluded that the risk of transfer of the introduced genes to other species related to cotton is very low. Cotton is largely self-pollinated and cross-pollination is rare. Gene transfer in the wild is considered unlikely due to genome incompatibility, the relatively isolated distribution of Australian native Gossypium species, and different breeding systems. For further information, contact the IOGTR on (02) 6270 4318. The National Farmers Federation has released a legal opinion on the proposed global agreement covering genetically modified seeds and plants which raises concerns that the agreement may be used to hinder international agricultural trade. Professor Jeff Waincymer of the business and law faculty at Deakin University indicated in his report to the NFF that the "uncertain" nature of the GM protocol could weaken WTO rules that require that import restrictions be based on sound scientific principles. In its submission to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the NFF said that the proposed protocol could weaken Australia's export interests. Gene Brochures in Supermarkets The Commonwealth Government has released an information brochure addressing key questions about genetically modified foods in Australia. The Genetically Modified Foods - Information and Answers to Your Questions brochure was released to address consumer concern about the need for more information regarding genetically modified foods and food safety. The brochure was produced by Biotechnology Australia. Patricia Kelly, of Biotechnology Australia, said research conducted for the agency found the general public wanted more information on gene technology and what foods might be genetically modified. Ms Kelly said the brochure was tested with consumer focus groups before release. The brochure can be viewed electronically at www.isr.gov.au/ba Community Demands Better Information One of the largest and most comprehensive surveys of community attitudes towards gene technology in Australia has found that the majority of Australians are eager for more quality information about the technology and its applications. The survey was conducted by the research firm Yann, Campbell, Hoare and Wheeler, for the Commonwealth Government's biotechnology co-ordination agency, Biotechnology Australia. It involved both quantitative and qualitative research amongst the general public, farmers and teachers with some 1800 people being surveyed. The results showed that about 50 per cent of the population surveyed who were aware of biotechnology and gene technology considered it would improve our way of life over the next 20 years. Twenty per cent thought it would make things worse and just over a quarter of respondents said they had not heard of biotechnology. The survey also found that the level of community acceptance of biotechnology varied depending on the products involved, with most concerns centering around the genetic modification of foods. For most applications of the technology about which they were asked however, people saw the benefits as outweighing the risks. Specific findings were that the majority of people surveyed would wear clothes made from genetically modified fibre (81 per cent), use genetically modified medicines (64 per cent) or buy genetically modified fruits or vegetables if they tasted better (51 per cent). Respondents favoured labelling of genetically modified foods to provide information about the technological processes involved and the reasons for the modification. However, they also accepted that overly detailed labelling information might be impractical and costly. Other major findings of the survey included:
For further information, contact Joe Hlubucek, General Manager, Biotechnology Australia, tel: (02) 6213 6367. Copies of the research report can be accessed at http://www.isr.gov.au/ba Excepts from a recent article in "The Scientist" Fears or Facts? A Viewpoint on GM Crops In 1977, Steven Lindow, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, discovered that a mutant strain of the bacterium Pseudomonas syringae altered ice nucleation on leaves in a way that enabled plants to resist frost. He continued the work at the University of California, Berkeley, and a decade later, with the blessing of the appropriate federal agencies and the townfolk of Tulelake, Calif., Lindow planted 3,000 potato seedlings coated with "ice-minus" bacteria. By the next morning, vandals had ripped out half the plants. Lindow repeated the experiment, successfully. Similar experiments did not set loose giant carnivorous rutabagas on the world, and while the Flaver Saver tomato was controversial, hoopla surrounding genetically modified (GM) plants largely died down in the United States. But that appears to be changing. In response to anti-GM decisions by foreign and domestic customers, US grain processing giant, Archer Daniels Midland, recently asked its suppliers to segregate GM crops. So-called GM "Frankenfoods" elicit objection that seems way out of proportion to the scientific evidence that they are dangerous, which is minimal, at least so far. Why is the "what if" or "triple-headed purple monster" mentality that predominated the earliest attempts at genetic engineering in the United States and rages today in the United Kingdom resurfacing? The answer is a combination of media-catalyzed fear of the unknown and global sociopolitics. Another Agenda? Much of the hubbub over transgenic food has a decidedly political flavour. Some scientists wonder whether transgene hysteria is symptomatic of larger issues. In England, "they do not like the way GM is in the hands of large, multinational corporations," says David Cove, a professor of genetics at the University of Leeds who monitors anti-GM sentiment. According to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, some Europeans "may be against genetic modification in food production on socioeconomic or marketing grounds because they wish to promote organic farming or object to multinational companies having such a strong control on the food sector. When Greenpeace issued a Web alert about GM ingredients in Nestlé baby food, it asked people to "get involved in the fight for our families". When its magazine cover showed a space-suited somebody holding a handful of soybeans at arm's length, and mentioned corporations, industrial farming, and US Department of Agriculture royalties in the accompanying article, a wider gripe with modern society appeared to be the subtext. Activists concerned about the safety of GM foods often say that they require more testing. If that's the case, why vandalise test plots that would establish danger, or safety? It's strange that while Europe frets over multinational corporations, much of the rest of the world is trying to figure out how to feed a growing population. - Barry A Palevitz and Ricki Lewis Copyright 2000 - Australasian Biotechnology |
| |||||||||
