POVERTY: Genetically Engineered Food: Are GMOs Safe?

Paul Tullis December 14, 2010
The most profound innovation to come to many crops in the last generation -- and one of the most widespread -- is genetic engineering. The cultivation of corn and soy today is so scientifically and technologically advanced it would be unrecognizable to a farmer just 40 years ago.
Eighty percent of the 86 million acres of corn planted in the United States today -- as well as 92 percent of the soy, and a good deal of the squash, tomatoes, potatoes, canola and a host of other crops -- comes from genetically engineered, or "GE," seed. Yet despite these crops' ubiquity, 60 percent of Americans don't even know they're eating GE foods.
Even before GE crops were introduced in 1996, debate raged among scientists, farmers, environmentalists and public health officials and academics regarding their safety, with pro and con sides finding little common ground.
"There's now overwhelming evidence that GE foods are unsafe and should never have been introduced," says Jeffrey M. Smith, author of self-published books purporting to show just that.
"Foods derived from biotechnology have been eaten by billions of people without a single documented health problem," counters Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, Executive Vice President for Food and Agriculture of BIO, the lobbying arm of the biotech industry.
It's difficult to find a scientist knowledgeable on the topic who doesn't have financial ties to the biotechnology industry, and it's equally challenging to find an opponent of GE who seems capable of recognizing its potential and doesn't object to the technology per se.

So what's the deal? First, some background:
GE seed contains a gene from a different organism in its DNA, giving the plant it produces desirable traits. Although the biotechnology industry has long promised nutrient-rich and drought- and frost-resistant crops to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among the world's poor (any day now, we're told), the overwhelming majority of GE seed today is modified to tolerate certain pesticides and herbicides -- which in many cases are made by the same companies selling the patented seeds. For instance, St. Louis-based agrochemical giant Monsanto makes Roundup Ready® soy, which is resistant to a pesticide Monsanto sells, enabling farmers to virtually drown their crop in the synthetic chemical. The result is that Roundup® is the most popular agricultural pesticide in the Unites States.
Claims by manufacturers that this makes farming more economical and better for the environment by reducing both the amount of work that goes into the crop, and how much farmers have to spray, are supported by august bodies of science, though some studies place doubt on those findings.
Smith's anti-GMO claim is contradicted by the National Academy of Sciences in the Unites States as well as the UK's leading academy of medical science, the Royal Society of Medicine.
Lauritsen's claim, however, is unsupportable because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Proving safety would require a massive, longitudinal epidemiological study with a control group that has never been exposed to GE foods, which may be well-nigh impossible given that the GE toothpaste is out of the tube: GE seeds migrate into fields of non-GE varieties, so they are virtually impossible to avoid.
Which makes the possible hazards to human health and the environment from GE foods disturbing to some. Alteration of the DNA of GE foods carries the potential to turn them toxic or cause allergic reactions, and their use may actually have led to an increase of spraying of harmful chemicals into the environment.

European nations have even banned GE foods in response to public outcry.
Who is responsible for ensuring that agricultural products are safe for human consumption and the environment?
Should the government commission independent scientific analysis to ensure safety of GE crops to human health and the environment? Should companies be trusted to make their products safe, suffering civil damages if they're later proven otherwise? Or should consumers be left to fend for themselves?

GE crops in the United States are approved for use by either the Agriculture Department, the EPA, or the FDA, each with its own process.
Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, says the government needs "to improve the regulatory system, which is a rubber stamp designed to enhance public confidence without ensuring safety."
BIO's Lauritsen, meanwhile, "supports the current U.S. regulatory framework," saying "biotech crops go through extensive testing and review."
But Gregory Jaffe, a lawyer who is director of biotechnology projects at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says "that's misleading. The FDA has a voluntary consultation process, which I think is inadequate." (We've seen what self-regulation has done to financial markets and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.) The USDA, Jaffe says, does "a fairly good job of ensuring it doesn't have an impact on agricultural interests, but the process to [minimize] environmental impact is inadequate." Jaffe rates the EPA tops at ensuring against food safety risk of the crops it oversees, which includes all that corn.

Bottom line (keeping in mind that I am neither doctor nor scientist):
For the small percentage of the population that's extremely food-sensitive or has severe allergies, it's probably best to avoid GE foods when possible. That means buying organic anything containing corn, soy, or canola (check your labels -- you'll be surprised to find how many food products this includes).
If you care about family farms, personal liberties, or the environment, you should also buy organic -- organic certification means no GE -- wherever practical. Monsanto has used some rough tactics on small farmers that don't toe its company line, and the organic farmers threatened by GE varieties blowing into their fields, or being carried there by birds, tend not to be part of Big Ag. They also support crop diversity and petrochemical-free farming by planting varieties farmers have been using for centuries (and not patented by giant corporations), and by keeping chemical formulations and harmful nitrogen-based fertilizers out of the groundwater and agricultural runoff.
No matter who you are, you should support legitimate scientific review of new biotech crops coming to market; all three regulating agencies have periods of public comment before they OK a new GE crop, and Congress has the authority to change the way GMOs are OK'd by the government.

Finally, if you want to keep your head from spinning, make this the last article you read about genetically engineered foods for awhile.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-tullis/are-gmos-safe_b_794479.html

POVERTY: Q&A with Phil Bereano on genetic engineering in agriculture

December 8, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Kristi Heim


Phil Bereano, co-founder of the project AGRA Watch, has long focused on the ethical and social aspects of global trade and biotechnology. He is professor emeritus at the University of Washington, where he taught technology and public policy. He was also a negotiator in the formation of the UN's Cartagena Biosafety Protocol. Bereano talked about why he has become an outspoken critic of the Gates Foundation's approach to agriculture in Africa.

Q: One of the projects the Gates Foundation is working on with Monsanto, Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA), is being billed as a way to deal with worsening drought due to climate change, a serious problem for farmers.
A: It may use water more efficiently, but it's not drought tolerant. Drought tolerance is a complicated interplay between several dozen different genes.
There are thousands of varieties of maize, including drought tolerant varieties. The problem is they can't be patented and sold because they are in the public domain. Multinational corporations like Monsanto are attempting to gain control over food by patenting GMO seeds and presenting them as a savior to peoples' needs.

Q: Do you believe any genetic modification (GM) of food has merit?
A: It's very hard to say the existing GM products satisfy any criteria I would find socially useful. A UN and World Bank study said there is no necessary role for GM in the future in order to deal with issues of hunger and increasing production. Agroecological methods are able to do it.
None of the technologies which have been presented respond to the genuine needs of people. Herbicide resistance has not increased food production or reduced food costs for farmers.
But no one really knows because there are no adequate scientific assessments of the risk with the potential benefits. We actually don't know whether it's worth it.

Q: But haven't we eaten many genetically modified foods here in the U.S. for years?
A: Yes, but no research has been done on the impacts. Many conditions take years or decades to manifest themselves. It's estimated mad cow takes 20 years to manifest itself after exposure. We have seen an increase in autism, diabetes and obesity, yet no one is doing this research with regard to changes in the food supply.
Any reasonable approach to new technology would be doing an assessment of it, but the FDA does not do assessments. They claim they are in favor of scientific regulation, but the U.S. government relies on industry assessments.
The burden is being put on the wrong side of the equation. The burden of proof on safety should be on the company introducing the new technology.

Q: It has been about a year since the World Food Prize Symposium in which Bill Gates talked about an ideological divide between those who favor a technology or an environment based approach getting in the way of solutions. Is this divide growing?
A: First of all, we are not anti-technology. Agroecological methods are based on technology and have been shown by a number of studies, including the IAASTD, to be as good if not better at dealing with African hunger. The technologies we support are comprehensible to local farmers, under their control, and not protected by intellectual property rights. The difference is one of control. Food sovereignty is about ownership and power. The difference is not a difference between people who are pro-technology and Luddites.
No one wants to see starving people in Africa. People understand climate change is a major threat, but the justification of these kinds of technologies changes. They used to say GM food was required to feed the world; now they say it's required to feed the world and deal with climate change.

Q: What has been the result of the AGRA Watch campaign so far?
A: It's clear that they're paying more attention to these concerns than they did a year ago. Otherwise the chief of legal affairs of AGRA, African regulators and industry people wouldn't have shown up at the panel discussion we sponsored in Nagoya at the fifth meeting of Cartagena Biosafety Protocol.
The press release we put out on the Gates Foundation buying Monsanto stock appeared all around the world, including the Guardian in the UK. The cat is out of the bag now. There are a lot of voices questioning the Gates Foundation.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thebusinessofgiving/2013635923_q_one_of_the_projects.html?syndication=rss

MALARIA: Activation of Akt Signaling Reduces the Prevalence and Intensity of Malaria Parasite Infection and Lifespan in Anopheles stephensi Mosquitoes

For malaria transmission to occur, a mosquito must ingest and harbor the parasites for approximately two weeks while the parasites complete multiple developmental stages. Until development is complete and the malaria parasites invade the mosquito salivary glands, transmission to another host cannot occur. Upon completion of parasite development, transmission is possible with every subsequent bite. In this study we demonstrate that tissue-specific overexpression of a single activated protein kinase that is essential to insulin signaling in the mosquito can dramatically reduce parasite development. This kinase – Akt – has been described as a critical cell signaling node that regulates a range of physiological processes. In addition to the impact on parasite development, increased Akt signaling also reduced the average mosquito lifespan relative to controls, thereby limiting the window of opportunity for successful parasite transmission. Thus, we demonstrate that genetic manipulation of one key signaling protein directly reduces parasite development in the insect vector as well as the duration of mosquito infectivity.
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1001003

MALNUTRITION: ZAMBIA: Orange maize to curb vitamin A deficiency

Photo: Robyn Allscheid Stevens/HarvestPlus

Maize biofortified with beta-carotene could provide vitamin A throughout the year

10 November 2010 (IRIN) - Most Zambian children regularly tuck in to `nshima’, a stiff maize porridge, but if they can be persuaded to eat an orange-coloured variety made of biofortified maize, their health prospects could be greatly enhanced.
More than half of Zambia's under-five children are affected by vitamin A deficiency, which can increase the risk of illness, retard growth and cause blindness, according to the government's National Food and Nutrition Commission.
The government tried fortifying margarine with vitamin A in the 1970s and sugar since the 1990s, but neither of these efforts proved to be very successful. A study by the Commission in 2003 found vitamin A deficiency levels to be as high as 54 percent in children under five, and 13 percent in women aged 15-49.
"People in the rural areas do not eat margarine," explained Eliab Simpungwe, a scientist involved in efforts to grow biofortified crops and orange maize in Zambia. Simpungwe works with HarvestPlus, a global alliance of research institutions and implementing agencies working together to breed and disseminate crops for better nutrition.
"Vitamin A degenerates very quickly in sugar. Transportation of sugar to rural areas takes a long time and by the time it gets to the people, there is very little trace of the vitamin in it," he said.
In the past few years, developing countries have launched several programmes to fortify staples with vitamin A and iron. Biofortification is the process of breeding higher levels of essential micronutrients such as vitamin A, iron, and zinc in food crops.
Beta-carotene
Zambia has also made its own efforts to biofortify maize with vitamin A - led by the government's Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), which is collaborating with HarvestPlus.
After three years of work - identifying maize varieties with high beta-carotene content and then cross-breeding them to increase the content naturally - the scientists appear to have been successful.
Beta-carotene which is converted in the body as vitamin A is naturally found in maize, explained Simpungwe. The researchers led by ZARI have managed to develop a maize variety with a beta-carotene content of nine milligrams per gram, which should improve levels of vitamin A in consumers quite substantially, he said.
"We are aiming to get to a maize variety which will provide 10-15 milligrams of beta-carotene per gram, which is the optimum level," said Simpungwe. The researchers arrived at the figure after taking into account the amount of maize an average Zambian consumed in a year, which is 160kg.
"We are going to roll out seed for evaluation to at least 10,000 farmers in three maize-producing provinces - Eastern, Central and Southern - in 2011," said Simpungwe.
The researchers found that beta-carotene in maize was converted to vitamin A at a higher rate than beta-carotene in vegetables, including spinach and carrots
Based on the evaluation findings, the varieties will be released to reach at least 25,000 farmers in 2012.
The team got a boost earlier this year with the publication of the results of a study by Iowa State University in the USA which found that maize bred to contain increased levels of beta-carotene is a good source of vitamin A.
The researchers found that beta-carotene in maize was converted to vitamin A at a higher rate than beta-carotene in vegetables, including spinach and carrots.
The breakthrough comes as the first global conference on biofortification began in the USA on 9 November.
Taste and acceptance
In a country where white maize is still preferred to yellow maize, would the bright orange variety find acceptance?
Zambians have been lukewarm about yellow maize because of its taste and the perception it is "drought food", as it was frequently distributed as food aid, according to a HarvestPlus study.
Another study - assessed and approved by the research ethics committees of the University of Zambia and the University of Greenwich, and which also involved the National Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research - found that orange maize was "likely" to be accepted by consumers in Zambia.
Simpungwe said he had run his own trials at home and found the maize to be a hit with his children and friends. "Unlike white maize which has a flat taste, the orange maize has a sweetish taste which the children loved."
But there remain challenges around wide acceptance, noted a report prepared for the International Center for Research on Women and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has helped fund efforts to biofortify maize in Zambia.
Women play a key role in deciding what is consumed in households, said Miriam Chaiken, a researcher at New Mexico State University, and author of the report.
Variables such as flavour, ease of cooking and perceived digestibility for children matter to them, and these need to be tested further in a Zambian rural context to create effective marketing strategies. People also need to understand the linkages between illness and vitamin A deficiency.
She suggested targeting women’s groups and small-scale farmers with information, possibly through community radio, and by distributing orange maize seeds.
Simpungwe said the seeds will be made freely available initially, and subsidized thereafter.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=91049

POVERTY: Fairtrade criticsm

Fairtrade is accused of doing less for coffee farmers than StarbucksFairtrade's requirements reflect 'whims of western consumers' rather than needs of those in developing world, says report

Simon Bowers The Guardian, Thursday 4 November 2010
Fairtrade is accused of failing coffee farmers in a new report.
Multinational companies such as Starbucks, Kraft and Nestlé do more for developing-world coffee farmers than the Fairtrade Foundation, according to a critical report from a free-market thinktank.
Describing Fairtrade as costly, opaque and substantially unproven, the 130-page report commissioned by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) says: "Fairtrade requirements [on farmers] may well reflect the subjective views of western consumers and not the real needs of poor producers."
The report specifically attacks the Fairtrade Foundation's refusal to accept child labour and genetically modified technology, suggesting these strictures represent "the whims of western consumers" rather than the needs of farmers.
Consistent with the IEA's broader free-market agenda, the paper claims that open, subsidy-free international trade is the best way of advancing the interests of the world's poorest regions.
"Fairtrade rhetoric is often seen as an unreasonable smear campaign against high-end marketeers and retailers who resist the Fairtrade model," says the report by Dundee University lecturer Sushil Mohan.
"In 2000 activist groups … launched an attack on Starbucks for exploiting farmers. Yet, given its size, Starbucks is likely to have done far more than Fairtrade to improve the lot of coffee growers in the countries from which it purchases."
In response, the Fairtrade Foundation said the report was a "flawed, partial analysis". It added: "It is wrong to suggest Fairtrade does not offer a long-term strategy for development.
"In Mali, Fairtrade cotton farmers are earning 50% more than conventional farmers. Some 95% of the children of Mali's Fairtrade organic farmers go to school because farming communities receive more money. This is more than double the national average in the fourth most deprived nation on earth."
The IEA's scathing attack comes after the Fairtrade movement enjoyed one of its most successful periods last year, breaking into the mainstream chocolate market for the first time by signing up the Cadbury's Dairy Milk brand. The group also won a pledge from Starbucks in the UK to only use Fairtrade coffee for its espresso-based drinks.
Fairtrade-certified farming co-operatives receive a "social premium" of between 5% and 10% over the open-market price for their crops, as well as a minimum price guarantee should volatile commodity markets drop below a certain level.
However, the IEA argues that western shoppers looking to make ethical choices may well be duped over how much of the additional price paid for Fairtrade goods at the checkout actually reaches Fairtrade farmers.
It points to speculation that retailers and food groups may be preying on consumers' better nature in order to add their own mark-ups on Fairtrade goods.
The report is not the first time the IEA has attacked the Fairtrade movement and the opposition has been led by Philip Booth, the thinktank's editorial and programme director.
A prominent Catholic, Booth has objected to church literature pushing Fairtrade products. "I have been told [via the Catholic diocese of Arundel website] that not to buy Fairtrade products is a sin worse than theft, that not buying Fairtrade products is making a deliberate choice to take from the poor," he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/04/multinations-development-fairtrade-report

MALARIA: Wiping out mosquito-borne diseases - with mosquitoes

BANGKOK, 3 November 2010 (IRIN) - Scientists fighting mosquito-borne diseases are racing to obtain approval to release genetically modified insects designed to stop the spread of dengue, a potentially fatal virus.
However, such moves have made environmentalists nervous as a science long used in agriculture is applied to public health.
These mosquitoes are engineered with an extra gene or inserted bacterium or have had a gene altered so that either their offspring are sterile and unable to spread dengue, or simply die.
"People generally do not like the unknown and are alarmist. Because there has never been a [field] release of GM [genetically modified] mosquitoes, critics are free to imagine what can possibly go wrong," said UK-based entomologist and professor at Imperial College London, John Mumford.
He is also the principal investigator for the World Health Organization (WHO)-funded regulatory group, Mosqguide, founded to develop best practices for deploying genetically modified mosquitoes to fight mosquito-borne diseases, primarily dengue and malaria.
For half a century, scientists have released billions of engineered insects - for example, fruit flies - to save plants, but to date there has not been a field release of insects engineered to save humans.
The Malaysia-headquartered NGO Pesticide Action Network-Asia and the Pacific opposed a since-granted request to release modified mosquitoes on the grounds that "it may have environmental or health consequences as well as carry risks arising from horizontal gene transfer", wrote executive director, Sarojeni V. Rengam, who stressed the "possibility of new health risks to humans and animals....the insect may become more virulent, aggressive, or its bite might have different effects on the host."
According to the Malaysian Health Ministry, 37,419 dengue cases were reported from January to 2 October, an increase of 17 percent on the same period last year.
Balancing act
If fish eat the larvae of modified mosquitoes and people eat the fish, one fear is how this diet may affect people, Mumford explained. "But we are forgetting that people eat modified corn and soybeans," he said.
"We have to look at the balance of risks. The risk of not controlling dengue is well-known. People die without better vector control... We need to move from worrying about risks to looking at public health benefits and addressing these risks," Mumford added.
The WHO estimates at least 50 million people worldwide are infected with dengue annually, with the number of cases doubling in the past decade and 70 percent of them recorded in Asia.
Australian researchers from the University of Queensland, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have received regulatory approval to begin in December to release mosquitoes infected with a bacterium that prevents the dengue virus from multiplying, as has the Malaysian Ministry of Health.
In addition, Brazil, Panama, the US, Italy and Sudan are at varying stages in fighting mosquito-borne diseases with mosquitoes. "There are a lot of competing strategies, which is a good thing," said Mumford.
Mosqguide is cataloguing these different approaches and expects to publish case studies over the next year.
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?Reportid=90959

MALARIA: MosqGuide and genetically modified mosquitoes

The WHO/TDR funded project, MosqGuide, is to host a workshop at the upcoming ISBGMO11 in Argentina. The workshop will discuss the regulatory, ethical and the national decision making required for the potential use, in disease endemic countries, of genetically modified mosquitoes to control vector borne diseases, in particular dengue and malaria.
Two case studies will also be presented regarding the decisions leading up to the field release of GM mosquitoes. The aim of the workshop is to have interactive discussions and Mosqguide welcomes all interested participants but particularly scientists, decision makers and regulatory agency staff from disease endemic countries to participate
The workshop will be held on Nov 19th 2010 in conjunction with the International Symposium on the biosafety of genetically modified organisms meeting.
11th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (15-20 November 2010, Buenos Aires, Argentina)
The International Society for Biosafety Research in conjunction with the local organizing committee in Argentina is pleased to announce the 11th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO) to be held in Buenos Aires, Centro Cultural Borges - Galerias Pacifico. The theme of ISBGMO 11 is “The role of biosafety research in the decision making process”. This symposium will bring together scientists interested in sharing results and learning from other experts in the area of biosafety research and its application to regulatory decision-making. As such, a program of workshops and talks is being developed that will encourage the exchange of scientific experiences and ideas with a focus on how biosafety research supports regulatory processes especially risk assessments and ultimately science-based decisions
http://www.mosqguide.org.uk/index.htm

MALARIA: Malaysia to release GM mosquitoes into the wild

Shiow Chin Tan
2 November 2010

An OX513A mosquito

Malaysia will soon take the controversial step of releasing genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes into the wild as part of an experiment to test their survival in natural conditions.
The move was approved by the country's National Biosafety Board last month (10 October) and will make the nation the first major country in the world to release GM Aedes aegypti mosquitoes for field testing — second only after the Cayman Islands in 2009.
The mosquitoes, known as OX513A, have been developed by Malaysia's Institute for Medical Research (IMR) and the UK-based biotech company Oxitec to control the dengue virus, which is transmitted by A. aegypti.
A total of 4,000–6,000 male GM mosquitoes are expected to be released within the next couple of months, along with a similar number of unmodified male mosquitoes.
The male GM mosquitoes mate with normal females to produce larvae that are unusual because of an extra enzyme they produce. This enzyme accumulates in the larvae to a level where it becomes toxic and kills them. The larvae's only hope for survival is if the antibiotic tetracycline is present — because it mops up the enzyme.
The developers hope male GM mosquitoes will compete with normal males for females so that repeated releases cut numbers of A. aegypti in dengue-prone areas.
The mosquitoes will be released in the inland districts of Bentong in the state of Pahang, and Alor Gajah and Melaka in the state of Malacca, according to the National Biosafety Board. Each location will have two release phases: the first at a site 0.5–1 kilometres from the nearest human settlement, and the second at an inhabited site.
They will be recaptured using mosquito traps, which will be monitored for at least one month, while the inhabited release sites will also be fogged with insecticide when the experiment is over.
The board made its decision after its Genetic Modifications Advisory Committee (GMAC) analysed the risk factors for the experiment. The issue was opened for public consultation from 5 August to 4 September.
Ahmad Parveez Ghulam Kadir, head of the GMAC, told reporters last month (29 October) that the committee had been concerned that lab tests had shown that three per cent of the offspring of male GM mosquitoes and normal females actually survive into adulthood rather than dying as larvae as intended.
Ricarda Steinbrecher, a geneticist and co-director of EcoNexus, a UK-based non-profit research organisation, said that it is not clear how the offspring of the male GM mosquitoes survive into adulthood and do not die as 'programmed', but it raises the possibility that they could breed and pass on this — as yet unknown — mechanism for overcoming the lethality.
"I would suggest that it is far too early for any open field releases. More data are needed from laboratory experiments. Furthermore, trials in field cages [large outdoor enclosures made from netting, i.e. confined field trials] are needed," she said.
The advisory committee had also been worried that female GM mosquitoes might accidentally be released. The technicians separate the male from the female GM mosquitoes based on the size of the pupae — the stage after the larval stage — and is therefore not completely accurate.
Because of this, Parveez said, the board has insisted that scientists sort through the pupae twice — first mechanically and then manually.
The 'self-limiting' strategy theoretically poses little threat of genes being released uncontrolled into the environment because of the death of the offspring. But future strategies, in which the aim is to overwhelm mosquito populations with those that are resistant to disease, are more controversial because the mosquitoes survive and breed.
A Malaysian geneticist, who declined to be named, said he hopes the experiments will be carried out under rigorous safety protocols.
"We have the best laws on biosafety in the world, but the problem is the enforcement," he said.
Liow Tiong Lai, health minister of Malaysia, told a press conference last month (10 October) that the Malaysian government views the GM mosquitoes "as one of the most efficient and fast ways of getting rid of the Aedes mosquito from our local environment".
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/malaysia-to-release-gm-mosquitoes-into-the-wild.html

MALNUTRITION: Global Food Production and Biotechnology

Jose W. Fernandez
Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs

 October 8, 2010
Two weeks ago, we had encouraging news about world hunger. The number of chronically undernourished people in the world fell by 100 million from the year before, due mostly to increases in grain production. However, we cannot celebrate, as much work remains to end the scourge of hunger that still leaves close to one billion people going to bed every night without enough to eat and one child dying from malnutrition every six seconds.
Increased effort will be required for years to come to provide an adequate and consistent food supply to rising populations worldwide. Increased production on existing land is the key component of this strategy.
Half a century ago, revolutionary advances in grain breeding tripled production in developing countries and played a major role in saving the lives of an estimated one billion people in Mexico, India, Pakistan and the Philippines. This came to be known as the Green Revolution. It was made possible by genetic advances achieved through slow and laborious cross-breeding research by Dr. Norman Borlaug, a native of Iowa.
After receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his work, Dr. Borlaug created the World Food Prize to honor leaders in the continuing battle against hunger. He believed that it would require a constant effort with all of the tools available to our best minds. As I look forward to the ceremony honoring this year's recipients of the World Food Prize in Des Moines on Oct. 13-14, I am reminded of the enormous potential that agriculture presents.
New agricultural technologies are an integral part of U.S. trade. Now more than ever, the United States supplies the 95 percent of the world's consumers who live outside our borders. Agricultural products are a critical component of this trade, contributing nearly $100 billion dollars to exports this year.
Ensuring that our trading partners do not erect barriers to innovation is an economic priority for the United States. Roadblocks and opaque regulations not only have a negative impact on U.S. producers, they also limit access to more affordable food supplies for people in those markets.
The volume of biotechnology crops -- particularly corn, soybeans, and cotton -- has grown rapidly each year and now is an important component of our exports. As the world's largest producer of improved food and animal feed products, the United States is a powerhouse to feed the world.
One of the ways we can improve exports and expand the benefits of biotechnology is to encourage countries to develop regulatory systems based on science, not politics. Unjustified and impractical legal obstacles are stopping genetically-enhanced crops from saving millions from starvation and malnutrition.
Through the National Export Initiative, the Obama administration is focused on trade advocacy, export promotion and removing barriers to the sale of U.S. goods and services abroad. We are pursuing these goals by enforcing trade regulations and creating policies for growth so that there will be a strong worldwide market for our goods and services. In the area of agriculture, we can produce a win-win solution for U.S. businesses and overseas economic development through technological innovation.
Investment in agriculture produces positive returns -- $1.43 for every dollar invested in research. Some countries have expressed concerns, while others have embraced the technology and have benefited from its use. Biotechnology can help developing countries to reduce crop losses due to insects and disease and increase the nutritional content of crops. It saves on costly collateral inputs that the farmer must make, and it increases yields, thereby raising small farm incomes. There are other benefits as well, such as increased soil carbon sequestration through no-till techniques, and crops like Bt cotton that dramatically lower pesticide use. Clearly many farmers around the world want what this technology has to offer.
The question is not what the technology can provide, but how to break down the barriers that block its implementation.
Unfortunately, some are exploiting fears and creating problems for the wider acceptance of agricultural biotechnology. These distractions keep us from looking at the science and the potential of the technology to address the doubling of production that will be needed during the next four decades. These crops can save millions from starvation and malnutrition. The technology is here, the science is available, if only it can be freed to reach its potential in many developing countries
This administration is actively working with countries to improve their regulatory capacity to scientifically assess the health and environmental impact of biotechnology. The United States will continue to expand its technical assistance and training programs for developing countries and transitioning economies to put in place regulatory systems that facilitate the utilization of biotechnology to expand trade and optimize food resources.
Science-based regulations will enable these countries to protect the public and the environment, as they enable farmers to meet growing food demands.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jose-w-fernandez/addressing-global-food-pr_b_756111.html

TUBERCULOSIS: When It Comes to Fighting Tuberculosis, Genetic Balance May Be the Key

Why do some people exposed to the bacteria that causes tuberculosis (TB) get sick, while others completely resist the disease? Research published this year in the journal Cell suggests that it all comes down to balance.
Scientists from the University of Washington used a combination of zebrafish experiments and human genetics to identify how a precisely tuned level of inflammation allows the body to fight off Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the causative agent of TB, but not go overboard. These findings not only help explain why some people are hypersensitive to TB, but may also have important implications for prevention and cure of this disease caused by a bacterium that can be found in one third of the world’s population.
The researchers began by creating random mutations in zebrafish and then exposing the animals to Mycobacterium marinum, a close genetic relative of the human TB bacterium and a natural pathogen for the fish. The reactions of these genetically altered fish varied from completely resistant to extremely susceptible. Further analysis showed that much of this variability was due to the LTA4H gene, which regulates the balance between pro- and anti-inflammatory factors.
Armed with findings from their zebrafish experiments, the researchers then turned to humans. They examined whether variations in the human version of LTA4H, known from previous research to affect inflammation, also affected susceptibility to TB. They analyzed DNA from 692 Vietnamese people with TB and 759 healthy controls. They found that heterozygosity – having one pro-inflammatory version of the LTA4H gene and one anti-inflammatory version – was the best position to be in. For example, having one copy of an A and one copy of a G at rs1978331 was associated with with about 30% lower odds of having TB compared to people with either two As or two Gs. The people with AG at this SNP who did develop TB were less likely to die if their disease reached a severe state.
Brinkmann/Schaible, MPI for Infection Biology
A study of a group of people in Nepal who had been exposed to leprosy, another disease caused by a mycobacterium, showed the same protective effect of having one copy of an A and one copy of a G at rs1978331. There was no effect on actually contracting leprosy, but people with AG at this SNP were less likely to develop a severe case.
X
Having two different versions of certain LTA4H variations seems to keep pro- and anti-inflammatory response mechanisms balanced. The authors suggest that when inflammation is inadequate (as may be the case when a person has two Gs at rs1978331), the risk of infection with TB or leprosy is high, as are the chances of severe disease and possibly death. On the other hand, when inflammation is excessive (as might happen with two As at rs1978331), tissue damage can occur, which can also lead to severe disease and death. The sweet spot in the middle, when there is neither too little nor too much inflammation, allows the body to adequately control and eventually clear an infection, without destroying itself in the process.
If the researchers’ hypothesis is true, if a balanced immune response to TB is best, this could explain why people with TB often improve when given anti-inflammatory immunosuppressive drugs alongside the standard antibiotic treatments.
The identification of the LTA4H variants opens the possibility for the development of new treatments for TB. In a press release, the senior author of the paper notes that because the same variations they identified in LTA4H have also been associated with heart disease, it’s possible that drugs that target this pathway in heart disease might be useful for treating TB too. Many strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis have become resistant to standard treatments, so finding new ways to fight the disease is a priority. The new genetic findings may help researchers develop treatments that focus on helping a person’s immune system fight the infection, instead of attacking the pathogen directly.
About TuberculosisTB is a highly contagious disease that is spread through airborne droplets containing the bacterium. While the highest incidence rates occur in South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, about one third of the world is thought to be infected with the bacterium that causes TB, with a new infection occurring every second. However, not all infected people have active TB, which is characterized by a chronic cough with blood-tinged sputum, a fever, night-sweats, and weight loss. People with latent TB do not experience any symptoms and are not contagious. They simply respond positively to a TB skin test and have a 5-10% chance of developing active TB. HIV infection is the strongest risk factor for the development of active TB because it compromises the immune system.
Current methods of prevention and treatment for TB are complicated, at best. A vaccine against TB does exist – the BCG vaccine – however efficacy varies based on age, geography, TB type, and duration. Treatment for TB depends on resistance. Directly observed therapy (DOT) entails taking a strict regimen of drugs for about six months under supervision. Multidrug resistant strains of TB (MDR-TB) have developed in response to mismanaged treatment and require a different drug regimen. Extensively drug resistant TB (XDR-TB) is virtually untreatable.
http://spittoon.23andme.com/

MALNUTRITION: A long history but slow uptake of drought-tolerant crops

5 August 2010
In his opinion article, Drought-tolerance: a learning challenge for poor farmers, Travis Lybbert points to a growing interest in drought-tolerant (DT) crops in recent years, largely motivated by impending climate change.
In fact, research and development of DT crop varieties have a much longer history. For decades DT crops have provided the basis for viable dryland agriculture in semi-arid regions such as Australia, the Canadian Prairie, parts of Latin America, the Mediterranean and the Midwestern United States.
As early as 1932, the US maize breeder, M.T. Jenkins, described his selection of DT maize hybrids in Agronomy Journal. And the Rockefeller Foundation has been very active in supporting the development of DT rice in South East Asia since the 1990s — before the issue of climate change became such a dominant topic of concern.
Progress in DT breeding has been slow because selection criteria have focused merely on yield, and in most cases high drought tolerance is negatively associated with high yield potential. When developing a DT variety, breeders have difficulties accepting that its yield under normal conditions might be mediocre.
I have met breeders in developing countries who avoid showing the results of their field DT trials to their superiors, because the results look terrible. But if you question a poor drought-prone farmer he will indicate that he prefers a DT variety with a low but stable yield over a variety that yields extremely well in a good year but fails completely in a dry one.
Lybbert's misconceptions about breeding DT varieties and their adoption may stem from questionable assumptions he makes in his model of farmers' decisions to adopt DT crops. [1] These include the assumption that at extreme drought pressure DT varieties are virtually indistinguishable from non-DT varieties.
It is true that both DT and non-DT crop varieties reduce yield as drought stress increases, but the rate at which DT yields reduce is comparatively smaller. The yields of DT crops are often lower under favourable conditions but they are almost always better as conditions become very dry, and are certainly distinguishably higher than non-DT crop yields.
http://www.scidev.net/en/editor-letters/a-long-history-but-slow-uptake-of-drought-tolerant-crops.html

MALARIA: Mali to rear malaria-resistant GM mosquitoes

A laboratory in Mali will soon be rearing Africa's first mosquitoes genetically modified to resist malaria.
The laboratory, at the Malaria Research and Training Centre, University of Bamako, was officially opened yesterday (3 August).
Its research is part of a partnership, between the University of Bamako and Keele University in the United Kingdom, which aims to develop GM mosquitoes to fight malaria.
The researchers hope that resistant mosquitoes will one day take over wild populations, eventually wiping malaria out.
Funded for three years by an £800,000 (around US$1.8 million) grant from the Wellcome Trust, the partnership has trained three Malian scientists at Keele University, and established a biosafety category 3 security laboratory at the Centre.
Mamadou Coulibaly, head of the Centre's Genomics and Proteomics Laboratory and principal investigator on the project in Mali, said the laboratory, which was finished in mid-July, should be producing GM mosquitoes by 2011.
Paul Eggleston, professor of molecular entomology at the Centre for Applied Entomology and Parasitology at the University of Keele and head of the project in the UK, said: "We wanted to take this technology out to Africa to get local scientists involved in what we were doing, to fully understand it, and become part of it. Ultimately, it's [those countries] that take the final decision about whether they want to use [GM mosquitoes] or not," he told SciDev.Net.
The production of GM mosquitoes has received approval from the University of Bamako's Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dentistry ethics committee, said Coulibaly. Mali is also working on developing its own biosafety legislation regarding GM insects with the support of the WHO, said Eggleston.
Eggleston said they hope to test their GM mosquitoes in large outdoor field cages within three years. This will be at a field station in one of the villages outside Bamako that have a long history of working with the university, he said.
There are several projects worldwide that aim to use genetic modification to prevent mosquitoes transmitting diseases such as malaria or dengue.
Ricarda Steinbrecher, co-director of EcoNexus, a non-profit organisation that analyses developments in science and technology, and participant in the ad hoc technical expert group to the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol (AHTEG) which over the last two years has developed guidelines on the risk assessment of GM mosquitoes, said: "With GM insects — and in particular GM mosquitoes — we are faced with a number of problems that we have very little or no experience or knowledge of how to assess or deal with.
"We don't even know, or have sufficient scientific data on, what the potential harm or negative impacts might be."GM insects are crucially different from GM crops. GM insects are designed to spread their engineered genes far and wide and to interact with wild populations ... they will not stay put at specific locations but move into wild habitats and across national borders.
"Releases and risk assessments — and risk decisions — have thus to be a multi-national or regional concern.
"No clear or specific regulations or guidelines are yet in place for the environmental release of GM mosquitoes within any country or region. Guidelines are being worked on at international level, but concerns and uncertainties are high.
Eggleston said the team is conscious that creating GM mosquitoes in Africa was a major step and that it was important to tread cautiously.
"The risks we're talking about [in setting up the lab] are negligible but because this is the first time this is happening in Africa we feel we need to take a 'belt and braces' approach," he said.
Coulibaly added: "Ordinary Malian people think [GM mosquitoes for malaria control] are a good idea. They understand the need to control malaria. However, they do have some reservations on the possible outcomes. They need to be reassured that the laboratory will not produce mosquitoes that are more dangerous."
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/mali-to-rear-malaria-resistant-gm-mosquitoes.html

MALARIA: genetic alteration of mosquitoes

Michael Riehle is holding a container full of mosquitoes. But he doesn’t necessarily want the insects to die. He wants them to live long enough, so he can open up their guts and count the number of parasites they have.
Gross? Well, yes. But it’s also a discovery that could wage a war against malaria through the use of genetically engineered mosquitoes. In recent experiments, a University of Arizona entomologist Riehle isn’t finding any parasites in the mosquitoes designed to be resistant to malaria.

Eliminating human malaria from a mosquito was exactly what Riehle, had been trying to achieve for the last three years.
Riehle put a gene in a mosquito to over-express a gene that was already there, which converted the gene into an active state.
The mosquito’s gene, Akt, is involved in a number of processes, including lifespan, digestion, and reproduction. Therefore, it takes 3 to 4 months to create a genetically engineered mosquito that is completely immune to the parasite that causes malaria.
“I think it’s a pretty big step forward. We’ve completely blocked the development of the human malaria parasite in the mosquito. Previous research has not completely blocked it,” says Riehle.
The other groups achieved up to 97 percent, but 100 percent is essential if the goal is to control it on the field.
When a mosquito transmits malaria, it injects about 40 sporozoites from its gut. From there, the parasite makes its way to the mosquito’s salivary glands, where it can infect an unsuspecting person. Unfortunately, it only takes one parasite to cause malaria.
“Even if a single parasite survives to form a oocyst, then the mosquito will be able to transmit malaria. If the parasite can avoid the killing mechanism, resistance will develop and the mosquito will no longer be effective,’ Riehle says.
Riehle’s experiment looked at two types of mosquitoes — one was a control (or the wild type) and the other one was a transgenic breed. After the insects are feed infected blood meal, the mosquitoes are left to develop for 8 to 10 days. That’s when the researchers dissected the guts and counted the number of parasites.
“We saw nice infections in the control and not a single parasite in the genetically engineered ones,” Riehle says.
“This work is really exciting because the authors completely eliminated malaria infection by over-expressing just a single gene in the mosquito,” University of Notre Dame malaria postdoctoral researcher Bradley White says. “Moreover, the same transgenic mosquitoes had shorter life spans, which could also yield decreases in malaria transmission since only relatively old mosquitoes transmit the parasite.”
Riehle knows that, admitting “the biggest hurdle is to drive them into the wild population. They have a shorter lifespan, so they wouldn’t compete [with the others]. Even if you released a few million mosquitoes, they would be out competed by the wild mosquitoes and just disappear.”
That’s not the only hurdle.
The mosquito species studied, Anopheles stephensi, is a major vector of malaria in parts of Asia, but it is not one of the major vectors in Africa where the vast majority of the world’s malaria-related deaths occur. “Unfortunately, the major African vectors remain unnameable to transgenesis — the technique used in this study — although research in overcoming this obstacle is ongoing in many labs,” White says.
However, Riehle thinks the method should work in the main African vector. “They will be able to reproduce with the wild mosquitoes. They won’t produce as many eggs, but that can be overcome by giving them a competitive fix,” he says.

Until designer mosquitoes are unleashed into the wild, there’s always insecticide-laced nets that can do the job.
But then again, not everyone is even using them in Africa.
“Insecticide-treated bed nets, or drugs to cure the malaria are effective ways [to prevent malaria], except resistance is developing against the parasites,” Riehle says.
Give the genetically engineered mosquitoes 10 years to emerge as a viable solution to the fight against malaria. This will only happen if the mosquitoes can compete with the disease-ridden wild ones.
Still, there’s a lot more work to be done in the lab before these mosquitoes are fit enough to infiltrate the wild population. “At this point, we don’t know the exact mechanism of how the parasites are being killed,” Riehle says.

MALNUTRITION: Biotech and breeding - glimpses of the agricultural future

JAKARTA, 9 July 2010 (IRIN) - Agricultural production in the developing world could be among the hardest-hit by climate change, but new research shows that food security can be improved by biotechnology and adapting traditional farming techniques, experts say. Global demand for food is expected to double by the year 2050, when the population will reach more than nine billion, according to the World Bank, posing a serious challenge to global food security. Mark Howden, an expert in climate change and agriculture at the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation [http://www.csiro.au/] said scientists need to be creative to face this challenge. "To be able to feed this growing population, one thing we will need is an improvement in the study of genetics," he said at a recent climate change adaptation conference on Australia's Gold Coast. While the decades-old debate around genetic modification of food continues, many scientists believe biotechnology is part of the answer to the looming food security problem. They say it can help crops resist extreme weather [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=87752] and the pests and bacteria expected to come with it. Sureshkumar Balasubramanian, a lecturer at the University of Queensland, said we should not be afraid of genetic modification. Balasubramanian recently discovered a new gene form that could potentially help farmers cultivate more crops in a shorter period. He discovered the ACD6 gene form while comparing the biological makeup of plants that grew at different rates in different parts of the world. "We found that some of the plants grew slower than others because they were developing this gene to fight pathogens," he told IRIN. "In a situation where pathogens are not a threat to crops, removing this gene will speed up crop growth. This could be beneficial in parts of the world that are experiencing shorter harvest periods because of changing weather patterns. "But genetic diversity is important. If I were to design an agricultural area, even if there's no pathogen threat, I would make sure around 10 percent of the plants had this gene. Just because there is no pathogen in an area now, doesn't mean there won't be tomorrow, because we don't know how the climate will change." Cyanide Biotechnology could also help counteract cyanide levels in crops that are expected to increase as the climate changes. An acute consumption of cyanide can cause konzo, a neuron condition that paralyses the legs. Small outbreaks of konzo usually occur in poorer African nations. Anna Burns, also from Monash University, found that cyanide levels in cassava increased during drought. Because cassava is drought-tolerant, it is widely consumed during dry periods, which is when konzo outbreaks occur. "I think genetic modification is only one option, and it would take a long time to implement in developing countries, where food security issues are most urgent," Burns said. "Traditional breeding programmes are more viable and can select for varieties with low-cyanogenic concentration." Part of the problem is that cassava in East Africa [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=89401] is traditionally sun-dried or fermented, which creates cyanide. "Both agricultural and social factors need to be considered in adaptation to climate change. And prevention is better than a cure," Burns said. Growing rice differently In many parts of Asia, discussions on food security are centred around rice. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, around two billion people in Asia rely on rice for 60-70 percent of their daily calorie intake. According to the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), [http://www.irri.org/about/about.asp] genetically modified rice is already being used by rice breeders in many Asian countries to develop new rice varieties. However, as yet none are being grown commercially. Greenpeace insists that "because the [genetic modification] technology is very new and imprecise, the potential ill effects on public health and on the environment are still widely unknown". [http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/campaigns/genetic-engineering] There is a very low level of acceptance of genetically modified food in Asia and elsewhere. "Often only conventional breeding processes are used, as many Asian and African countries do not accept genetically modified products, said Baboucarr Manneh, a molecular biologist and coordinator of the Africa Rice Centre's Abiotic Stresses Project in Benin, which is working on developing varieties of rice that will tolerate extreme heat and cold. Traditional farming methods are, nevertheless, being challenged as rain patterns become less predictable and water salinity increases with rising sea levels. Many Asian countries experiencing water shortages have implemented aerobic rice programmes, shifting from the traditional flooding method to a drier method. Aerobic rice is grown like upland crops, such as wheat. Some rice production has shifted from moist lowlands to dry highlands. Aerobic rice produces higher yields, 4-6 tons per hectare. Participatory testing in the Philippines since early this decade has seen more productive yields, some above six tons per hectare. Carmelita Alberto from IRRI said aerobic rice required around half the water needed for lowland rice. "The Philippines has used aerobic rice farming in irrigated areas where water is too scarce and it is too costly to keep paddy fields permanently flooded," she said. But Alberto warns that aerobic rice has its trade-offs. In her current research on aerobic rice and heat fluxes, she has found that lowland rice fields sequester more carbon from the atmosphere than aerobic rice fields, which have warmer microclimates. "At the same time, aerobic rice reduces methane emissions by 30 percent. Methane is very harmful to the atmosphere," Alberto said. "So you have to decide how to balance lowland and highland production. There is much more research needed, especially in tropical countries."

POVERTY: Why is feeding the hungry so controversial?

NEW YORK , 14 June 2010 (IRIN) - The US Senate is expected to pass the Global Food Security Act, new legislation that would significantly expand the government's commitment to combating hunger worldwide with a broad range of measures and more money, and a special coordinator, or "food czar", to oversee implementation of these provisions across agencies. A proposed new fund would allocate several billion dollars over five years to research and development, to enhance "food security, agriculture productivity, rural development, poverty and malnutrition alleviation, and environmental sustainability".The proposed fund would be "in addition, and complementary, to food aid provided through the US Department of Agriculture", most of which is not permitted to be purchased in the areas where a food crisis is occurring. The legislation would also establish a US Emergency Rapid Response to Food Crises Fund that would authorize a $500 million appropriation for "local and regional purchase and distribution of food" and "provision of emergency non-food assistance, including vouchers or cash transfer, safety net programmes, or other appropriate non-food assistance"."The US, indeed all global donors, have been starving agricultural research funding for more than a decade," said Christopher Barrett, a food aid expert who teaches at Cornell University. "A huge body of evidence demonstrates extremely high rates of return on agricultural investment ... in the form of poverty and hunger reduction globally and ... economic growth, including for US and other high-income country farmers who benefit ... from research aimed at stimulating agricultural development in poor countries," Barrett commented."It's a smarter way to approach hunger and development assistance," the ONE Campaign, a grassroots advocacy organization, said in a statement. "With targeted investments in solutions like proven farming techniques, seeds, improved soils and efficient use of water resources, we can not only end chronic hunger and food shortages, we can help poor farmers and their families earn their way out of poverty."However, some organizations have objected to a sentence in the bill sponsored by Senators Richard Lugar and Robert Casey, which mandates funding for "research on biotechnical advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified [GM] technology". A letter signed by more than a hundred advocacy groups, scientists and development experts claimed that "The current language mandates one highly controversial type of technology - transgenics - dominated by two or three companies (most notably Monsanto), to get both taxpayer cash and ... favoured treatment under a bill ostensibly designed to help the poor and hungry," and asked that this section be stricken from the bill.If Congress "singles out one technology and attaches it to a pool of foreign aid money, the pressure on developing countries to ignore local priorities and other scientifically valid options - and to open their markets to that one technology - will be substantial", the letter noted.Annie Shattuck, of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, commented in an email to IRIN: "The bill puts needed resources to long-term agricultural development, but the essential question is: who will ultimately benefit from the development? She noted that "Both [the] State [Department] and USAID acknowledge that poverty, not scarcity, causes hunger, yet both focus on productivity and new green revolution technologies, to the exclusion of broader social factors like fairer trading arrangements, increasing the market power of small farmers, access to credit, stabilizing markets, rebuilding public extension, etc."Lugar responded: "The bottom line is that a provision of the Lugar-Casey bill directs US assistance in developing local technological solutions to advance agricultural productivity in countries suffering from chronic hunger - it does not require that these solutions be GM, but it does not preclude it where appropriate." He characterized as "gross misrepresentations" suggestions that "the bill would mandate that US assistance be used to promote genetically modified agricultural technologies, and that US food aid would be conditioned on recipient countries approving the use of GM products."Robert Paarlberg, author of Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept out of Africa, told IRIN: "This is a deeper matter than GM crop research, since most of the organizations that oppose the Lugar-Casey bill on these grounds also oppose its emphasis on spreading more traditional science-based 'green revolution' farming technologies."He pointed out that "There is not yet an example of any society lifting its farming populations out of hunger and poverty without introducing green revolution methods, such as the use of improved seeds and nitrogen fertilizers," and that using only organic and agro-ecological approaches had not yet worked anywhere. "It simply makes sense to keep all our arrows available in the quiver in the battle to reduce hunger and poverty," said Christopher Barrett. "It would make no more sense to exclude research based on genetic modification than to focus on it exclusively." After passage in the senate, the bill will move on to the House of Representatives; once the lower house grants its approval, President Barack Obama's signature will make it law.