BioTech Magazine readers are from the research labs / educational institutes/university, the clinical research, policy makers, Consultants, Fund managers, Key executives and the influencers in pharmaceutical / agricultural companies, clinical trials and contract manufacturing organizations and other sectors.
Contact:
Editor
editor at btmag dot co dot in
General Inquiry
info at btmag dot co dot in
http://rbc.btmag.co.in (Rohini BioTech Consultant, RBC)
http://www.btmag.co.in (BioTech Magazine, Free Version for All)
http://nanotech.btmag.co.in (NanoTech Magazine, India’s First NanoTech Magazine)
http://skmindia.btmag.co.in (SKMIndia, World’s First Complete database on BioTech Information)
2. Summary
The need for biodiversity on all levels is made clear: Biodiversity provides a source of significant economic, aesthetic, health and cultural benefits (3.). Relationsships between biodiversity and ecosystems is given in a table (3.1.) and a new concept of sustainability with more emphasis on development and progress is given (3.2.)
Types of biodiversity are often used without clear definition: genetic biodiversity - species diversity and ecosystem diversity are all part of biodiversity (4.).
A short chapter on global distribution on biodiversity closes the general part (5).
The loss of biodiversity has one main reason: habitat destruction through urbanization, land use and agriculture (6.1.). Another threat to indigenous biodiversity is invasive species and species migration due to human activities (6.2.). Biodiversity is a kind of biological insurance for ecosystem processes (6.3.).
In chapter 7 crop biodiversity gets a closer look: the genome of transgenic crops is not basically different from non-transgenic crops (7.1.).). Strikingly enough, the ancestral crop species chosen by the first farmers have lived in monodominant stands (7.2.). Agricultural biodiversity is characterized through high dynamics of all processes (7.3 and 7.4).
Chapter 8 deals with a series of proposals on how to enhance agricultural biodiversity through (landscape) management (8.1.), mixed cropping (8.2.), enhancing crop diversity through fostering orphan crops (8.3.) varietal mixture of genes and seeds of the same crop (8.4.), allow indirectly more diversity of non-target insects with the use of pest resistant transgenic crops and by reducing pesticide use and through no-tillage (8.5.), push-and-pull technologies (8.6.), better plant breeding (8.7), enhancing natural resistance with biotechnology (8.8.).
In an interlude chapter 9 on the activities of the protest industry and opponent scientists it is explained why the obvious success of GM crops is not really making progress in Europe.
In chapter 10, two case studies on GM crops are given with some detail on how those crops with widespread commercialization are helping efficiently to regain biodiversity in regions with intensive and industrial agriculture: Herbicide tolerant crops (10.1.) and pest tolerant Bt crops (10.2.)
In a final chapter 11, the health benefits of Bt maize are documented: transgenic Bt maize has much lower mycotoxin levels than non-transgenic maize.
The full text under the following link: http://www.ask-force.org/web/AF-11-Biodiversity/AF-11-Biodiversity-Biotechnology-20100715-web.pdf
for feedbacks, write to klaus dot ammann at ips dot unibe dot ch, and on special request and for private use you will get an open source version of the full text
]]>farms, farmers and farming
we want to include several topics (html) about: agriculture versus biotechnogy
this to show the farmers and our readers/viewers the importance of present biotechnology,
there fore we ask your assistance
please advise good articles (html)
our website is interactive, so the visitor can ask, via email, information about a
specific topic or theme. so, the contents of the site changes daily and fast
have a look at http://www.farmersbase.com
and keep us posted
Happy Easter days
farmersbase / netherlands
]]>I just have a small doudt or may be its confusion,
now a days gene silencing technology is widely using in the production of hybrids to get more yield this is defnetly effect the diversity of the perticular species in future
this may mainly seen in the developing and non developing countries where most of the formers dont no about all this things.
Please add your views on this…..
This is good news for the transgenic cotton debate: Three farm-scale evaluations in a row demonstrate all clear positive results in favour of the transgenic Bt cotton Here are the abstracts and links of the most recent publications:
Cattaneo, M.G., Yafuso, C., Schmidt, C., Huang, C.Y., Rahman, M., Olson, C., Ellers-Kirk, C., Orr, B.J., Marsh, S.E., Antilla, L., Dutilleu, P., & Carriere, Y. (2006)
Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 20, pp 7571-7576
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/20/7571 and the supporting tables http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0508312103/DC1 and figures only http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/figsonly/103/20/7571
Summary
Higher yields and reduced pesticide impacts are needed to mitigate the effects of agricultural intensification. A 2-year farm-scale evaluation of 81 commercial fields in Arizona show that use of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton reduced insecticide use, whereas transgenic cotton with Bt protein and herbicide
resistance (BtHr) did not affect herbicide use.
Transgenic cotton had higher yield than nontransgenic cotton for any given number of insecticide applications. However, nontransgenic, Bt and BtHr cotton had similar yields overall, largely because higher insecticide use with nontransgenic cotton improved control of key pests.
Unlike Bt and BtHr cotton, insecticides reduced the diversity of non-target insects. Several other agronomic and ecological factors also affected biodiversity. Nevertheless, pairwise comparisons of diversity of non-target insects in cotton fields with diversity in adjacent non-cultivated sites revealed similar effects of cultivation of transgenic and nontransgenic cotton on biodiversity.
The results indicate that impacts of agricultural intensification can be reduced when replacement of broad-spectrum insecticides by narrow-spectrum Bt crops does not reduce control of pests not affected by Bt crops.
Two other recent papers, telling the same story, again underpinned with excellent scientific data collected under realistic conditions:
Sharma, H.C. & Pampapathy, G. (2006)
Influence of transgenic cotton on the relative abundance and damage by target and non-target insect pests under different protection regimes in India. Crop Protection, 25, 8, pp 800-813
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Sharma-Cotton-Insects-2006.pdf
Summary
Effectiveness of transgenic cottons with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cry1Ac gene along with non-transgenic commercial cultivars of Gossypium hirsutum and G. arboreum for the management of cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera was evaluated at the research farm, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India. In general, there were no significant differences in oviposition between the transgenic and the non-transgenic cultivars under protected and unprotected conditions. The larval numbers were significantly lower on the transgenic hybrids during the 2004 rainy season under high infestation, but the differences in larval density between the transgenic and non-transgenic hybrids during 2002 and 2003 seasons under low levels of infestation were quite small. Bollworm damage in squares and bolls was significantly lower in the transgenic hybrids than in the nontransgenic ones, although there were a few exceptions. Differences in seed cotton yield between the transgenic and the non-transgenic hybrids were not significant under unprotected conditions at moderate levels of infestation during the 2002 and 2003 cropping seasons (except in the case of Mech 184). However, significant differences in seed cotton yield were observed during the 2004 cropping season under heavy bollworm infestation. Seed cotton yield of the first picking in transgenic hybrids was significantly greater than that of the non-transgenic counterparts.
Bambawale, O.M., Singh, A., Sharma, O.P., Bhosle, B.B., Lavekar, R.C., Dhandapani, A., Kanwar, V., Tanwar, R.K., Rathod, K.S., Patange, N.R., & Pawar, V.M. (2004)
Performance of Bt cotton (MECH-162) under Integrated Pest Management in farmers’ participatory field trial in Nanded district, Central India. Current Science, 86, 12, pp 1628-1633
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Bambawale-Cotton-Centra-India-2004.pdf
Summary
Farmers’ participatory field trail was conducted in 33.18 ha representing rainfed cotton-growing region in Nanded district of the central zone, to evaluate the performance of Bt cotton hybrid MECH-162 under Integrated Pest Management (IPM), and to compare it with conventional cotton (CC) hybrids/varieties grown with and without IPM. There was significant reduction in bollworm incidence. Maximum damage was observed in CC without IPM, where seven sprays of pesticides were made for control of insect pests in comparison to three on Bt MECH-162. Population of the sucking pests and two natural enemies monitored was also lower in Bt MECH-162 compared to CC. The latter without IPM recorded the lowest population of natural enemies. Seed cotton yield (12.4 q/ha), and net returns (Rs 16231/ha) were highest for Bt MECH-162. CC under IPM recorded an yield of 7.1 q/ha, and return of Rs 10507/ha. The results show that IPM in cotton was most effective with Bt MECH-162, and provided higher return though the initial seed cost for the farmers was higher.
.
.
some helpful links for those who want to know more:
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton-Links-KA-20060719.pdf
including the (in)famous Report on Chinese cotton from Greenpeace, which has been contradicted and rebutted by the cited Chinese authors themselves:
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/China-Greenpeace-XUEdayuan.pdf
and two (of many) rebuttals pointing to the main flaws of the Greenpeace report:
The protest of the Chinese researchers cited in the Greenpeace report, which has been published behind their back:
Prof. Wu is Director of the Department of Agricultural Entomology, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Beijing, China; a member of the National GMO Biosafety Committee; and Chief Scientist of the National High-Tech Program on the ecological safety of Bt cotton in China. His laboratory is one of four mentioned by the Greenpeace-Report. The following is Prof. Kongming Wu’s brief statement.
Wu, K. (2002),
Electronic Source: A brief statement on the studies of the ecological impact of Bt cotton conducted by Dr. Kongming Wu’s lab, Institute of Plant Protection, (ed ASK-FORCE), Forum ASK-FORCE, published by: European Federation of Biotechnology, Taken from the Berne Debates 2002, sent by the author
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/WuKongmingRsptoGreenp.pdf/
Lots of scientific, peer reviewed papers cited in there
A report by an independent consultant, as publication and electronic source
Keeley, J. (2003),
Electronic Source: Regulating biotechnology in China: the politics of biosafety, IDS Working Paper 208, published by: INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES,
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp208.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Keeley-Report-China-Cotton-2003.pdf
Keeley, J. (2006)
Balancing technological innovation and environmental regulation: An analysis of Chinese agricultural biotechnology governance. Environmental Politics, 15, 2, pp 293-309
<Go to ISI>://000237241900008 no pdf available
The basics: Greenpeace has done a sloppy job by relying on a field study which it did not study properly and from which it draw wrong conclusions without even checking with the authors, the wrong negative conclusions then blown up out of proportion, so the whole report is not really credible.
QUESTION TO GREENPEACE (AND A REQUEST)
Why on earth are you not taking notice of all the critical debate concerning your 2002 Report? Are you living on another planet or what? It’s just really cheap to launch a flawed report and present it on your luxurious website for ignorant lay people as THE truth? Please explain
For those who have to verify these accusations, please go to:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/footer/search?q=cotton, still the same old stuff, as if time would have been halted.
THE REQUEST
please put on your website the three publications (Cattaneo, Sharma, Bambawale) with the links above in order to give your members a more balanced view, if you do not, then you can be rightly accused by falsifying the scientific facts on purpose. You have lost a lot of credibility to the people who have access to scientific information. Unfortunately you can still count on all those goodhearted members who have too much faith in you and who have no ways and means to check critically, what dusty stuff you put on your website.
Summing up this China Bt cotton debate with Greenpeace (which is actually OVER from the scientific point of view) in short words:
THERE ARE INSECT RESISTANT CROPS PERFORMING WELL AND FACT-RESISTANT ACTIVISTS WHO NEED TO SAY BYE BYE TO THEIR CHEAP PROPAGANDA STUNTS
Bibliography from the Web of Science on Bt Cotton for the keywords biosafety and biodiversity
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Bibliography-Bt-Cotton-WOS-20060719.pdf
Comprehensive overview on China’s biosafety policy:
http://agbioforum.org/v5n4/v5n4a01-huang.htm
Finally: compare also the previous sending of the ASK-FORCE on a similar topic: Bt cotton in India
http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/13/
Klaus Ammann
]]>1. Introduction
1.1. The general strategic situation of the debate about green biotechnology today
The aim of this text is to set the framework for a better communication about science and regulation and production of GM crops. GM stands for Genetic Modification, basically an unfortunate denomination, because actually all crops are genetically modified, but it is a worldwide accepted term for genetically engineered crops, including transgenes, auto- and allotransgenics, cis- and infra-genes and synthetic genes, for details see Beardmore (Beardmore, 1997). By including gene stacking of various kinds the situation is getting even more complex (Taverniers et al., 2008)
The strategic situation in the debate on GM crops is difficult, but not desperate, particularly in Europe – this is an evaluation shared by lots of experts of the debate about agricultural biotechnology, in Europe it is negatively affecting research and researchers (Rauschen, 2009). We have reached in Europe the peak of anxiety related to GM-crops since the introduction of the new technologies, and some opponents to transgenic crops have taken advantage of this situation. They have organized themselves in a veritable protest industry, see chapter 3. Nevertheless, the next years should lead to reassurance on biotechnology views. We encounter the same repeating dynamics as described for previous technology introductions (Showalter, 1997). The Gartner Hype Cycle (Linden & Fenn, 2003) adds another dimension to technology life cycle models: it characterizes the typical progression of an emerging technology from user and media over-enthusiasm through a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology’s relevance and role in a market or domain. It is interesting to note, that the Showalter ‘hystories’ on the introduction of most new technologies (Showalter, 1997) report no real damage in their subsequent introductory phase – or – the benefits were so overwhelming that the debate was soon fading away. This alone demonstrates clearly that it is the socio-cultural environment strongly influencing the risk debate (Adams, 1995). The most recent events seem to hint that Europe finally finds to a more de-contracted way of looking at GM crops: The new report of the Royal Society (Royal-Society, 2009) tries to unite conventional and biotechnology approaches for the sake of making progress on agricultural management in developing countries:Royal Society Report:
“Past debates about agricultural technology have tended to involve different parties arguing for either advanced biotechnology including GM, improved conventional agricultural practice or low-input methods. We do not consider that these approaches are mutually exclusive: improvements to all systems require high-quality science. Global food insecurity is the product of a set of interrelated local problems of food production and consumption. The diversity of these problems needs to be reflected in the diversity of scientific approaches used to tackle them. Rather than focusing on particular scientific tools and techniques, the approaches should be evaluated in terms of their outcomes.”
It might well be that we arrive sooner than expected from a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology’s relevance and role in a market or domain.
more text and all literature citations: http://www.ask-force.org/web/ASK-FORCE-Strategy/ASK-FORCE-Strategy-20100610-web.pdf
feedback to klaus dot ammann at ips dot unibe dot ch, on special request I will send for private use only an open source version of the full text
Ammann, K. & Papazova Ammann, B. (2004)
Factors Influencing Public Policy Development in Agricultural Biotechnology. In RISK ASSESSMENT OF TRANSGENIC CROPS. (ed S. Shantaram), Vol. 9, pp. 1552. Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.P. Christou & H. Klee Handbook of Plant Biotechnology,
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Wiley/Factors-Discourse-Wiley.pdf
It opens perspectives in discursive methods in the present day difficult debate on biotechnology. We do have hopes that the debate can still be enhanced, and we are convinced that the new forum ASK-FORCE will help to steer the debate away from the usual tennis match attitudes.
Clearly, some activists are deviating from the scientific facts, are often ignoring them, this has to be fiercely contradicted. But we should not forget about this fight that the world as a whole cannot be explained solely by scientific facts. Culture, Art etc are existing and living in other realms. This is in short words the explanation for the basic anxiety of a lot of lay people, who feel threatened by scientists intending to monopolize the debate on biotech, this is perceived by many as an intention of scientists to monopolize the whole debate. Active listening (a good American tradition) will help here, combined with the methods described in the above article on Discourse.
There are two key elements one should focus on, when designing discourse:
1. Wicked Problems, see a text written by Jeff Conklin
http://www.cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf
instead of an explanation, here the motto in Jeffs text:
Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.—Laurence J. Peter
2. Symmetry of ignorance, see all explanations under:
Fischer, G. (2000)
Symmetry of ignorance, social creativity, and meta-design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 13, 7-8, pp 527-537
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Discourse/Fischer-Symmetry-Ignorance-2000.pdf
3. A seminal paper written in 1970 (!)
Kunz, W. & Rittel, H. (1970)
Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Papers Institute of Urban & Regional Development UC Berkeley, 121, pp 1-10 http://www-iurd.ced.berkeley.edu/pub/WP-131.pdf
Horst W. Rittel and Frank West Churchman can be seen as the founders of the Systems Aproach in Debates and Decision Making.
Klaus Ammann
klaus dot ammann at ips dot unibe dot ch
2. Summary
An excellent summary graph is given in (Graff et al., 2009) in fig. 1b: innovations active in the R&D pipeline were growing at an increasing rate during the period before 1998, but declined after 1998. Apart from competition of reasonably close non-transgenic substitutes the authors consider one regulatory reason to be the main culprit: The halting of regulatory approvals in 1998 in Europe. Although the authors consider the full extent of reasons still to be conjectural, their data suggest that changes in regulatory environment may have been a cause. In a combination of high costs for lost implementation and high costs for regulatory approvals the present state and operational experience has grown into a major obstacle of modern crop breeding.
Commentary from Table 1: The primary survey combined records from scientific publications, field trial records and regulatory filings to identify 558 transgenic plants with quality improvements and determine how far they had progressed through stages of R&D by 2004, including those that had only been published in the scientific literature; those that had reached initial field trials (defined as having completed 1–3 field trials), mid-stage field trials (4–9 field trials) or advanced field trials (>10); those that had entered regulatory filings; and those that were commercialized. The secondary survey canvassed expectations of firms and analysts about the likelihood and time frame for future commercialization of transgenic product quality innovations. Complete one-to-one correspondence between individual observations of the two surveys was not possible.
More details and literature citations in:
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/AF-10-Over-Regulation/AF-10-Over-Regulation-20091220-web.pdf