EFB Forum

Farm Scale Evaluation of Transgenic Cotton positive

2006-06-27T11:20:56+01:00

Friends,

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

have a view at famersbase…

2007-04-08T16:20:55+01:00

at present farmersbase is producing a new website about

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

BIODIVERSITY and the Debate on GM crops

2009-12-02T07:16:06+01:00

1. The Issue
Genetically engineered crops are often taken automatically for the main reason of biodiversity loss.
There are numerous false claims of this kind, such as Vandana Shiva gives in her frequent world tours: Shiva, V., Emani, A., & Jafri, A.H. (1999) Globalization and threat to seed security - Case of transgenic cotton trials in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 34, 10-11, pp 601-613 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Shiva-Globalisation-Threat-Seed-Security-1999.pdf
“In such a situation, the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) seeds becomes worrisome. In absence of any such regulation, the costlier GE seeds will offer no guarantee for whether they perform well or not. This will lead to complete erosion of the agricultural biodiversity and adversely affect the socio-economic status of the farmers. This will be further aggravated since GE seeds will be patented, and corporations will treat information about them as proprietary.”
And another citation from Greenpeace Great Britain, downloaded from their website November 12, 2009 see Greenpeace, statement on GM crops http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Fundamentalists/Greenpeace-Biodiversity-GB-website-20091112.pdf AND http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm
“The introduction of genetically modified (GM) food and crops has been a disaster. The science of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another was supposed to be a giant leap forward, but instead they pose a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health. In addition, the real reason for their development has not been to end world hunger but to increase the stranglehold multinational biotech companies already have on food production.”
The contrary is true, GM crops can help reduce the application of herbicides which are problematic for the environment, and a plethora of hard data proofs that non-target insects often survive quite well in Bt maize fields, whereas in non-GM crop fields, often the non-target organisms suffer from massive spraying of chemicals problematic to the environment and life. Another set of hard facts has been generated from the no-tillage culture of herbicide tolerant soybeans, where it is proven that soil fertility is greatly enhanced.

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.botanischergarten.ch/AF-11-Biodiversity/AF-11-Biodiversity-Biotechnology-20091123-web.pdf

for feedbacks, write to klaus dot ammann at ips dot unibe dot ch

Review: Rethinking Communication Strategy in the Debate on GM crops. Regulation of GM crops and Science Communication, Possible Interaction Networks

2009-11-24T18:37:52+01:00

Summary
Introduction: After giving a general survey on the strategy of the debate on GM crops worldwide (1.1), illusions and realities on the education on educational effects on the debate are discussed, (1.2). The role of the internet is often underestimated (1.3), and the same counts for the influence of the economy on the debate and public perception (1.4.).
Regulation: The dialogue on regulation of GM crops is a complex set of issues (2.1.). The role of peer reviewed literature needs careful consideration and more appreciation (2.2). A crucial element in this debate is the often over-estimated difference between GM and non-GM crops (2.3.). The exorbitant and unjustified costs and lost benefits of over-regulation and the reasons behind are discussed. Biofortification is one of the most efficient and sustainable ways of foreign aid today (2.4.) The example of the Golden Rice regulation demonstrates an unfortunate follow-up of regulatory misconceptions (2.5.).
Communication and Debate: The dispute between scientists and opponents is unfortunately often dominated by cheap propaganda of the protest corporations for commercial reasons (3.1.). The use of strong language in this debate is discussed in detail with recent and historical examples (3.2.). As a rule negative statements on GM crops do (or should) not pass peer review, with some notable examples discussed (3.3.).
Debate improvements: Some proposals are given on how to solve these complex problems stemming from low acceptability – the example of the ASK-FORCE organization as one of the solutions (4.1.). There is also a need for a long term discourse organized along the strategy and thinking of the Systems Approach (4.2.) by using internetworking in a creative way.
(The next contribution: Improvement of research, development and production) Introduction to the way forward in regulation, development and production of GM crops (5.1.). New look at regulation of GM crops: Revision of the Biosafety Protocol (5.2.). Proposal of new collaborative development schemes under the focus of feeding the world (5.3.). Proposal on how to reorganize agricultural and food production related agencies of the United Nations (5.4.).

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.botanischergarten.ch/ASK-FORCE-Strategy/ASK-FORCE-Internet-20091123-web.pdf

feedback to klaus dot ammann at ips dot unibe dot ch

Philosophy of Management Methods

2006-06-27T11:56:00+01:00

Friends,
It is an old problem that scientists working in biology usually have very little knowledge in social sciences and philosophy. This chapter in the ASK-FORCE forum wants to give some hints about bridging the gaps.
My wife, Dr. Biljana Papazova Ammann and I have published a text about the philosophy of management methods under the following title:

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

REGULATION: Misconcepts cause high costs and huge delays in regulation of GM-crops

2009-10-24T15:14:12+01:00

1. The issue
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) has now been adopted by 157 parties http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/signinglist.shtml. It still builds on the principle that GM crop plants might bare risks in contrast to the conventional crops: Objective of CPB http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/articles.shtml?a=cpb-01. The huge apparatus on risk assessment based on this protocol is building on the principle, that the mechanism of transgenicity is totally artificial and is not found in nature. Modern molecular science insights have proven the contrary, as shown in ASK-FORCE AF-9 on the molecular basis of transgenesis. This results in maintaining to an asymmetric risk assessment of innovation of GM crops. The possible exemption of widespread GM crops in Art. 7.4 http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/articles.shtml?a=cpb-07 is not even considered officially up to now.

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

REGULATION: is there really a big difference between GM- and non-GM-crops on the molecular level ?

2009-10-24T15:00:19+01:00

1.Issue
The difference between GM- and non-GM-crops has been overestimated, as soon as genetic engineering has been applied to crop breeding. The uncontested understanding among scientists and in particular in risk assessment community was that GM crops pose some novel risks, unprecedented in conventionally bred crops. This has then condensed in the United Nations Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/, which needs to be questioned in certain basic aspects.

2.Summary
After an early phase of risk assessment, including the results of the Asilomar Conference on biosafety, an early divide in risk assessment basic concepts developed between Canada, the USA and Europe including a majority of UN signatory countries. Researchers like Werner Arber, based on earlier molecular insights and on his own experience in genetic engineering claim that related to molecular processes there is no difference between genetically engineering and natural mutation. This transatlantic divide can be solved with some more innovative regulatory proceedings.

For the details and an extensive literature list see:
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/AF-9-Differences-GM-non-GM-crops/AF-9-Differences-GM-non-GM-crops-20091024-web.pdf

ENVIRONMENT - Is the impact of Bt maize on non-target insects significantly negative as Lovei et al. claim?

2009-08-31T15:24:34+01:00

Peer reviewed ASK-FORCE AF-8 Contribution Klaus Ammann, em. Prof. University of Bern, Switzerland

1. The Claim
Lovei, G. L., D. A. Andow and S. Arpaia (2009). “Transgenic Insecticidal Crops and Natural Enemies: A Detailed Review of Laboratory Studies.” Environmental Entomology 38: 293-306.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/envent/2009/00000038/00000002/art00001

“This review uses a data-driven, quantitative method to summarize the published, peer-reviewed literature about the impact of genetically modified (GM) plants on arthropod natural enemies in laboratory experiments. The method is similar to meta-analysis, and, in contrast to a simple author-vote counting method used by several earlier reviews, gives an objective, data-driven summary of existing knowledge about these effects. Significantly more non-neutral responses were observed than expected at random in 75% of the comparisons of natural enemy groups and response classes. These observations indicate that Cry toxins and proteinase inhibitors often have non-neutral effects on natural enemies. This synthesis identifies a continued bias toward studies on a few predator species, especially the green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea Stephens, which may be more sensitive to GM insecticidal plants (16.8% of the quantifed parameter responses were significantly negative) than predators in general (10.9% significantly negative effects without C. carnea). Parasitoids were more susceptible than predators to the effects of both Cry toxins and proteinase inhibitors, with fewer positive effects (18.0%, significant and non-significant positive effects combined) than negative ones (66.1%, significant and non-significant negative effects combined). GM plants can have a positive effect on natural enemies (4.8% of responses were significantly positive), although significant negative (21.2%) effects were more common. Although there are data on 48 natural enemy species, the database is still far from adequate to predict the effect of a Bt toxin or proteinase inhibitor on natural enemies”.

(Lovei et al., 2009).

2. Comments by Shelton et al.
Shelton, A., Naranjo, S., Romeis, J., Hellmich, R., Wolt, J., Federici, B., Albajes, R., Bigler, F., Burgess, E., Dively, G., Gatehouse, A., Malone, L., Roush, R., Sears, M., & Sehnal, F. (2009)
Setting the record straight: a rebuttal to an erroneous analysis on transgenic insecticidal crops and natural enemies. Transgenic Research, 18, 3, pp 317-322
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-009-9260-5 open access AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Shelton-Setting-Record-Straight-Lovei-2009.pdf

In a nearly unprecedented speed (Lovei et al., 2009) has been rebutted sharply by (Shelton et al., 2009), a worldwide consortium of specialists on research of non-target insects related to Bt crops: In an unusual straightforward text they criticize heavily the previous publication, and the author of this study agrees fully: it is time to recognize that such studies, even when published in peer reviewed journals, do not help to progress scientific risk assessment of GM crops, on the contrary, they hinder future developments by providing to highly questionable arguments a scientific aura. The pitfalls are not easy to see, due to the complexity of the matter (food webs of parasitoid insects and their prey over development and time). For lay persons, politicians and even regulators it is difficult to develop a critical view and to distinguish junk science from high quality papers.

“As scientists involved in risk assessment of transgenic insecticidal plants, we are greatly concerned about the publication by (Lovei et al., 2009) implying that insect-protected crops based on the Cry proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis may have substantial negative impacts on non-target organisms. We believe that (Lovei et al., 2009) use inappropriate and unsound methods for risk assessment that have led them to reach conclusions that are in conflict with those of several recent comprehensive reviews and metaanalyses (e.g., (Marvier et al., 2007; Naranjo, 2009; O’Callaghan et al., 2005; Romeis et al., 2006; Wolfenbarger et al., 2008). (Lovei et al., 2009) base their findings on an analysis of 55 laboratory studies of Cry proteins and 27 studies of proteinase inhibitors (PIs; including lectins) that were published through mid-2007 and conclude that these proteins ‘‘often have non-neutral effects on natural enemies’’. They further conclude that ‘‘parasitoids were more susceptible than predators to the effects of both (toxins)’’ and that ‘‘conclusions that Bt…gene products have no harm to natural enemies are currently over-generalized and premature’’. We are deeply concerned about the inappropriate methods used in their paper, the lack of ecological context, and the authors’ advocacy of how laboratory studies on non-target arthropods should be conducted and interpreted. Essentially, the authors have conducted a data-mining exercise without prior elaboration of a risk hypothesis framework (Romeis et al., 2008) that can provide context to their findings and interpretations. Therefore, we believe it is very important that readers consider the following points as they read (Lovei et al., 2009).”

for more text click: http://www.botanischergarten.ch/AF-8-Lovei/AF-8-Lovei-Non-Target-20090828-web.pdf

for feedback email to klaus dot ammann at ips dot unibe dot ch

HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH - Rebuttal to a Review of Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009, part one

2009-08-31T14:47:27+01:00

Peer reviewed ASK-FORCE AF-7 Contribution Klaus Ammann, em. Prof. University of Bern, Switzerland

1. Part one
1.1. 35S-Promoter and the stability of transgene inserts
1.2. Antibiotic marker chapter, status 20090725

1.1. The claim for part one on the 35S promoter and Antibiotic marker genes

Summarized in the abstract published:

“As genetically modified (GM) foods are starting to intrude in our diet concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety. These concerns as well as the limitations of the procedures followed in the evaluation of their safety are presented. Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems. The review of these studies should not be conducted separately for each GM food, but according to the effects exerted on certain organs it may help us create a better picture of the possible health effects on human beings. The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.”

Dona, A. & Arvanitoyannis, I.S. (2009)
Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods.
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49, 2, pp 164 - 175 http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/10408390701855993

Comments on 1.1. by Klaus Ammann and colleagues cited
General comments
This paper, published recently in “Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition” by the internationally well known editorial house Taylor & Francis, needs to be critically commented for a multitude of reasons:
In a first overview, the reader will find a lot of mostly unconfirmed concerns about the safety of foods derived from GM crops, the citations are extremely filtered in a way to depict a negative picture on GM crops, and the review authors seem to lack proper knowledge about the field of food safety as a whole. They also publish numerous paragraphs as their own writings, whereas they are just taken by copy-paste from other publications, and worse: those placatory passages are selected from papers with a negative bias and with notorious contents, which have been rebutted recently and for the majority even some years ago. Most of those rebuttals are written by the best authorities in the field, well publicized and easily obtainable in the internet or in libraries from the best peer reviewed journals. Thus Dona et al. give the uninformed reader the wrong picture, as if the food safety situation in 2008 would still be precarious. This is simply not the case and in summary this is a blatant example of scientific distortion of the overall picture in this field of scientific research on food safety.
The text below will give some examples, always supported by peer reviewed literature, which is available in abundance. It is hard to understand that Taylor & Francis let pass such a low quality review with numerous errors, and it is even harder to understand that major efforts in food safety research are simply ignored in this review, or mentioned in a misleading way, such as giving only the outlook and summary comment on one of the major efforts ‘ENTRANSFOOD’ in the European research on food safety: Citing only (Kuiper et al., 2004), which concentrates on some future research efforts, gives the erroneous picture, that ENTRANSFOOD came to the conclusion that food safety is not yet secured with the GM crops. But if you make the effort of reading the major official summary of ENTRANSFOOD (Konig et al., 2004), agreed upon by all researchers participating in this project, then you easily fall on their major conclusion:

“In conclusion, the food safety assessment paradigm as described in this paper, under which any differences in the new food are identified and any hazards and risks characterized, relative to the conventional food or product, clearly establishes whether the test food derived from a GM crop is as safe as the conventional counterpart. It can even be argued that foods from GM crops are better characterized than other non-regulated plant-derived foods, due to the additional rigor in the current regulatory requirements and testing regime compared to that for conventionally-bred crops.”

It should be mentioned, that this summary is based on an impressive number of joint research papers which have been carefully coordinated in their conclusions by a consortium of the most renowned researchers in food safety today. But let us start with some concrete examples in order to illustrate one of the harsh negative but unfounded statements of the review:

for more text, click: http://www.botanischergarten.ch/AF-7-Dona-rebuttal/AF-7-Dona-20091025-web.pdf

for a feedback email to klaus dot ammann at ips dot unibe dot ch

AGRICULTURE - Do GM Crops fail to Produce More Yield ?

2009-08-31T14:29:24+01:00

Peer reviewed ASK-FORCE AF-6 Contribution Klaus Ammann, em. Prof. University of Bern, Switzerland

1. The Issue:
The short summary of the press release of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS):

“Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.”

(Gurian-Sherman, 2009)

Gurian-Sherman, D. (2009)
Failure to Yield, Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, Union ot Concerned Scientists pp (Report)
http://www.ucsusa.org AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/GM-General/Gurian-Sherman-failure-to-yield-2009.pdf AND
Press conference: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

In a critical account, Nature Biotechnology produced a feature on this report:
Sheridan, C. (2009)
Report claims no yield advantage for Bt crops. Nat Biotech, 27, 7, pp 588-589
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt0709-588 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Yield/Sheridan-UCS-Crop-Failure-NB-2009.pdf

Excerpt from the experts comments:

Not all public-sector crop scientists contacted by Nature Biotechnology responded to interview requests, but those who did were uniformly critical of the report. “What I object to most about the spin is you’ve got a false antithesis set up—genetically engineered traits versus breeding. We need both/and, not either/or,” says Jonathan Jones, head of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, UK, and a cofounder of plant biotech firm Mendel Biotechnology, of Hayward, California. He also rejects the view that public sector agriculture research is overly focused on biotech. “If it’s true at all, it’s not true in Europe. It’s a rather parochial view.” And he holds anti-GE campaigners responsible for the cost of regulating transgenic crops, which makes it impossible for public-sector organizations to bring their own innovations to the market. “It strengthens the monopoly position of Monsanto et. al. That is an ironic own-goal of the anti-GE campaigners,” he says.
Ken Ostlie, a professor in the Department of Entomology at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, the Bt toxin genes introduced to corn hybrids are actually benefitting conventional and organic growers indirectly. “These traits are highly effective against the corn borer, and widespread use of Bt corn has actually collapsed the corn borer population,” he says. “Everybody’s benefitting from that, but you don’t see it looking at operational yield benefits at the current time.”
“It’s the wrong question; it’s the wrong analysis; it’s the wrong everything,” says Wayne Parrott, of the University of Georgia in Athens. “You’ve got to get past the experimental field trials and look at what’s happening on the farm itself.” Field trials, he says, are “designed to see what the crop will do under optimal conditions—that’s seldom what you’ll find on a farm.

” (Sheridan, 2009)

2. Summary
1. The report deals only with two major crops: Maize and soybean, there is no justification for the sweeping conclusions on all GM crops. Other crops like cotton and oilseed rape show a different, more positive picture, it is misleading to restrict the review to two crops and then conclude for all GM crops.
2. GM crops have – at least in the beginning – not been developed to increase yield per se (the second generation of GM soybean will do this. The first GM crop generation has been conceived to efficiently reduce yield losses to weeds and insects - and thus enhance the economic situation of the farmers, and these promises have been fulfilled properly and with evident success. UCS misleads the reader by not distinguishing those two views of yield.
3. GM crops have also efficiently reduced herbicide use (or made it possible to shift to environmentally more benign ones) and also they have helped to reduce pesticides. It is misleading by UCS not to mention those facts.
4. GM crops have a proven positive influence on the ecological footprint of intensive high production agriculture (no tillage, better life for non-target insects etc.). It is misleading by the UCS report to camouflage those positive effects under “agricultural practices”.

For more text, click: http://www.botanischergarten.ch/AF-6-Crop-Failure/AF-6-Crop-Failure-UCS-20090828-web.pdf

for a feedback, email to klaus dot ammann at ips dot unibe dot ch