Precision breeding creates super potato

These are potatoes which exclusively contain amylopectin starch.Photo: Fraunhofer IMEThe fall of 2009 was a truly special season for the Emsland Group: For the first time in the history of the largest German potato starch manufacturer, it processed Tilling potatoes, which exclusively contain amylopectin starch.

Not only can nutritional starches for emulsifying soups and desserts be extracted from it – it can also be used for paste and smooth coating for paper and thread production. "This potato is the first product in Germany developed by Tilling that achieves market readiness," explains Prof. Prüfer of the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology IME.

New maize map to aid plant breeding efforts

In a massive survey of genetic diversity in maize, also known as corn, researchers across the United States, have developed a gene map that should pave the way to significant improvements in a plant that is a major source of food, fuel, animal feed and fibre around the world.

The new map, a special type of gene map known as a haplotype map, charts genetic diversity and recombination across the genome of 27 inbred lines of maize. The research team, led by U.S. Department of Agriculture scientists at Cornell University and Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory in New York and including plant scientist Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra of the University of California, Davis, will report its findings in the Nov. 20 issue of the journal Science.

Dr. Samuel Epstein's 20 year fight against biotech, cancer-causing milk

Twenty years ago, back when Frank Young, M.D. was Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, he received a report from Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. entitled "Potential Public Health Hazards of Biosynthetic Milk Hormones," warning of the public health dangers of consuming milk from hormone-treated cows.

Injection of cows with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), the genetically engineered, potent variant of the natural growth hormone produced by cows, sharply elevates levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) in milk, Dr. Epstein warned the commissioner.

IGF-1, which is readily absorbed through the small intestine, increases the risk of cancer in people who drink milk from cows treated with rBGH, he warned. In 1989, Dr. Epstein had found evidence of breast cancer resulting from IGF-1 ingestion; a few years later colon and prostate data began to emerge.

Samuel S. EpsteinIn his role as professor of environmental and occupational medicine with the School of Public Health, University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago, Dr. Epstein urged the FDA Commissioner to ban the manufacture and sale of rBGH, as well as milk from treated cows, until all public and veterinary health and safety concerns were resolved.

Manufactured by Monsanto, rBGH is sold to dairy farmers under the trade name Posilac. Injection of this hormone forces cows to increase their milk production by about 10 per cent. Monsanto has stated that about one third of dairy cows are in herds where the hormone is used.

Dr. Epstein warns that rBGH milk is often contaminated with pus, due to mastitis, an udder infection commonly induced by rBGH, and also with antibiotics used to treat the mastitis. This poses risks of nationwide antibiotic resistance to life threatening infections, he warns.

His 1989 report criticised Monsanto for failing to disclose their unpublished data and for the company's refusal to label milk from rBGH-treated cows, which denies consumers the right to know when they consume hormonal milk.

"These concerns are further exacerbated by the abdication of regulatory responsibility by the FDA and USDA," Dr. Epstein wrote.

Dr. Epstein did not wait for government action.

In the September/October 1989 issue of the journal The Ecologist, of which he was associate editor, Dr. Epstein published the first major warning to reach the public about the risks of consuming rBGH milk.

In addition to increased risk of breast cancer, consuming hormonal milk increased stress, increased susceptibility to allergens, and suppressed the body's immune system, making the consumer more vulnerable to infectious diseases, the Ecologist article stated.

In Britain, the article explained, field trials of the hormone were being conducted secretly.

In the United States, the FDA granted the industry immunity from measuring hormone concentrations in milk from cows treated with rBGH.

Dr. Epstein objected that this exemption violated the 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, which requires the FDA to have a "prescribed and approved test method" for determining whether a drug is being improperly used with resulting illegal residues in food. But no test was available for rBGH milk.

In September 1989, Dr. Epstein testified on these matters to the Wisconsin State Assembly Committee on Agriculture, and the following year, published an article based on his testimony in the International Journal of Health Services.

He has repeatedly called on government to require the industry to "fund research in accordance with independently approved protocols" supervised by a "neutral, independent intermediary" such as the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation.

In December 1990, Dr. Epstein presented these views at a conference hosted by the National Institutes of Health, warning that high IGF-1 levels could increase the risk of breast cancer in people who drink rBGH milk.

Nevertheless, in 1993, the FDA approved the commercial sale of milk from rBGH-treated cows and issued regulations banning the labeling of rBGH milk.

In 1994, FDA Commissioner David Kessler, M.D. received a letter from Dr. Epstein expressing his "grave concerns" about the risks of breast and colon cancer from consumption of hormonal milk.

Now chairman of his new nonprofit organisation, the Cancer Prevention Coalition," Dr. Epstein wrote, "IGF-1 induces malignant transformation of normal human breast epithelial cells. IGF-1 is a growth factor for human breast cancer cells, maintaining their malignancy, progression and invasiveness. IGF-1 has similarly been associated with colon cancer."

The letter urged Kessler to revoke the agency's approval of rBGH registration.

Given these concerns, dairy farmers began assuring the public by putting "hormone-free" labels on milk from cows that had not been injected with rBGH. A month later, the Los Angeles Times published an article by Dr. Epstein blasting the FDA for the labeling ban.

The labeling ban was challenged by nationwide grassroots consumers groups, and by two milk suppliers, both of whom were sued by Monsanto.

In a range of public arenas, from 1996 Chicago hearings on the labeling of genetically modified foods to a 1998 article in the "International Journal of Health Services," Dr. Epstein continued to warn that rBGH milk poses increased risks for breast and colon cancer.

"In short," he wrote in the 1998 article, "with the active complicity of the FDA, the entire nation is currently being subjected to an experiment involving large-scale adulteration of an age-old dietary staple by a poorly characterised and unlabeled biotechnology product. Disturbingly, this experiment benefits only a very small segment of the agri-chemical industry while providing no matching benefits to consumers. Even more disturbingly, it poses major public health risks for the entire U.S. population."

In March 1998, Dr. Epstein added a new warning about consumption of rBGH milk - prostate cancer.

In the journal Gene Therapy Weekly, he wrote that rBGH milk is "supercharged with high levels of abnormally potent IGF-1, up to 10 times the levels in natural milk and over 10 times more potent."

"Apart from prostate cancer," he warned, "multiple lines of evidence have also incriminated the role of IGF-1 as risk factors for breast, colon and childhood cancers."

After 10 years of warnings based on in-depth scientific documentation, Dr. Epstein began to get support in his fight against hormonal milk.

In March 1999, the Scientific Committee of the European Commission released a report finding excess levels of IGF-1 in milk of cows injected with rBGH. The report concluded that the excess IGF-1 poses serious risks of breast and prostate cancer.

Commenting on the Scientific Committee's report, Dr. Epstein criticised Codex, the World Health Organisation responsible for setting international food safety standards, which had approved hormonal milk. "FDA officials and industry consultants are members of Codex, which meets in secrecy and relies on unpublished industry assurances of safety," he wrote.

Just five months later, in August 1999, Codex unexpectedly ruled in favor of the 1993 European Union moratorium on rBGH milk. The ruling forced the United States to abandon its threat to challenge the moratorium at the World Trade Organisation.

Cancer Prevention Coalition warnings were endorsed by the National Family Farm Coalition, representing 30 organisations, and also by the Campaign Against rBGH, representing 10 organisations.

The Organic Consumers Association and Director Ronnie Cummins endorsed the campaign to educate the public about the dangers of rBGH milk. In a joint 2005 editorial in the journal Medical Veritas Epstein and Cummins wrote, "...increased IGF-1 blood levels have been incriminated as a major cause of cancer."

Over 100 leading independent experts in cancer prevention and public health, plus citizen activist groups endorsed this warning, wrote Epstein and Cummins.

This endorsement was coupled with insistence that the public has "an absolute right-to-know" of information on avoidable causes of cancer, "a democratic right which the agribusiness and FDA continue to subvert," they wrote.

In 2006, Dr. Epstein published the book, What's in Your Milk? An Expos of Industry and Government Cover-Up on the Dangers of the Genetically Engineered (rBGH) Milk You're Drinking, (Trafford Publishing).

Monsanto, supported by the FDA, insists that rBGH milk is indistinguishable from natural milk, and that it is safe for consumers. "This is blatantly false," wrote Dr. Epstein, listing the dangers of milk from cows treated with the hormone. rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic effects, including mastitis, on its Posilac label.

rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to the mastitis commonly induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.

Different in many ways

rBGH milk is chemically, and nutritionally different than natural milk. Milk from cows injected with rBGH is contaminated with the hormone, traces of which are absorbed through the gut into the blood. rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of the natural growth factor, IGF-1, which is readily absorbed through the gut. Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated as a cause of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.

*IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.

*rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms.

*rBGH enriches Monsanto, while posing dangers, without any benefits, to consumers,
especially in view of the current national surplus of milk.

Of still greater concern, based on 37 published scientific studies as detailed in the book, excess levels of IGF-1 in rBGH milk pose major risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers.

Not surprisingly rBGH milk is banned in Canada, the EU and internationally.

The book features an Introduction by Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream and president of the group Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. The Foreword was written by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the bestseller Seeds of Deception.

The book attracted endorsements from Congressman John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Mark Achbar, executive producer of the multiple prize-winning documentary The Corporation; Dr. Joseph Mercola, founder of the world's most visited natural health website; Quentin Young, M.D., chairman of the Health and Medicine Policy Research Group and past president of the American Public Health Association; and Peter I. Hardin, editor and publisher of "The Milkweed," an influential monthly publication covering the dairy industry.

Other endorsers included Ken Ausubel, author of "Seeds of Change" and director of the Bioneers conferences; and Anna Lappe, author of "Diet for a Small Planet."

The book is a unique resource on rBGH milk. It presents Dr. Epstein's trailblazing scientific publications since 1989, which have played a major role in influencing other nations, including Canada, 24 European nations, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to ban rBGH milk.

The book also presents the author's editorials and letters to major newspapers, and correspondence with the FDA, Congressman Conyers, and other key members of Congress.

In the book, Epstein also details evidence of interlocking conflicts of interest between Monsanto and the White House, the American Medical Association and American Cancer Society. He presents evidence of Monsanto's white collar crime; the suppression and manipulation of information on the veterinary and public health dangers of rBGH milk; and evidence of Monsanto's "Hit Squad," which attempted to stifle and discredit him.

Monsanto's corporate recklessness, compounded by FDA's complicity and refusal to require labeling of rBGH milk, more than justify the rejection of any assurances of its safety. Of further interest is the critical relevance of this information to the ongoing growing concerns and debate on genetically engineered foods, including irrefutable evidence discrediting the "trust us" safety assurances of Monsanto, and other industries.

The book also presents resource materials, including listings of national and international anti-biotech, public health, veterinary and animal rights activist groups. Also listed are rBGH-free U.S. dairy producers, such as Horizon Organic, and Swiss Valley Farms.

In 2007, Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D. was the FDA Commissioner. The Cancer Prevention Coalition petitioned the FDA, seeking withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST. This petition was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, Farm Defenders, the Institute for Responsible Technology and by Hungarian biologist Arpad Pusztai.

The petition asks that the FDA suspend approval of the rBGH product Posilac and/or require that milk and other dairy products produced by injecting Posilac carry warning labels stating, "Produced with the use of Posilac, and contains elevated levels of IGF-1, a major risk factor for breast, prostate and colon cancers."

It is currently estimated that about 20 per cent of U.S. milk is produced with the use of rBGH.

Still considered the leading international scientific expert on hormonal milk, Dr. Epstein is not waiting for government action on rBGH milk, although all the concerns he has expressed over the past 20 years are still outstanding.

On October 14, 2009 he criticised a widely publicised report, "Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin," which repeats claims that milk from cows injected with rBGH is safe, pointing out that the report was authored by eight paid consultants to rBST companies, including Elanco and Monsanto.

Dr. Epstein is now professor emeritus of environmental medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He is the author of 270 scientific publications, and author or co-author of 12 books, including the prize winning 1978 The Politics of Cancer, the 1995 The Safe Shopper's Bible, and the 2005 Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War.

Dr. Epstein has been the recipient of many awards, including the 1998 Right Livelihood Award, the Alternative Nobel Prize, for his incomparable contributions to cancer prevention, and for his leadership role in warning of the dangers of rBGH milk. Dr. Epstein received the 2000 Project Censored Award. In 2005, Dr. Epstein was awarded the Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for Humanitarianism, and International Contributions to Cancer Prevention.

Global alert against ‘Monsantosising’ our food

“The big companies are about to control seed, harvest, trade and even food production.”UN General Assembly to discuss patents on seeds and right to food

The global appeal is being filed by the international coalition “no patents on seeds”, organised and supported by farmers and development and environmental organisations.

The alert is directed at governments, parliaments and patent offices like the European Patent Office, and warns about a new class of patents covering plants and animals derived from conventional breeding. These patents even claim harvests and derived food products such as milk, butter and bread. By speaking of ‘Monsantosising’ the signatories are warning that the whole chain from seed to food production might be controlled by a few big international companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta, leading to a process of oligopolies and increasing concentration.

"A radical change in both patent legislation and the practice of patent offices is needed to eliminate patents on plants and farm animals," says François Meienberg of the Berne Declaration. "Corporations should not be allowed to continue to misappropriate and monopolise seeds, plants and farm animals via patent law. If they are, these patents will become a major threat to global food security, food sovereignty and innovation.”

The alert was initiated by the organisations Berne Declaration, Swissaid, Misereor No Patents on Life , Greenpeace and The Development Fund (Norway), and is supported by farmer organisations from Europe, South America and Asia. They include Coldiretti in Italy, COAG in Spain, dairy farmers from Germany, Federación Agraria Argentina and Bharat Krishak Samaj, an Indian farmer organisation.

“The big companies are about to control seed, harvest, trade and even food production,” warns Luis Contigiani at Federación Agraria Argentina. “We can see how Monsanto tries to license fees on soy production , imposing embargoes on European importers of Argentinian soy and derivatives based on patents that are not valid in our country. This is an example of the consequences when genetic resources are subjected to the logic of monopolisation by patent rights.”

In a vein very similar to the global alert, the background report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food (A/64/170), Olivier de Schutter, raises concerns that seed patents might increase food crises. As it explains: “The oligopolistic structure of the input providers’ market may result in poor farmers being deprived of access to seeds, a productive resources essential for their livelihoods, and it could raise the price of food, thus making food less affordable for the poorest.”

The No Patents on Seeds coalition and its supporting farmers' organisations welcomed the UN report. “We will keep on fighting against patents on seeds and animals,” says Miguel López Sierra, general secretary of COAG , one of the biggest European farmers’ organisations. “We are urging the European Union and the European Patent Office to stop granting these patents, which steal the common goods of farmers and traditional breeders. The concerns as raised by farmers, NGOs and the report of the UN no longer can be ignored.”

Green signal for India's first GM food for commercial use

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), India’s biotech regulator, has cleared Bt brinjal, the country’s first genetically modified (GM) food, for commercial use. Now it is up to the Government of India to put its political stamp of approval for the floodgates to open.

India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said, "The GEAC, after considering reports of two review committees, has given approval to Bt brinjal. But the government will decide on whether we can allow commercial growing of the genetically engineered crop.”

Bt Brinjal has been developed by Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech, a joint venture between US firm Monsanto and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company.

Greenpeace has campaigned hard against the move to approve Bt Brinjal in India. The environment minister said, “I condemn the actions of Greenpeace, which are not based on facts. They are spreading wrong information.”

Greenpeace has protested the decision, demanding that no approval of GE food crops be given as it is a threat to the health of the citizens and the environment.

Molecular biologist and Supreme Court-appointed GEAC observer P.M. Bhargava called Wednesday’s decision as ‘pre-decided’ and ‘farcical’.

Risk for human and animal health

The Institute of Science in Society in a report in February this year made it abundantly clear that Bt Brinjal is unfit for human consumption.

According to the report, release of Bt brinjal into the environment for food, feed and cultivation may present a serious risk for human and animal health; the GM aubergine is unfit for consumption. That’s the verdict of French scientist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), who carried out the first ever independent assessment of Monsanto-Mahyco’s dossier on toxicity tests submitted to the Indian regulatory authorities.

Professor Seralini, commissioned by Greenpeace India to undertake the assessment, said his key findings were statistically significant differences between groups of animals fed GM and non-GM brinjal in the raw data, which were discounted rather than used to raise food safety concerns and to call for further investigation. Although the differences were not reported in the dossier summaries, they remained visible in the raw experimental data. These differences, seen by Monsanto-Mahyco, were deemed biologically irrelevant, and disregarded on the grounds that they were within a wide ‘reference’ group of brinjal types.

Health impacts

On health effects, Seralini found that:

Bt brinjal produces a protein in the vegetable cells that induce antibiotic resistance. This is recognised as a major health problem and is inappropriate for commercialised use. It may also indicate that old GM technology is being used as the technology has already moved on from antibiotic resistance marker genes.

Bt brinjal appears to have 15 per cent less calories and different alkaloid content compared to non-GM brinjal. It contains 16-17 mg/kg Bt insecticide toxin. When fed to animals, effects were observed on blood chemistry with significant differences according to the sex of the animal or period of measurement. Other effects were on blood clotting time (prothrombin), total bilirubin (liver health), and alkaline phosphate in goats and rabbits. Changes in lactating cows were observed in increased weight gain, intake of more dry roughage matter and milk production up by 10-14 per cent as if they were treated by a hormone. Rats fed Bt brinjal had diarrhoea, increased water consumption; decrease in liver weight, and liver to body weight. Feed intake was modified in broiler chickens.

According to Seralini, “This makes for a very coherent picture of Bt brinjal that is potentially unsafe for human consumption. The GM brinjal cannot be considered as safe as its non-GM counterpart.” In addition, he says the longest toxicity test were only for 90 days, which does not assess long-term effects such as the development of cancers or tumours. Furthermore, he considers it potentially unsafe to eat animals with the health problems that had been fed Bt brinjal.

Environmental impacts

Seralini criticises the lack of studies directed at non-target organisms such as butterflies and moths. He believes it is almost impossible through measurements of toxicity in a few species of non-target organisms to get a sufficient view of the possible harm to complicated ecosystems, which may vary from place to place in India. He says extant studies give no assurances that growing Bt brinjal will be safe for the environment, as they lack information on the indirect effect on the food chain as a whole, particularly with regard to gene flow, and the possibility of GM contamination of neighbouring brinjal crops.

Bt toxins unsafe

Bt toxins are derived from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringenesis ; natural Bt toxins have never been authorised for mammalian consumption and are known to be harmful to health. Seralini’s appraisal also cautions against synthetic and genetically modified Bt toxins such as the hybrid toxin contained in Bt brinjal that mixes two toxins, the Cry 1 Ab and Cry1Ac engineered sequences together. Another flaw in the Monsanto-Mayhco toxicity tests on non-target insects was that the single toxin Cry1Ac was used because this was easier than the hybrid.

Debjeet Sarangi of GM-Free India said he was surprised that the regulatory bodies did not consider it appropriate to consult the Health Minister, as well as doctors’ groups and vetinary associations before pushing this highly toxic food down the gullets of an uninformed public. “This is not science,” he said. If regulators such as the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) had been doing long term research to assess the claims of GM crop companies and taken up the analysis of the company’s data itself then the two year large scale trials of Bt brinjal approved in 2007 would not have been allowed to go ahead. In fact, the results only came to light when a Supreme Court battle forced GEAC to put the Monsanto-Mahyco test dossier on Bt brinjal into the public domain.

Brinjal (Solanum melongena) also known as aubergine or egg plant is an important vegetable in India’s food culture and consumed every day by rich and poor alike. India is the home of brinjal, where it has been cultivated for four thousand years without the help of fertilisers or pesticides. So far, over 70,000 Indians have signed the “I am No Lab Rat” anti-GM protest in India that is also battling large scale cultivation of Bt cotton. GM-Free India says that alternative strategies for pest management exist and pests only became a problem after the introduction of the Green Revolution. Agriculture is a culture that should receive holistic treatment and not the piecemeal introduction of highly toxic inputs that poison a regions daily food.

New cowpea genetic map to accelerate development of new varieties

This photo shows the genetic diversity of cowpea seed. Photo: J. Ehlers, UC Riverside.Map also facilitates genetic improvement of several other legumes

Cowpea, a protein-rich legume crop, is immensely important in many parts of the world, particularly drought-prone regions of Africa and Asia, where it plays a central role in the diet and economy of hundreds of millions of people.

Cowpea provides food that complements starchy staple crops such as corn, cassava, sorghum and millets to offer a well-rounded diet, much as beans and other grain legumes complement maize- and rice-based diets in Latin America and other places. Due to its hardy nature, cowpea plays a key role in sustaining food security for both people and their livestock.

But breeding new cowpea varieties with desirable traits, such as disease resistance, pest resistance and drought tolerance, is a time-consuming and laborious process that can take a decade from concept to release.

A challenge facing cowpea breeders, therefore, is how to accelerate the production of new and improved cowpea varieties in order to both meet the needs of a growing world population and provide the productivity gains needed by farmers to improve their economic standing.

Now a team of scientists at the University of California, Riverside has responded to this challenge by developing a high-density "consensus genetic map" of cowpea that accelerates conventional breeding several fold and facilitates the production of new varieties of not only cowpea but also other legumes, particularly soybean and common bean (near relatives of cowpea).

To build the map, the scientists first modified and then applied advanced genetic tools developed from human genome investigations that only recently have been applied to a few major crop plants.

"The consensus map is a consolidation of six individual genetic maps of cowpea, and is far more representative of the cowpea genome than earlier maps," said team leader, Timothy Close, a professor of genetics in the Department of Botany and Plant Sciences. "We now have a reliable, powerful tool that marks a paradigm shift in crop-breeding technology."

Study results appear Oct. 13 in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The consensus genetic map of cowpea is a dense and detailed roadmap of its genome (a genome is a complete genetic blueprint). The map has approximately 1000 molecular markers throughout the genome. The markers, which are like signposts directing a motorist to a destination, are associated with traits desired for breeding and used to more deliberately design and assemble new superior varieties.

"All you need is a marker near a gene of interest," explained team member Philip Roberts, a professor in the Department of Nematology, who currently leads UCR's Bean/Cowpea and Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program – a highly successful project, supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development, that has assisted African institutes in developing improved cowpea varieties. "With a marker-based map we can look into any trait desired in cowpea. The resolution of the map is such that we can accurately locate the position of genes that are contributing in a major way to various traits we'd like to see built into new cowpea varieties."

Close explained that cowpea is closely related to soybean at the genome level, allowing for the kind of cross referencing that would have been unfeasible without the consensus genetic map.

"A good number of genes are conserved across species," he said. "By looking at a marker on a cowpea chromosome, we can cross reference it to information on, say, the soybean genome, based on the DNA sequences of the marker. This facilitates knowledge transfer between these species, so advances made in cowpea can be translated into valuable information for soybean, and vice versa. The result is a tremendous acceleration in marker development to support the breeding process."

Cowpea, which originated in Africa, also is commonly referred to as southern pea, blackeye pea, crowder pea, lubia, niebe, coupe or frijole. In the United States, cowpea is popular in the south, where it is known as black-eyed peas and other names. California primarily grows the blackeyed cowpea type.

"It took us nearly ten years to breed 'California Blackeye No. 50,' our newest blackeye cowpea variety for California growers, using conventional breeding methods," said Jeff Ehlers, a specialist in the Department of Botany and Plant Sciences with more than 20 years of experience conducting genetic research on cowpea in California and Africa. "With the new technologies and map information now at hand this could have been done in half this time. The new consensus map will greatly expand our ability to locate valuable genes and incorporate them into new varieties."

Cichlid fish offer new clues for genetic basis of sex determination

A female orange blotch morph cichlid fish swims near Nankoma Island, Malawi. Photo: Reade Roberts

Biologists have genetically mapped the sex chromosomes of several species of cichlid fish from Lake Malawi, East Africa, and identified a mechanism by which new sex chromosomes may evolve.

In research published in this week's issue of the journal Science, biologists Thomas Kocher, Reade Roberts and Jennifer Ser of the University of Maryland describe the genetic basis for two co-existing systems of sexual determination in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi.

"This study marries two evolutionary mysteries: the incredible diversity of fish in the lakes of East Africa and the genetic basis of sex determination," says Sam Scheiner, programme director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research. "Simple genetic changes can lead to enormous biological diversity."

In nearly all mammals, the SRY gene determines the sex of offspring and is located on the Y chromosome, which is much smaller than the X chromosome.

But in many other animal groups, the genetic mechanism of sex determination evolves quite rapidly, and the differences between sex chromosomes are harder to observe.

Even sister species of fish may have entirely different sex determination systems. How and why the genetic mechanisms for such an ancient developmental distinction continue to evolve has remained a mystery.

The thousands of closely related cichlid fishes in the lakes of East Africa turn out to be an excellent model system for understanding how the mechanisms of sex determination evolve.

The East African cichlid fishes that inhabit Lakes Malawi, Tanganyika, and Victoria are known for their sexually distinct appearance, the males are generally conspicuous and brightly colored, making them more attractive to females, while the females are drab and brown, making them inconspicuous to predators.

One exception to the uniformly brown pigmentation among female cichlids is the "orange blotch" pattern, which appears in some female cichlids that live in rocky areas of Lake Malawi.

"We believe that the orange blotch color pattern emerged as a new mutation in females and has a selective advantage in providing an alternative form of camouflage," says Kocher.

Depending on the surrounding natural background, this color pattern can help disguise female fish and help them avoid predation.

However, males who express this phenotype lack the species-specific color patterns used by females to select their mates.

"This phenotype creates a sexual conflict because the allele is favored in females but not favored in males," explains Roberts, who mapped the gene. "In 'survival of the fittest,' the genes underlying a beneficial trait will increase in frequency, but this is an odd case where the trait is really good for females but really bad for males."

Using genomic techniques, Roberts identified the gene (pax7) that is responsible for this difference in color pattern.

He found that the orange blotch (OB) allele that produces the variable pigmentation in females was dominant over the "brown barred" (BB) allele (that produces the more common brown pigmentation) and that it was located very near a female sex determiner.

The genetic conflict that started over color was resolved by a new mutation that took over the sex-determining function, and ensured that nearly all orange blotch fish are female.

GM spuds back on UK agenda

A university trial cultivation of genetically modified potatoes has begun in secret in northern England. The Telegraph reported in late July that the trial, destroyed by unidentified vandals in 2008, had been replanted by the University of Leeds without announcement.

European Union rules stipulate that the location of every GM trial must be published before commencement. The UK Department of Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs claim that the trial was a continuation of the previously aborted plantation, and no further approval was required.

The trial is being conducted by the University of Leeds through its Africa College. Its objective is to create a potato that is resistant to the potato cyst nematode (Globodera pallida).

DEFRA have insisted that the potatoes are being grown for experimental purposes only, will not be used for human or animal consumption, and are being grown on an isolated field which will be left fallow for several years afterwards.

Friends of the Earth have expressed concern that, as with plantations of other GM crops, wind will cause contamination of other potato crops in the vicinity through cross-pollination. FOE's initial opposition to the trial was expressed in 2007.

The British Government's policy on GM crops, announced in March 2004, is based upon the premise that "there is no scientific case for a blanket ban on the cultivation of GM crops in the UK, but that proposed uses need to be assessed for safety on a case-by-case basis."

In July 2009, chemical multinational BASF announced that it was terminating its research into GM potatoes in the UK, claiming that approval of their product was "lost in the politics" of the European Union.

Europe food agency's junk science

Photo: Dan ShirleyAn opinion by Europe’s food agency advocating the safety of the only genetically modified (GM) crop grown in Europe is fundamentally flawed, according to a Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace report.

The report will form the basis of a submission to a public consultation on Monsanto’s MON810 maize that ends this week. The green groups call on the European Commission and EU countries to reject the authorisation of this crop.

The ten-year licence for MON810 maize has expired and the EU is currently considering whether or not to re-authorise it.

It is in this context, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued an opinion at the end of June claiming that MON810 is safe. However, a scientific analysis of the opinion commissioned by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe has revealed serious mistakes and omissions by EFSA and questions its conclusion. Among other points, the report reveals that EFSA:

*ignores or plays down research that shows that the insecticide produced by the GM maize could have negative knock-on impacts on Europe’s butterflies and other insects. Instead they recommend unspecified “management measures” for areas known to host butterflies and moths;

*fails to admit that there is scientific uncertainty and conflicting reports over the maize’s impact on the environment or health;

*ignores peer-reviewed scientific studies that highlight safety concerns;

*quotes research carried out on a completely different GM crop as a basis for claiming that MON810 is safe;

*fails to investigate the safety of new unknown proteins generated in the maize by the genetic modification process.

“EFSA has once again violated its mandate. If university students submitted the EFSA report as course work, they would get the worst mark: an ‘F’. ‘F’ for failed but also ‘F’ for fundamentally flawed,” said Márta Vetier, Greenpeace EU GMO policy officer.

“The food safety agency either suffers from a serious lack of scientific expertise or is playing a highly risky political game with our health and environment. There is clearly enough evidence to show that this insecticide-producing crop could be hazardous and should be banned from Europe’s fields,” said Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe’s Food and Biodiversity Coordinator.

Six countries have already banned the growing of MON810, including Germany and France. National governments have also been complaining about the quality of EFSA's work and have outlined their own concerns about the safety of the crop. Most recently, the French government stated that it could not accept EFSA's opinion on MON810. In May, twelve member states wrote to the Food Safety Authority expressing concerns about its ongoing work.

“The Commission has no other choice but to reject EFSA's opinion, ban the cultivation of MON810 maize and look for another official authority that is capable of delivering unbiased, science-based advice to decision makers”, added Márta Vetier.

New report calls for GM maize to be banned

Photo: Energy MattersAn opinion by Europe’s food agency advocating the safety of the only genetically modified (GM) crop grown in Europe is fundamentally flawed, according to a Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe report. The report will form the basis of a submission to a public consultation on Monsanto’s MON810 maize that ends this week. The green groups call on the European Commission and EU countries to reject the authorisation of this crop.

The ten-year licence for MON810 maize has expired and the EU is currently considering whether or not to re-authorise it. In this context, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued an opinion at the end of June claiming that MON810 is safe.

However, a scientific analysis of the opinion commissioned by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe has revealed serious mistakes and omissions by EFSA and questions its conclusion. Among other points, the report reveals that EFSA:

- ignores or plays down research that shows that the insecticide produced by the GM maize could have negative knock-on impacts on Europe’s butterflies and other insects. Instead they recommend unspecified “management measures” for areas known to host butterflies and moths;

- fails to admit that there is scientific uncertainty and conflicting reports over the maize’s impact on the environment or health;

- ignores peer-reviewed scientific studies that highlight safety concerns;

- quotes research carried out on a completely different GM crop as a basis for claiming that MON810 is safe;

- fails to investigate the safety of new unknown proteins generated in the maize by the genetic modification process.

“EFSA has once again violated its mandate. If university students submitted the EFSA report as course work, they would get the worst mark: an ‘F’. ‘F’ for failed but also ‘F’ for fundamentally flawed,” said Márta Vetier, Greenpeace EU GMO policy officer.

“The food safety agency either suffers from a serious lack of scientific expertise or is playing a highly risky political game with our health and environment. There is clearly enough evidence to show that this insecticide-producing crop could be hazardous and should be banned from Europe’s fields,” said Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe’s Food and Biodiversity Coordinator.

Six countries have already banned the growing of MON810, including Germany and France. National governments have also been complaining about the quality of EFSA's work and have outlined their own concerns about the safety of the crop. Most recently, the French government stated that it could not accept EFSA's opinion on MON810. [4] In May, twelve member states wrote to the Food Safety Authority expressing concerns about its ongoing work.

“The Commission has no other choice but to reject EFSA's opinion, ban the cultivation of MON810 maize and look for another official authority that is capable of delivering unbiased, science-based advice to decision makers”, added Márta Vetier.

Protest against GM rice research

Greenpeace volunteers protest against Bayer Bio Science with Placards saying 'Arrest Me Too' in front of Company's office in Tolichowki, Hyderabad on July 24, Hyderabad for filing lawsuit against GM rice protesters. Photo: Greenpeace IndiaA group of young citizens today called on Bayer Bio-Science with placards saying ‘Arrest Me Too, I Say No To GM Rice’ at the company’s office in Tolichowki, Hyderabad. The activists also presented to Bayer officials hundreds of photo petitions from citizens across the country willing to get arrested to prevent their rice from being genetically modified. This was in a response to the criminal case filed by Bayer against volunteers and media for highlighting the concerns with their Genetically Modified (GM) rice experiments happening in Andhra Pradesh.

Addressing volunteers today, Greenpeace Sustainable Agriculture campaigner Rajesh Krishnan said ‘“The hundreds of citizens across the country who are even willing to get arrested to save our rice shows the huge concern the Indian public has on genetic modification of our rice. The concern arises from the unanswered questions on health, environmental and socio economic impacts that genetic engineering of the staple food of 2/3rd of the country poses.”

Last month, on June 22nd, Greenpeace volunteers took a direct action on the hazardous GM rice field trials in Chinna Kanjarla village near Patancheru, 45 km from the city. Following the action, Bayer had filed a police case against 35 individuals, including the general public and media who were present in the vicinity. The charges against the activists are trespassing, causing damage and even criminal intimidation.

The Sarpanch of the Chinnakanjarla village had earlier informed the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the authority approve GM crops in India, pointing out that prior permission of the local village Panchayat had not been taken before the GM rice trial was done in their village. No information was provided to the villagers on the nature of the field trial or it's possible danger of contamination to crops growing in nearby fields.

"This is a clear case of corporate crime where our food systems are being contaminated with potentially dangerous products just because the companies have a monetary benefit in doing" so said Praveen Paul' who was part of the protest today and had volunteered to get arrested in an effort to stop genetic modification of rice.

While protests against such open trials of genetically modified food crops are raging across the country the government of India seems to be in a confused state with the agriculture ministry saying that India is going ahead with GM food crops while the Minister for Environment and Forests Shri Jairam Ramesh openly declaring that the country does not need GM Food, Rajesh concluded.