GMO Africa

Transgenic tomato to treat Alzheimer’s disease

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Biotechnology Letters Journal is reporting that a group of South Korean researchers has genetically engineered a tomato to enable it treat the Alzheimer’s disease, a neurodegenerative disease, which causes dementia.

Having recognized that the human Beta-amyloid is the main component of Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers sought to investigate how genetic engineering could be used to reduce it. They figured out how it could be integrated into the tomato genome.

Using Agrobacterium-mediated nuclear transformation, the researchers, led by HyunSoon Kim of the Plant Genomics Research Center, based in South Korea “generated tomatoes for Beta-amyloid.”

Their goal was that this tomato trait, upon consumption by Alzheimer patients, would suppress the beta-Amyloid generation and thus reduce or diminish occurrence of Alzheimer’s disease.

The researchers found that mice fed on this Beta-amyloid transgenic tomato elicited an immune response, similar to the one patients of the Alzheimer disease would elicit.

The Alzheimer’s disease is believed to mostly affect those aged 65 years and above. Statistics show that about 26 million people currently suffer from the disease. With the publication of this new study, it’s hoped that the transgenic tomato with Beta-amyloid will be a relief to patients of the Alzheimer’s disease.

Harvard researcher roots for agricultural biotechnology

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Prof. Calestous Juma, a respected Kenyan researcher – currently based at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard - wants the G8 Summit, taking place in Japan, to explore how biotechnology can become an effective tool in enhancing food sustainability in Africa.

Juma, in an article in the Japan Times, argues that investment in agricultural biotechnology in Africa by rich countries can play an instrumental role in alleviating poverty that continues to afflict the continent.

“The G8 summit should encourage Africa and its partners to design new models of cooperation that involve partnerships between government, industry and academia,” Juma advices.

This is not the first time Prof. Juma has called for massive investments in agricultural biotechnology. In January, 2007, Prof. Juma called on African leaders to invest heavily in agricultural biotechnology.

Prof. Juma can’t be so right on the potential of agricultural biotechnology in solving Africa’s food o, when he says agricultural biotechnology has potential to change the fortunes of the African continent for the better, Prof. Juma can’t be said to be pampering to special interests. His is not a roadside pronouncement such as the ones that come from activist groups both supporting and opposing genetically modified foods.

To preempt the often-repeated line that biotech corporations’ sole motivation for developing GM crops is profit, Prof. Juma, in his article, has proposed that African scientists develop royalty-free GM crops that’ll satisfy local needs. Scientists here will identify crops that stand to benefit local communities and genetically engineer them. This is a fantastic idea because such crops will be affordable and accessible to local farmers. This approach will also go a long way in defeating propagandists who argue that GM crops are a ruse by select biotech corporations to dominate global agriculture and deny the world of organic food. (By the way, you need to watch this video that compares people’s attitude toward GMOs and organic foods.)

It’s worth noting that since the commercialization of the first genetically modified crop in 2005, there has been a swirling debate on whether small-scale farmers, especially in Africa, stand to gain from GM crops. Organizations such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth claim that GM farming is for large-scale farmers in such countries such as the U.S., Canada, Spain and China.

Prof. Juma, in advocating for agricultural biotechnology for Africa, believes they can benefit small-scale farmers, and that’s why he’d like more engagement in their development by rich countries. (Read my earlier post on this issue).

G8 countries now need to listen to Prof. Juma. Some of them seem still fixated with food aid as the best solution to solving Africa’s food problems. Food aid will never solve Africa’s food problems. More sustainable strategies, like ones Prof. Juma is proposing, are what Africa needs.

Another study debunks GMOs and bees disappearance link myth

Category: GMO Africa Blog

There have been numerous unsubstantiated media reports linking genetically modified (GM) crops to the disappearance of bees. The episode has come to be known as colony collapse disorder (CCD).

Before theories linking CCD to GM crops started swirling around, the National Geographic magazine ran an article entitled Mystery Bee Disappearances Sweeping U.S. The article is authoritative because it quoted known entomologists such as Maryann Frazier of Penn State University.

The article recalls that CCD dates back to 1896, not 1995 when the first genetically modified crop was commercialized. As to possible causes of CCD, the experts quoted in this article suspect that mites and poor management could’ve become virulent to the bees, and hence their disappearance.

Last week, I bumped onto an article entitled GMO Studies Fail to Produce Definitive Answers. The article reports a study, by Swiss’s Federal Environment Office experts, that found GM crops have nothing to do with bees’ disappearance. Actually, it went a step further to discount reports that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have negative impact on worms, snails or fly larvae.

This report only reinforces findings contained in another study reported in the journal Science in September 2007. The study found that “…the production of specific insecticidal proteins from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in crops to control targeted caterpillar pests and beetles does not pose a risk to honeybees.” I recall commenting on this article early this year. It’s encouraging more studies about this phenomenon are being done. They’re necessary because they’re shedding more light on this issue.

Writer decries bickering on food

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Writer John Gapper, in an op-ed column on the FinancialTimes.com, observes that bickering will never feed the world.

Gapper expresses disappointment that the ongoing debate on how best to solve the current food crisis has turned to be a shouting match between supporters of genetically modified (GM) foods and those for organic foods.

He sees this debate as unnecessary. He clearly echoes plant geneticist Pamela Ronald who I recently featured on this blog saying GM foods and their organic counterparts can, collectively, solve world’s hunger and malnutrition.

Gapper’s article is very insightful and informative. I particularly like his take that high-yielding seeds are what the world needs because there’s no longer more land for cultivation. Of course this is a fact of life. And irrespective of the spin those who support or oppose new agricultural technologies might put on it, technology is what will save this world from food scarcity.

And it doesn’t matter which part of the world one is. I’ve heard people say that Africa, for example, can’t benefit from crop genetic engineering because farmers there practice small-scale farming. Far from it. What they forget is that these farmers, just like those in the U.S. and Canada, desire high quality seeds. Some scientists in these countries also agree that new technologies are needed to improve agriculture.

Gasper, in his article, roots for high yielding seeds and notes that although they can be pricey, their returns can be high. He highlights how Monsanto and other biotech companies, notably Syngenta, plan to encourage Latin American and Asian countries (don’t know why he fails to mention Africa) to engage in technology-intensive farming using such high yielding seeds.

Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant is quoted as saying his company has a master plan to “…develop seeds that will double the yields of maize, soya beans and cotton by 2030 and require 30 per cent less water and other inputs to grow.” Well, this is an ambitious plan that has the potential to change the face of agriculture. And of course let’s not forget that it’s likely to arouse opposition from two traditional opponents of genetically modified foods: the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. This is expected. As long as such criticism is constructive and in the larger interest of farmers it should be entertained

But for it to succeed, countries, especially those in the developing world, will have to change their attitude toward new technologies. They’ll have to heed the advice of a group of scientists who recently met in Abuja, Nigeria, and resolved that agricultural technologies such as agricultural biotechnology could enhance food security.

Call on developing world to modernize agriculture

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Today, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) is meeting in Rome, Italy, to discuss the worsening food crisis. The conference aims to find ways of dealing with the worsening global food crisis, which has hit the developing world worst. I hedge that delegates attending the conference will explore both long and short term solutions. When the conference winds up on June 5, I expect to hear that this and that country has pledged so many millions for food aid to countries mostly affected by food shortage, especially in Africa.

I assure you that I won’t be among those who’ll be wowed by these countries’ gesture of philanthropy. I’ve been in this game before, where - whenever hunger emerges in poor countries - shipments of corn, rice, cooking oil, high protein biscuits, beans, and other kinds of foodstuffs are rushed to the dying and/or emaciated populations.

What’s my expectation of the Rome conference? I read that the U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, while officially opening the conference, mentioned how technology could enhance food security in poor countries. The official lamented that not enough has been done to modernize agriculture in poor countries. Rich countries, according to Mr. Ban, seem to pay more attention to short-term solutions such as providing relief food. I can’t help but agree here.

But there is more to this. Developing countries can’t escape the blame. Actually, they should shoulder the heaviest blame. While the rest of the world has been busy utilizing various technologies to increase food production, poor countries, especially those in Africa, have been paying leap service to the issue. So, we have farmers in Africa still practicing antiquated farming methods. They’re averse to new and better ideas, especially if they come from the West. They’re prone to view western innovations with suspicions, usually with the refrain that they’re attempts to re-colonize them.

Take the case of agricultural biotechnology. Genetically modified crops remain anathema to many African countries despite existing evidence that they’ve recorded success in countries where they’re currently grown, such as the U.S., Canada, Argentina, Brazil, China and even South Africa. Rather than listen to scientists, African countries pay attention to sometime erroneous and propagandist rhetoric from activist organizations. These groups inflame passions by claiming that genetically modified foods have not been tested and, therefore, are not fit for human consumption and pose threat to the environment. All these allegations cannot be scientifically verified.

A report recently released by the Japan-based United Nations University, for instance, bemoans the slow pace of adopting agricultural biotechnology in many developing countries. Entitled Internationally Funded Training in Biotechnology and Biosafety: Is it Bridging the Biotech Divide? the report decries lack of international funding for biosafety training in many developing countries. Where there’s little or no knowledge about biosafety issues, opposition to genetically modified crops is likely to be stiff. This is where African countries are. I echo Bank Ki-Moon’s advise that more resources be allocated to projects aimed at helping poor countries, such as those in Africa, to use modern agricultural technologies. This is the only and surest way of decisively fighting hunger and malnutrition in poor countries.

Transgenic maize to cure HIV/AIDS

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Scientific Blogging has an interesting article entitled “Will Corn Help Cure AIDS?” The article is about study findings released in April - by scientists from the Universidad de Lleida (University of Lleida) in Spain -which detail how transgenic maize (corn) can be used to cure HIV/AIDS, a debilitating disease that has killed millions in especially poor countries. The findings are published in the Plant Science Journal.

The scientists explain that maize seeds will be genetically engineered with the 2G12 antibody, which is known to neutralize infection from the virus, and will act as a producer of antibodies that in turn will prevent HIV transmission.

This, to say the least, is a landmark scientific breakthrough. Maize is a staple crop in many parts of the world, including Africa. Africa, which is heavily afflicted by HIV/AIDS, stands to gain from this new maize variety.

The latest report by the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS shows that in 2007, about two thirds of new HIV/AIDS infections occurred in Africa. Currently, anti-retroviral drugs remain the preferred choice of managing this pandemic. But they remain beyond the reach of many HIV/AIDS despite the ongoing campaign by mainly the William J Clinton Foundation to bring their prices down by almost half.

It, now, remains to be seen if Africa will be receptive of this new maize variety. Lately, there’s has been a lot of debate about benefits of genetically modified foods. Africa has been sulked into this debate with unimpressive results. African countries, except South Africa, remain adamant to embrace genetically modified crops ostensibly because they pose threat to human health and the environment. These allegations have not been verified scientifically. In fact, there’s no known scientific study that has reinforced these fears. This might explain why more farmers, according to the latest report by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), are cultivating GM crops.

Africa better reviews its positions on transgenic crops. It stands to benefit immensely from careful and thoughtful consideration of them. It’d be advisable for Africa to listen to experts on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) rather than rubble rousers whose only motive is to confuse farmers.

It will be absurd for countries like the U.S. and Canada - which have not been seriously afflicted by the HIV/AIDS - to be the ones that’ll grow and then sell transgenic maize to cure HIV/AIDS to African countries.

Princeton intern on genetically modified foods

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Laura Kahn, an intern at the Princeton University-based Program on Science and Global Security has published a very interesting article on genetically modified foods.

Kahn seeks to deal, head on, with pessimism that usually greets these foods. Unlike other bloggers, Kahn has science as her shield. I, especially, like her effort to demistify the myth that injecting Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) into crops such as corn and canola potentially can threaten the health of consumers. You know there are people who argue that Bt is toxic and, therefore, can even kill. This is how Kahn explains away the controversy:

Evidence suggests that the toxin (Bt) is safe for humans and animals. But the environmental impact of Bt corn isn’t completely understood, and some have suggested that it might unintentionally harm insects such as monarch butterflies–despite a study to the contrary. There’s also the issue of whether the introduced genes could move by cross-pollination to native maize, affecting biodiversity and potentially destroying unaltered native germplasm–particularly worrisome in Mexico.

.
I dare say this is the quality of debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that this world desires. And the best people to drive it will be scientists not folks who have little or no knowledge about agricultural biotechnology.

GMOs and organics can alleviate food crises

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei, a prolific blogger who I adore for her articulation of science issues, has posted an article about a new book on how crop genetic engineering - combined with organic farming - can enhance global food sustainability.

The book titled, Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetic, and the Future, is written by two renowned experts in agriculture: Pamela Ronald of University of California - Davis and R. A. Adamchak. (By the way, Pamela Donald has a new blog called Tomorrow’s Table which I wrote about two weeks ago.)

Their book argues that the world stands to gain a lot from judicious incorporation of crop genetic engineering and organic farming. I’m very excited by this statement and I totally agree with them.

“We are not suggesting that organic farming and genetic engineering alone will provide all the changes needed in agriculture,” the two researchers say in the book.

What a powerful statement! Since I started authoring this blog three years ago, I’ve been arguing that every option must be explored to ensure each one of us has enough food to eat.

I underscored this point three weeks ago when I participated in a BBC World Have Your Say program on how to handle the current food crisis. In the program, I said there’s no silver bullet to solving the current food crisis. I criticized people who want to demonize agricultural biotechnology and corporations that make genetically modified organisms (GMOs) such as Monsanto and DuPont. I said their argument miss the point because it negates the need for industrializing our agriculture. Additionally, they don’t usually base their such argument on any provable science.

On the same breath I stated that if organic agriculture will prevent a family in Africa from going to bed hungry, let it be it. It’d would be wrong, I said, to ridicule people who feel organic farming will solve their problems. Entitled they’re to their views: their freedom to choose what to eat ought to be respected.

The trouble is, the very same people I defended want those of us who don’t agree with them to throw crop genetic engineering under the bus and embrace, enmasse, organic food. This can’t and won’t happen. It’s pure fantasy. We need both approaches to deal with food shortages.

Genetically modified crops have their supporters. If you look at statistics, there is quite a good number of people – and the number is increasing – cultivating genetically modified crops (Read my earlier post on this issue.)

There are, I am sure, farmers who are gravitating towards organic farming. They should be allowed to do so. Unfortunately, proponents of organic farming want the world to believe that there is nothing good that can come out of crop genetic engineering. That’s why they’ve been waging a relentless campaign to make food from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) look bad. Isn’t it the time for these folks to tone down their rhetoric and allow people choose what they want to eat and plant?

Organic foods have their own flip sides. A recent article in the New York Times, for instance, detailed how these foods have become out of reach for ordinary people because of their high prices. We need to be open-minded when debating the future of food. Let’s not engage in indoctrination where we tell the public this or that agricultural technology will be the only solution to today’s food crisis. To ensure future food sustainability, every option must be put on the table.

Try modern technologies to deal with food crisis

Category: GMO Africa Blog

The United Nations (UN), today, acknowledged that food shortages threaten the lives of millions of people, especially in the developing world.

Through its Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, the UN called for concerted efforts to find a permanent solution to chronic food shortages that have hit the developing world most.

But first, Moon will next week assemble representatives of key UN agencies to explore immediate steps that can be taken to address the problem.

The UN’s move is more than welcome. The world needs to deal with the problem of food shortages once and for all. It’s unacceptable for some populations to go without food while others spend sleepless nights looking for ways of dealing with obesity.

In our quest to deal with food crisis, we must place every on the table. Salient in our quest for a lasting solution to the food crisis will be to use every available technology. The New York Times, this week published a very interesting article on how crop genetic engineering can play a pivotal role in enhancing global food sustainability.

In his address, secretary general Moon mentioned that drought is one of the factors that have contributed to the current food crisis. Lately, scientists, through genetic engineering, have developed genetically modified crops that can grow in drought areas. Countries that don’t receive adequate rainfall can take advantage of such crops.

And the UN has a very big role to play in ensuring this succeeds. First, it must wage massive education campaigns in developing countries on the need for using new technologies in farming. Secondly, rather than spending billions of dollars every year airlifting food aid to poor countries, the UN should consider helping poor farmers acquire improved seeds. By doing so, the UN will be reducing poor countries’ dependence on food aid.

UC Davis researcher blogs on genetic engineering

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Blogger Karl J. Mogel of The Inoculated writes that Dr. Pamela Ronald, a rice geneticist and director of Plant Genomics Program at UC Davis has a new blog called Tomorrow’s Table. Pam’s blog celebrates crop genetic engineering, from a scientist point of view.

Nobody’s excited by Pam’s blog than me. On this blog, on several occasions, I’ve exhorted scientists to take charge of the debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (Read this post on this subject that I made in December 2006.) Thumbs up Pam for taking the gauntlet.

Since the commercialization of the first genetically modified (GM) crop in 1995, scientists haven’t been forceful enough to educate the public about agricultural biotechnology. Many - except people like Norman Borlaug, Roger Beachy, Sir David King, Jeffrey Sachs, Dr. Clive James, Dr. Luciana De Ciero, Dr. Ruth Oniang’o - have opted to maintain a studious silence as the science behind crop genetic engineering is distorted right and left by people who couldn’t conduct a simple high school lab experiment. These are the people who have been ruling the airwaves and the internet with unsubstantiated decibel rhetoric against GMOs.

Scientists are to blame for this state of affairs. Had they, in the early beginning, demanded every charge against GMOs be scientifically substantiated, the current poisonous debate about GM crops would not be there. And it’s not too late. Pam, through her Tomorrow Table blog, has set the pace: others should follow.

The world wants scientists to take lead in this debate. It’s them who should be saying whether or not GM crops offer any hope to farmers not some shenanigans whose sole motive is to create confusion and despondency in farmers and policy makers.