THE ISSUE
FOR THE INDUSTRY
FOR THE CONSUMER
THE CAMPAIGN
GE NEWS ARCHIVE
|
Mothers for Natural LawInternational News on Genetic Engineering in AgricultureBiweekly News 99/12/04Thanks to Dennis Dey, Richard Wolfson, and NLP Wessex for these items.
Articles have been aggressively shortened. ------------------ New Scientist, 20 November 199 Splitting headache Monsanto's Modified Soya Beans are Cracking Up in the Heat by Andy Coghlan IT SEEMS barely a week goes by without another piece of bad news for the agribiotech giant Monsanto. Now researchers in the US have found that hot climates don't agree with Monsanto's herbicide-resistant soya beans, causing stems to split open and crop losses of up to 40 per cent. This could be a serious blow to the St Louis-based company, which sees Brazil and other Latin American countries as major markets for its soya beans. "It has the potential to be quite a problem," says Bill Vencill of the University of Georgia in Athens. Vencill examined the effects of heat on the engineered soya beans after farmers in the southern state alerted him to unexpected crop losses. He realised that most severe losses occurred during Georgia's two hottest springs since the beans were launched in 1996. "In the years we saw the problems, the soils were reaching 40 to 50 C," says Vencill. His team replicated these conditions in laboratory growth chambers, comparing the hardiness of the Monsanto plants with that of conventional strains of soya bean. In soils that reached only 25 C during the day, the genetically modified Monsanto beans grew just as well as conventional beans. But in warmer soils, the Monsanto plants appeared stunted. And in soils reaching 45 C, the differences were marked (see Figure). Vencill described the findings at a meeting of the British Crop Protection Council in Brighton this week. "We saw lower heights, yields and weights in the Monsanto beans," says Vencill. Worse still, stems of virtually all the Monsanto beans split open as the first leaves began to emerge compared with between 50 and 70 per cent of the other test plants. This same phenomenon had occurred on farms, but had been blamed on fungal disease. "Instead, we think the stem splits, and it exposes the plant to secondary infection," says Vencill. ------------------ http://agebb.missouri.edu/news/queries/showarc.idc?story_num=245&iln=184 University of Missouri, Nov. 11 /99 MU Tests Find Comparable Yields Between Bt, Non-Bt Corn Hybrids by Forrest Rose COLUMBIA, Mo. -- Bt, or non-Bt? That is the question. University of Missouri researchers sought the answer this year with greatly expanded variety tests of Bt and non-Bt corn hybrids at 15 different sites across the state. Their preliminary conclusions are that Bt hybrids yield comparably to non-Bt hybrids, but lack of pressure from the European corn borer made Bt hybrids less profitable in Missouri this year. Last year, MU Extension agronomist Harry Minor compared Bt and non-Bt corn at three Missouri sites. This year, he planted corn research plots at locations across the state. About one-third of the entries were Bt hybrids this year, compared to "just a sprinkling" last year. "It looks like yields from Bt and non-Bt hybrids are within about one bushel of each other, averaged over 15 sites where the pest was not artificially introduced," Minor said. "We found no yield drag or yield lag associated with the Bt hybrids." That doesn't mean it was more profitable to plant Bt corn, as about 30 percent of corn growers in the North Central region did this year. Because the number of European corn borers was so low, "there was no return on the technology fee," Minor said. The Bt hybrids cost between $9 and $9.50 per acre more than non-Bt corn. Non-Bt hybrids were more profitable "just because of lower seed costs." ------------------ http://www.agriculture.com/sfonline/sf/1999/november/gmocol.html Evaluating GMOs By Dan Looker, Business Editor About a year ago I visited a farmer I've known for many years, Jack Kintzle of Coggon, Iowa, to talk to him about cost-benefit analysis. Jack is a past president of the National Corn Growers Association and has recently served on the board of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. I had seen comments that Jack had made at a conference on risk management where he more producers need to use cost-benefit analysis. I thought it would be a good story for Successful Farming. After that visit we published a short article in some editions. It showed how Jack evaluated new technology before trying it on his farm. His own rule of thumb is that, if something new is going to boost his input costs more than 10%, he looks at it very carefully before trying it. "When we start talking a dollar an acre, I'm interested," he said. "When we start talking $10 an acre, my interest drops way off." It turned out that the technology Jack evaluated that year was Roundup Ready soybeans. His process is so simple that you hardly need a spread sheet. Jack added up all of the seed and chemical costs associated with his conventional drilled bean program and with Roundup Ready soybeans and compared the two totals. We ran two boxes with the article that showed the comparison. The bottom line: His conventional soybean costs were $47.95/acre while the RR beans cost $55.94. The technology fee for the Roundup Ready seed more than offset the lower herbicide cost of Roundup. Since this comparison was made before planting and he had never grown Roundup Ready soybeans, he didn't have his own on-farm data on yield increases or yield drag. In spite of the slightly higher costs, Jack did use Roundup Ready beans on a 95-acre farm he acquired in late spring that year. There was a possibility of heavier than normal weed pressure on that farm. Later he told me there wasn't any yield advantage from the Roundup Ready beans. To make your own comparison even easier and simpler, we've created a calculator you can use online. We started with Jack's numbers and products. You can fill in your own. And, if you want to add in the other important factor of yields, you can do that, too, as well as assigning a different price to your Roundup Ready and non-GM beans. ...GMOs (genetically modified organisms), especially Roundup Ready soybeans, are popular. A study by Iowa State University economist Mike Duffy says they weren't any more profitable than non-GMOs in 1998. Duffy recently analyzed a survey of 800 Iowa farmers by the National Agricultural Statistics Service and found return to land and labor nearly identical for GMOs and nonGMOs in 1998. GMO beans, for example, had lower herbicide costs but lower yields. Net return was $144.50/A for GMO beans versus $145.75 for nonGMO varieties a statistical wash. 'Does planting GMO seed boost farmers' profits?' by Mike Duffy www.leopold.iastate.edu/99-3gmoduffy.html ------------------ The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition November 19, 1999 Midwest Farmers Lose Faith They Had in Biotech Crops COLERIDGE, Neb. -- As farmers this month place their orders for spring planting, there is growing evidence that a boom is fading. Next year looks as if it will bring the first decline in sales of genetically altered seeds after three years of heady growth. Many farmers remain fans of the seeds and don't share consumers' anxiety over the safety of genetically modified crops. But they can't afford to ignore those concerns. "Even when the customer is wrong, the customer is right," says Boyd Ebberson. For three years, he has sown his mammoth farm with genetically modified seed. Next year, he says, "I'm changing back." ------------------ Copyright 1999 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc. St. Louis Post-Dispatch November 21, 1999, Sunday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION Monsanto Lines Up Heavy-Hitters As Lobbyists by Jon Sawyer, Terence Samuel and Nahal Toosi Once upon a time, Monsanto Co. had a corporate slogan that said, "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible." Today, under fire for its genetically modified agricultural products and the constant topic of rumors as to the company's possible merger or sale, Monsanto's top brass appears to be placing its bets on lobbyists instead. The firm of Griffin, Johnson, Dover & Stewart Inc. and several of its members registered with the Senate last month as lobbyists for Monsanto. That's Griffin as in Patrick J. Griffin, former chief congressional lobbyist for President Bill Clinton, and Johnson as in David E. Johnson, former director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Not to slight the GOP, the Griffin firm also lists on its roster of Monsanto lobbyists Leonard Swinehart, a top aide to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Keith Heard, from the staff of Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. Monsanto spokeswoman Lori J. Fisher confirmed the new hires with deft understatement: "I'm told that they are currently working with Monsanto on a variety of biotech issues," she said. "As you know, they have experience with both congressional and administration circles in D.C." They almost sound like volunteers. We'd guess not, although the first report on fees isn't required until early next year. Monsanto's own most recent report says that for the first half of 1999 it shelled out $2 million on D.C. lobbying activities. ------------------ Copyright 1999 Agence France Presse Agence France Presse PARIS, December 1, 1999 14:00 GMT A Single Genetically-Modified Fish Could Wipe Out Whole Fish Populations A single genetically modified fish could wipe out local populations of the species if released into the wild, according to research published Thursday in the weekly New Scientist. Researchers William Muir and Richard Howard, of Indiana's Purdue University, inserted a human growth hormone (hGH) gene into embryos of a popular aquarium fish, the Japanese medaka. Biologists in Britain and the United States are experimenting with hGH to breed big, fast-growing salmon, although no-one has yet begun commercial production. Medaka with hGH became sexually mature faster than normal fish and produced more eggs, they found. Under the laws of evolution, female fish are attracted to large males -- which means that a large, modified fish would drive out wild rivals from the reproductive process and then spread their own genes across the local population. The big problem with the hGH-engineered medaka, however, was that they were not hardy compared with wild ones. Most of them died before reproductive age, the researchers found. This means that the spread of the hGH gene could make populations dwindle and eventually become extinct. Running a computer model, the researchers estimated that by introducing 60 transgenic fish into a wild population of 60,000 fish, the population became extinct in just 40 generations. Even a single transgenic fish had the same effect, although extinction took longer. The model could be an invaluable tool in assessing genetically modified organisms, which ecologists have long contended could be dangerous if released into the environment, the report said. The researchers now hope to test their theory in tightly-controlled fish-farm ponds. ------------------ PRESS RELEASE NEW RESEARCH Nov. 17/99 DORMANT VIRUSES CAN BE REACTIVATED WITH GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS New Research Results on Genetically Modified Organisms The use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral promotor (CaMV) has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or create new viruses in all species to which it is transferred. CaMV is known to be found in practically all current transgenic crops released commercially or undergoing field trials. ...These research results will be published in an article by scientists Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan, and Joe Cummins, researchers at The Open University in England and University of Western Ontario, Canada. The article, "Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promotor - A recipe for Disaster?", will appear in the December issue of the international scientific journal Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (no 4, 1999). See www.scup.no/mehd/ho for pre-publication full text. ...The Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Professor Tore Midvedt, who is head of Medical Microbiology and Ecology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, is willing to discuss the serious implications of this article with journalists who wish to obtain further information. ...Background material for this new research can be found in an excellent article co-authored by Mae-Wan Ho, "Gene technology and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases". The article can be read in the same journal at www.scup.no/mehd/ Table of contents /Volume 10/ no. 1. ...... Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter ‹ A Recipe for Disaster? by Mae-Wan Ho?, Angela Ryan? and Joe Cummins? www.scup.no/mehd/ho The following page provides more information on the Caulflower Mosaic Virus promoter and links on articles and research: http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/camv.htm ------------------ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is compiled for educational use only. |
 |
To subscribe, send a blank email to ge-news-subscribe@egroups.com
Mothers for Natural Law
< Previous | Back to News Index | Next > |