Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘GMOs’ Category

Across Regions, All latest News, News May 2023, Pests and Diseases, Research, Studies/Reports

The battle against viral diseases: Novel strategies for antiviral resistance in potatoes

on May 17, 2023

This article was written by Jorge Luis Alonso G., an information consultant specializing
in the potato crop.

Scientists at the Inner Mongolia Agricultural University in China recently published a review in the journal Plants describing the advancement of antiviral strategies in potatoes through the engineering of both viral and plant-derived genes.

The article below is a summary of the information presented in this scientific paper.

1. Introduction

Potatoes, as a nutritious and staple food crop, have the potential to address food insecurity in developing countries. However, a major impediment to this aptitude is the prevalence of viral diseases in potato production, which result in the destruction of seed potatoes and often cause yield losses of 20–30%. Major viruses, including Potato virus Y (PVY), Potato leafroll virus (PLRV), and Potato virus X (PVX), cause various damaging symptoms such as leaf curling, necrosis, and stunted growth.

Complicating disease prevention, these viruses enter the plant through various vectors and use plant resources to replicate. Although virus-free seed potato technology can limit disease damage, some viruses are persistent and can re-infect during the growing season.

In addition, the hetero-tetraploid nature of the plant limits conventional breeding methods in developing antiviral potato varieties. On the positive side, advances in molecular biology and plant genetic engineering have opened the door to creating virus-resistant crops. Promising strategies have emerged, such as RNA interference (RNAi)-mediated resistance, which targets the viral coat proteins of the major potato viruses.

Eventually, genetically modified (GM) potatoes, including virus-resistant varieties, are now being introduced and commercialized in certain countries. This progress represents a major step forward in the fight against potato virus diseases.

2. Engineering Virus-Derived Viral Resistance in Potato

Researchers have developed genetically engineered virus-resistant plants, including potatoes, by using the coat protein (CP) gene of viruses such as tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), PVY, PVX, and PLRV. CP has several functions, including protection of the viral nucleic acid and regulation of the host range of infection. However, CP-mediated resistance is often limited, providing protection only against the CP donor virus or related strains and only at low viral doses. Additional complications in virus transmission can arise when the plant is transformed with the CP of an insect-borne virus.

To overcome these challenges, investigators are attempting to combine different viral CPs in the same plant or to incorporate coat protein genes with satellite RNA for a broader antiviral spectrum. An alternative approach involves replicase, an RNA polymerase encoded by viral genes. This enzyme synthesizes the positive and negative strands of viral RNA during replication. Although researchers have shown that replicase-mediated resistance is stronger than CP-mediated resistance, its specificity limits its use in the field due to the rapid mutation rate of plant RNA viruses.

In addition, antisense RNAs (asRNAs), which are complementary to messenger RNA (mRNA), have also been used for viral resistance. Although some success has been achieved in acquiring antiviral infection ability and protecting plants, antisense RNA-directed resistance is generally weak due to insufficient expression, which limits its practical application. However, there are still ways to improve the expression level of antisense RNA, which keeps this avenue open for exploration.

3. Engineering Virus-Resistant Plants Using Plant Endogenous Genes in Potato

Scientists are increasingly focusing on creating virus-resistant plants by using the plant’s own genes. They have discovered antiviral genes in both wild and cultivated potato species. These can be categorized into two distinct groups: extreme resistance (ER) genes and hypersensitive resistance (HR) genes. ER genes are known to resist many viruses and thwart viral reproduction in the early stages of infection. On the other hand, HR genes resist various virus species, triggering cell necrosis after a virus infection to limit its spread.

In potatoes, the Ry genes confer ER to all PVY strains, including the Rysto, Ryadg, and Rychc genes. Breeders have incorporated these into potato breeding programs and have identified Rysto as recognizing the central 149 amino acids of the PVY coat protein domain, suggesting its potential utility in engineering virus resistance.

The Y-1 gene is unique in its action as it induces cell death without preventing the systemic spread of PVY, thus hinting at its possible use in potato breeding. The G-Ry gene, a Y-1 homolog, has been detected to enhance resistance to PVY. Meanwhile, Ny genes, such as Ny-1 and Ny-2, have demonstrated HR against PVY in many potato cultivars. The Nytbr gene exhibits hypersensitivity to PVY, showing necrosis symptoms upon infection. Interestingly, scientists have identified the HCPro cistron of PVY as influencing necrotic reactions and resistance in plants carrying certain resistance genes.

As for resistance to PVX, it is mediated by the Rx1 gene, which causes a rapid termination of viral replication. A transcription factor that interacts with Rx1 mediates antiviral immunity, thereby enabling the Rx1 gene to confer ER to PVX.

One major and two minor quantitative trait loci (QTL) for resistance to potato leaf roll virus (PLRV), a potato disease, have been identified. The major QTL has mapped to potato chromosome XI. These identified genes associated with potato virus resistance can be used for antiviral breeding and for the development of potato varieties resistant to a single virus or many viruses. However, further research is needed to use these resistance genes and to discover new ones.

4. RNAi-Mediated Viral Resistance in Potato

RNA silencing, a common gene regulation mechanism in eukaryotes, plays a central role in protecting against viruses. This mechanism involves the interaction of small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), Dicer-like (DCL) endonucleases, and AGO family proteins. Specifically, DCL4 and DCL2 are responsible for generating siRNAs that mount a defense against RNA viruses. Further amplifying this system, RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RDRs) convert aberrant single-stranded RNA into double-stranded RNA precursors of secondary siRNAs. This strategy is particularly promising for the development of virus-resistant transgenic plants.

In the specific context of viroid infection in plants, RNA silencing plays an important role. For example, replication of potato spindle tuber viroid in tomato plants induces resistance to RNA silencing, suggesting the critical role of secondary structures in resistance to RNAi.

The process of RNAi silencing can be manipulated to change miRNA sequences, creating artificial miRNAs (amiRNAs) that can target specific sequences. This ingenious approach has been used to engineer virus-resistant plants by creating resistant plants by creating amiRNAs that can actively fight viral infections.

In nature, however, viruses often encode silencing suppressors to counteract host RNAi-based defenses. To improve viral resistance, research is focused on enhancing RNAi activity by increasing the efficiency of AGO proteins and modifying siRNAs.

Despite extensive studies on RNA silencing as a strategy in plant antiviral protection, the beneficial effect of RNA silencing in viral infection remains somewhat puzzling. In particular, the mechanism by which some components of RNA silencing systems contribute to viral infection is not well understood. A deeper understanding of this could open up new opportunities for engineering viral resistance in various crops, such as potato.

5. CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Viral Resistance in Potato

CRISPR/Cas, a system created to provide immune protection against invading nucleic acids in bacteria, has been repurposed for efficient genome engineering and the development of antiviral immunity in plants. This was amply demonstrated by the ability of CRISPR/Cas systems to effectively control Beet Severe Curly Top Virus (BSCTV) in N. benthamiana and A. thaliana. In addition, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has been ingeniously used to mutate susceptibility genes in rice and tobacco to confer resistance to Rice Tungro Spherical Virus (RTSV) and Potato Virus Y (PVY), respectively.

Besides these applications, the CRISPR/LshCas13a system was used in potato crops to generate resistance to Potato Virus Y, further demonstrating the potential of CRISPR technology in crop protection. Taken together, these studies underscore the significant capacity of CRISPR/Cas9 to control plant RNA viruses in major crops such as potato.

6. Future Prospects and Conclusions

As the battle against genetically complex virus strains in potato varieties escalates, researchers are moving to strengthen virus resistance. They are gearing up for a multi-pronged strategy.

First and foremost, they aim to disrupt the virus-host interaction by editing the potato genome. Using the available potato genome sequences, their goal is to construct an effective shield to protect potato plants from viral invasion. In this regard, they’ve identified CRISPR editing technology as a possible powerhouse in the fight against plant virus infections, a tool that could outperform RNAi.

Second, they are embarking on a mission to discover resistance genes that are key to antiviral response. This discovery could provide a significant boost to potato breeding efforts. Once identified, these genes will be introduced into potato plants through genetic transformation.

Third, they are formulating plans to harness the power of inducible responses in naturally virus-resistant plants. Because these plant defenses have broad-spectrum capabilities, their goal is to identify viral components that activate plant immune mechanisms. This promising area of study could reveal resistance genes that control these protective mechanisms. This, in turn, would pave the way for the development of strategies to engineer the broad-spectrum components of natural defenses.

Fourth, armed with an increasing understanding of the molecular functions of viral proteins, they plan to manipulate these proteins to create cross-protection against further viral infection in potato plants.

Finally, they see the transgenic expression of antiviral proteins of non-plant origin, including antibodies, as a promising frontier in the search for increased resistance to specific potato viruses. This approach underscores the relentless pursuit of new strategies to strengthen potatoes against viral threats.

Source: Liu, J., Yue, J., Wang, H., Xie, L., Zhao, Y., Zhao, M., & Zhou, H. (2023). Strategies for Engineering Virus Resistance in Potato. Plants, 12(9), 1736. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12091736
Photo: Potato leafroll virus causes stunted plants. Credit Government of Western Australia

Share this news story with colleagues on social media or email:

Read Full Post »

Is the EU ready to join the global gene editing revolution?

Dr Petra Jorasch

May 2023

Science for Sustainable Agriculture

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Regulatory authorities around world are moving rapidly to clarify their stance on new plant breeding technologies such as gene editing. Nearly all are determining that certain gene edited crops should be regulated in the same way as conventionally bred crops, rather than as GMOs. As the European Commission prepares to unveil its plans for the future regulation of these techniques, is the EU ready to join the global gene editing revolution, or will we remain locked in a political and regulatory time warp, asks Dr Petra Jorasch.

Major new developments in gene editing are now taking place with increasing frequency, as the world looks to harness the potential of genetic innovation to tackle urgent global challenges of food security, improved nutrition, climate change and pressure on finite natural resources of land, energy and water.

Just in the past couple of months, for example, the Canadian Government confirmed that gene edited crops without foreign genes will be regulated in the same way as conventionally bred varieties, and the UK Parliament approved new legislation in England which removes gene edited, or ‘precision bred’, plants and animals from the scope of restrictive GMO rules. In doing so, they joined a growing list of countries around the world seeking to encourage the use of these more precise breeding methods, including the United States, Japan, Australia, Argentina and Brazil.   

Over the same period, the Chinese Government approved its first gene edited food crop, a soybean high in healthy oleic acid, the Philippines approved a gene edited ‘non-browning’ banana designed to reduce food waste, and the US authorities cleared a new type of mustard greens, gene edited for reduced bitterness and improved flavour.

Here in Europe, we continue to see major research breakthroughs in these technologies, including the recent announcement that researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands have used CRISPR/Cas gene editing technology to make potato plants resistant to late blight disease caused by Phytophthora infestans without inserting foreign DNA in the potato genome. It is hard to overstate the potential significance of this breakthrough, not only in safeguarding harvests from a devastating fungal infection, but also in reducing the need for pesticide sprays.       

As the pace of these exciting developments accelerates around the world, a key question set to be answered over the coming months is whether Europe will join in, or remain locked out?

The European Commission is preparing to publish its long-awaited proposal for future regulation of the products of new genomic techniques (NGT), which are currently classified as GMOs in line with a European Court ruling dating back to July 2018.

In a study following this ruling the Commission concluded that the EU’s 20-year-old GMO rules are ‘not fit for purpose’ to regulate these new breeding methods, largely because those regulations were put in place years before gene editing technologies were even dreamt of.

But will the Commission’s proposal follow other countries in determining that NGT plant products which could have occurred naturally or been produced by conventional means should be regulated in the same way as their conventionally bred counterparts? Or will it succumb to the anti-science lobby, imposing GMO-style traceability, labelling and coexistence obligations for these conventional-like NGTs, which will not only deter innovation and cement the EU’s future as a museum of agriculture, but also risk trade-related challenges as gene editing becomes one of the default delivery models for global crop genetic improvement?

Earlier this month, 20 European value chain organisations, including Euroseeds, signed a joint open letter urging the Commission to treat conventional-like NGT plants  in the same manner as their conventionally bred counterparts to avoid regulatory discrimination of similar products.

In the letter, all 20 organisations – representing EU farming, food and feed processing, plant breeding, scientific research and input supply organisations – underlined their commitment to transparency and information sharing to support customer and consumer choice.

Following the recent example of Canada, which has introduced a registry for gene edited plant varieties to ensure transparency and choice, the joint letter points out that national variety lists and the European Common Catalogue could be used to provide freedom of choice to farmers and growers, and allow value chains wishing to avoid the use of conventional-like NGT plants in their production to do so. Already today, for example, some private organic certification schemes exclude plant varieties bred using certain exempted methods of genetic modification such as cytoplast fusion. These private standards are observed, and the respective value chains co-exist, without the need for a specific regulatory framework, but through varietal information provided by the seed sector.

However, transparency does not necessarily imply a requirement for traceability (and/or labelling). Transparency stands at the beginning of value chains and, as such, does not disrupt food chain operations and product flows but provides freedom of choice for farmers and growers. A requirement for mandatory labelling of one particular breeding method would not only incur additional costs within the supply chain, but could also erroneously be perceived by some consumers as a warning statement and so discriminate unfairly against conventional-like NGT products. This in turn could prevent the potential of NGT plants to contribute to sustainable agricultural production and food security from being realised.

Where NGT plant products could equally have been produced using other conventional breeding methods (which are not subject to a mandatory labelling requirement), it would also constitute a breach of the fundamental principles of non-discrimination of like-products and factual information under General Food Law.

The joint value chain letter also highlighted the challenges of detection and identification of NGT plant products for market control and enforcement purposes. Since it is not technically possible to distinguish how the genetic change in a conventional-like NGT plant occurred (because it is conventional-like!), it is highly unlikely that laboratory tests would ever be able to detect and identify the presence of NGT-derived plant products in food or feed entering the EU market, creating enforcement issues and legal uncertainty for operators. The EU regulatory system risks losing trust if it is unenforceable and, with this, becomes vulnerable to fraud.   

Any mandatory traceability or segregation requirements (eg paper trail systems) for technically similar products would bring significant costs and logistical burdens for operators, which are not aligned with current food trade and processing operations, and as such would represent a further, unjustified barrier to the adoption of NGT plants in the EU.

Finally, in relation to the coexistence of farming systems and international trade, the joint letter points out that, today, EU regulations do not impose coexistence measures between conventional and organic farming, even though some organic farming standards already exclude plant varieties from certain non-regulated-GMO breeding methods. Similarly, the US, with which the EU has agreed equivalency schemes for organic food, does not impose specific coexistence measures between organic and conventional farmers (including for conventional-like NGT products). This has the obvious advantage for US organic growers and food producers that such food will also be accepted as organic in the EU. In sharp contrast, always imposing risk assessment and traceability plus labelling requirements (as well as coexistence measures) for conventional-like NGT plants and products would be incompatible with organic standards in third countries like the US. This would endanger well-established equivalency standards and international organic value chains.

In short, imposing traceability and labelling requirements, and coexistence measures that place specific obligations on farmers growing conventional-like NGT varieties, would have negative implications for the competitiveness of the EU agri-food value chain as well as the enforceability of regulations.

It would also be at odds with the EU’s guiding regulatory principles of practicality, proportionality and non-discrimination.  

Our policy-makers have a unique opportunity to embrace and enable the use of these more precise breeding technologies in European agriculture, and to improve prospects for delivering the sustainability objectives set out in the EU’s Green Deal.

Is the EU ready to join the global gene editing revolution, or will we remain locked in a political and regulatory time warp?

Petra Jorasch holds a PhD in plant molecular biology from the University of Hamburg. She is an internationally recognised science, communication and industry advocacy expert with more than 20 years of experience in and a deep knowledge of the relevant policy frameworks for seeds, plant science and breeding, access and use of plant genetic resources as well as relevant intellectual property protection systems. Petra worked for 13 years in the German seed sector at the interface of science and industry, managing intellectual property rights, public-private partnerships and technology transfer. From 2014-2017 she was Vice Secretary General of the German Plant Breeders’ Association (BDP) and its research branch GFPi (German Federation for Plant innovation). Petra joined Euroseeds in February 2017 as the spokesperson of the EU plant breeding sector on modern plant breeding methods and innovative technologies.

Social Media: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petra-jorasch-57120a56/ 

Twitter: @pjorasch

Contact us

Read Full Post »

Canada will not regulate gene-edited crops as GMOs: ‘As the agriculture sector faces challenge of climate change, innovation is incomparable tool’

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | May 5, 2023

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Credit: Maaark/Pixabay (CC0)
Credit: Maaark/Pixabay (CC0)

[May 3], the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, announced updated guidance for seed regulations that will provide clear direction for plant breeders so that Canadian farmers can access new seed varieties, enhance sustainable food production and be more resilient in the face of today’s challenges. The Government of Canada is also strengthening transparency measures for products of plant breeding innovation and investing in the Canadian Organic Standards to protect the integrity of the organic sector.

Plant breeding innovations allow new plant varieties to be developed more effectively and efficiently than through conventional breeding. This can benefit farmers and consumers by providing them with access to plants and seeds that are both safe for humans, animals, and the environment. These varieties can also be more resistant to extreme temperature, precipitation, and insects, helping us adapt to climate change, feed a growing population and keep food costs down for consumers.

Through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)’s updated guidance for Part V of the Seeds Regulations, seed developers will be able to confidently invest in new products while maintaining the high standard of safety that Canada is known for domestically and internationally.

This update builds on a similar update last year to the Novel Food Regulations by Health Canada.

To help maintain the integrity of organic certifications, which allow the use of conventional seed but not gene edited seed, the government is announcing a series of measures to ensure transparency in how the seed is produced. Firstly, the creation of a Government-Industry Steering Committee on Plant Breeding Innovations Transparency to facilitate ongoing discussions as gene-edited products are introduced in the marketplace. Secondly, the expansion of the Seeds Canada Canadian Variety Transparency Database to provide transparency around individual seed varieties. Thirdly, federal oversight of the Canadian Variety Transparency Database to ensure the completeness and robustness of the database.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

These measures are informed by the recommendations and the work of the Industry-Government Technical Committee on Plant Breeding Innovation Transparency, which is comprised of members from the organic, conventional, and seed sectors, as well as officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada. Their continued engagement will enable the Canadian Variety Transparency Database to succeed, ensuring the transparency of seed innovations in Canada.

In addition to these measures, Minister Bibeau announced that the Government will once again provide funding to support the review of Canada’s organic standards, which are updated every five years and due for renewal in 2025.

The United States, Japan, Australia, Argentina and Brazil have clarified the pathway for gene-edited products. New Zealand, the UK and the European Union (EU) are in the process of doing so.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians and the environment through science and evidence-based decision-making, and recognizes that new plant breeding innovations, including gene-editing, allow new plant varieties to be developed more efficiently than conventional breeding.

Quote

“As the agriculture sector faces the challenge of feeding a growing world population in the midst of climate change, innovation is an incomparable tool to increase our production safely and sustainably. While facilitating the development of new plant varieties from plant breeding innovations, in light of discussions with the government-industry committee, we will protect the integrity of organic certification.”

– The Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

“The Canadian Federation of Agriculture supports the release of CFIA’s new guidance on plant breeding innovation and ongoing commitment to transparency for producers. This will ultimately help Canadian farmers access new plant varieties that are more resilient to pests and extreme weather events and support our food security and sustainability objectives. The news that AAFC will help fund a review of the Canadian Organic Standards is also a welcome announcement. These two elements will help ensure farmers can continue to make informed decisions on what they produce.”

– Keith Currie, President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture

Read the original post here

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Read Full Post »

Three genetically modified crops approved in the Philippines

In the Philippines, GMO crops are regulated by several government agencies, and Bt eggplant, Bt corn, and Golden Rice are some of the approved GMO crops considered safe for human consumption and the environment, which passed a rigorous scientific assessment.

BY James Tababa

May 3, 2023 00:06 AM


At a glance

  • In the Philippines, GMO crops are regulated by several government agencies, and Bt eggplant, Bt corn, and Golden Rice are some of the approved GMO crops considered safe for human consumption and the environment, which passed a rigorous scientific assessment.

1.png

(icono/Pexels)

By JAMES TABABA

Genetically modified (GM) crops or genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been developed and grown since the 1990s. They are created through the process of genetic engineering, where the DNA of an organism is modified to produce desirable traits. GM crops are created to increase yield to increase food production, reduce the need to use pesticides and other harmful chemicals by creating insect pests and disease-resistant crops, and produce a highly nutritional crop to address nutritional deficiencies in certain populations.

The Philippines is one of the countries where genetically modified crops are being grown and used. However, GMO crops in the Philippines are regulated by the Department of Agriculture through the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) to ensure safety and prevent negative environmental impact. Evaluation of GMO crops is also supervised by several government agencies before approval for commercial purposes.

Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Plant Industry (DA-BPI) is responsible for the evaluation, regulation, and approval of GMO crops for commercial propagation, release, and field trials. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) examines the environmental risk of GMO crops. The Department of Health-Bureau of Food and Drugs (DOH-BFAD) assesses the safety and nutritional value of GMO crops intended for human consumption. Lastly, the Department of Science and Technology-Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic, and Natural Resources Research and Development (DOST-PCAARRD) conducts research and development activities related to GMO crops.

These government agencies collaborate to ensure the safety and potential benefits of GMO crops. They undertake comprehensive evaluations and assessments to ensure that any GMO crops introduced undergo thorough scrutiny regarding their potential impact on the environment, human health, and the agriculture sector.

GMO crops have been a controversial topic in the Philippines. Some groups say that they can help increase food security and boost the country’s agriculture sector, while others expressed concerns over potential environmental and health risks associated with their use. Despite the ongoing debate surrounding GMO crops, the Philippine government has approved some of the GMOs that are considered safe for human consumption and the environment. Here are three of them:

Bt Eggplant

In 2022, The Bureau of Plant Industry of the Department of Agriculture in the Philippines granted a biosafety permit for the commercial cultivation of borer resistant Bt Eggplant to the University of the Philippines Los Baños. Bt eggplant contains a natural protein from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, making it resistant to the eggplant fruit and shoot borer. The Philippines becomes the second country, after Bangladesh, to allow the commercial propagation of borer resistant Bt eggplant.

READ: The profitability of planting transgenic eggplants

Bt Corn

Bt corn is a genetically modified variety of corn that has been engineered to be resistant to the Asiatic corn borer (Ostrinia furnacalis). The Asiatic corn borer is a major pest of corn in Asia, and it can cause significant yield losses if left untreated. Bt corn has been genetically engineered to produce a toxin from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that is toxic to the pest, thus reducing the need for chemical pesticides.

In the Philippines, Bt corn has been commercially cultivated since 2003, and it is one of the major GM crops grown in the country. Bt corn has several potential benefits for farmers and the environment. By reducing the need for chemical pesticides, Bt corn reduces the environmental impact and health risks associated with pesticide exposure for farmers and consumers. Additionally, Bt corn can lead to higher yields and increased profitability for farmers, which can help to alleviate poverty and food insecurity in rural areas.

READ: Two Cagayano Bt Corn Farmers and Their Advantages

Golden Rice

Golden Rice, now called Malusog Rice, is a genetically modified variety of rice that has been bioengineered to produce beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. It is called “golden” because the rice grains have a golden-yellow color due to the increased presence of beta-carotene, an antioxidant found in fruits and vegetables responsible for the yellow and orange color. The development of Golden Rice was aimed at addressing vitamin A deficiency, which is a serious health problem in many developing countries, including the Philippines.

In the Philippines, the development and testing of Golden Rice have been ongoing since 2004. The project is a collaboration between the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), and other research institutions. In 2022, DA-PhilRice led the pilot deployment of Golden Rice seeds in the Philippines. The rice is registered with the National Seed Industry Council as NSIC 2022 Rc682GR2E or Malusog 1.

READ: Updates on the status of Biotech Corn and Golden Rice in the Philippines

Bt eggplant, Bt corn, and Golden Rice are some of the GMO crops that passed the comprehensive regulatory system for GMO crops that involves several government agencies and a rigorous scientific assessment. This ensures the safety of GMO crops for human health, and the environment.
Read more about farming and gardening at agriculture.com.ph

Read Full Post »

The State of Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops

Entomology Today 1 Comment

Cultivation of transgenic crops engineered to produce insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has grown rapidly in the past 25 years. Bt crops have had noteworthy successes, but resistance to Bt crops has evolved in numerous instances. Five cases of practical resistance to Bt proteins that are produced by transgenic crops are documented for corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea), which is the most for any pest. (Photo by John C. French Sr., Retired, Universities:Auburn, GA, Clemson and U of MO, Bugwood.org)

By John P. Roche, Ph.D.

Insect pests damaging crops is a huge problem worldwide, threatening food security and causing significant economic loss. One avenue to address this is to genetically engineer crops to produce proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that kill pests but are safe for most nontarget organisms. Although Bt-modified crops have been useful for controlling pests in numerous instances, some pests evolve resistance to Bt insecticide proteins. Therefore, scientists must evaluate the efficacy of Bt modified crops and find ways to delay evolution of insecticide resistance.

Sustained susceptibility to Bt cotton was essential for eradicating the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) from the United States and Mexico, which it had invaded more than a century ago.As part of a multi-tactic program, pink bollworm caterpillars were mass reared (as shown here) and 11 billion sterile moths were released by airplanes to overwhelm its populations in the field. By contrast, this pest evolved resistance to dual-toxin Bt cotton in India, where it was used extensively with scarce non-Bt host plant refuges and limited integration of other tactics. (Photo by Alexander Yelich, University of Arizona)

In a review published in January in the Journal of Economic Entomology, Bruce Tabashnik, Ph.D., and Yves Carrière, Ph.D., of the University of Arizona and Jeffrey Fabrick, Ph.D., of the USDA Agricultural Research Service analyze both of these needs by examining patterns of Bt resistance in agricultural pests around the globe. The review is part of a special collection on field-evolved resistance to Bt crops.

The acreage of Bt-modified crops has grown rapidly in the past 20 years, with over a 100-fold increase between 1996 and 2019. The USDA estimates that, in the U.S. from 2009 to 2020, Bt crops accounted for more than 75 percent of the area planted with corn and cotton and that, from 2016 to 2020, 81 percent of corn and 87 percent of cotton planted in the U.S. was engineered to produce Bt proteins.

Bt crops have helped to suppress pests while also decreasing the need for conventional insecticides and augmenting the effectiveness of biological control species. “Two stunning successes of Bt crops against invasive pests in the United States,” Tabashnik says, “are suppression of the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) to its lowest levels in more than 75 years by Bt corn and eradication of the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) using Bt cotton together with sterile moth releases and other tactics.” An example of a success against a native pest is the control of the tobacco budworm moth Chloridea virescens using Bt cotton in the U.S. and Mexico.

In their review, Tabashnik, Carrière, and Fabrick examined 73 sets of data on monitoring resistance to Bt crops, including information about responses to 10 Bt toxins in 22 species of moth and two species of beetle. They differentiated resistance found in these studies into the following three categories:

  1. practical resistance, in which more than half of the individuals in a population are resistant and the field efficacy of the Bt crop has decreased;
  2. early warning of resistance, in which resistance has evolved but fewer than half of individuals are resistant and efficacy of the Bt crop has not decreased;
  3. no decrease in susceptibility, in which there is no statistically significant decrease observed in susceptibility.

In the 73 data sets examined, they found 26 cases of practical resistance. The average time from first planting of a particular Bt crop to the appearance of practical resistance was 6.6 years. Over half of the cases of practical resistance were in three species—the moths Helicoverpa zea and Spodoptera frugiperda and the beetle Diabrotica virgifera virgifera. Geographically, half of the instances of practical resistance were in the U.S. This makes sense, as the U.S. has planted Bt crops widely and extensively monitored resistance.

Tabashnik and colleagues found 17 instances of early warning of resistance. The mean time of detection of early warning of resistance was 8.6 years after exposure to Bt crops.

Thirty instances of no significant resistance were found after two to 24 years of exposure, with an average duration since exposure to Bt crops of 12.2 years.

The many instances of practical resistance lead to the question of how resistance can be delayed or prevented. One important way to reduce resistance is by creating refuges consisting of non-Bt-modified plants that serve as hosts for pest insects that are not resistant. Refuges were first envisioned to reduce evolution of resistance to insecticide sprays, but they have been crucial for slowing evolution of resistance to Bt insecticides. Because the refuge plants don’t produce Bt proteins, they allow survival of susceptible insects that can mate with any resistant insects that emerge from Bt crops.

Another factor that can hinder the evolution of resistance is increasing the concentration of Bt proteins enough to kill insects that are heterozygous for resistance, i.e., they carry only one allele that confers resistance. This “high-dose” strategy makes the resistance functionally recessive and less likely to spread quickly.

A man in a white lab coat looks at the camera while holding a white petri dish with both hands at chest level. The background is an industrial lab setting lit in a dim reddish light.

A man wearing glasses and a striped shirt looks at the camera and holds up his right hand, on the index finger of which is perched a small moth.

A man in a white lab coat holds a tray of covered containers in the open doorway of a large temperature-control unit with white shelves.

Tabashnik says, “Theory and empirical evidence indicate that recessive inheritance of pest resistance to Bt crops and abundant refuges of non-Bt host plants can help to sustain the efficacy of Bt crops. When inheritance of resistance is not recessive, the abundance of refuges relative to Bt crops can be increased to effectively delay evolution of resistance.”

Strategies being explored to heighten the efficacy of Bt crops include targeting each pest with two or more Bt proteins and using Bt proteins together with RNA interference (RNAi) insecticides. In the close of their review, Tabashnik and colleagues emphasize that rather than relying on any one control tactic—such as transgenic crops—sustainable pest suppression combines diverse integrated pest management tools.

Read More

Global Patterns of Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: The First 25 Years

Special Collection: Global Perspectives on Field-Evolved Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops

Journal of Economic Entomology

John P. Roche, Ph.D., is an author, biologist, and science writer with a Ph.D. in the biological sciences and a dedication to making rigorous science clear and accessible. He writes books and articles, and provides writing for universities, scientific societies, and publishers. Professional experience includes serving as a scientist and scientific writer at Indiana University, Boston College, and the University of Massachusetts Medical School, and as editor-in-chief of science periodicals at Indiana University and Boston College.

Read Full Post »

AgricultureSpecials

The profitability of planting transgenic eggplants

Published February 3, 2023, 5:00 PM

by Manila Bulletin Agriculture

Eggplants are among the vegetables being sold in the market (Henrylito D. Tacio)

By Henrylito D. Tacio

The eggplant is used in various cuisines around the world. It can be sliced, battered, and deep-fried, and then served with various sauces.  It can also be stuffed with meat, rice, or other fillings and then baked. In the Philippines, eggplant is one of the main ingredients of pinakbet, torta, sinigang, ensalada, and kare-kare.   

The popularity of eggplant is the reason why it is the number one vegetable in the country – in terms of area planted (20,000 hectares) and volume of production (179,000 metric tons).  Most of the top producing regions are located in Luzon like Ilocos, Central Luzon, Cagayan Valley, CALABARZON (composed of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and Quezon) and Bicol.

Resource-poor farmers in many provinces grow eggplant and depend on it for their livelihood. One of them is Edgar C. Talasan, a vegetable farmer from barangay Imalutao in Impasug-ong, Bukidnon. At one time, he planted 2,500 eggplants in his farm. In just one crop cycle, he got a gross income of P84,000. 

From the income of his farm, he was able to raise his family well. In fact, he sent his daughter through college by selling the vegetables harvested from his farm. “I was happy and content in my little kingdom,” he said.

But what makes him sad is the fact that eggplant production in the country suffers a severe yield loss from insect pests, diseases and extreme environmental conditions. In a technology forum he attended in Pangasinan, he realized that eggplant growers sprayed their crops with chemicals once a day to protect the eggplants from infestation. 

Destructive eggplant pest

The most destructive insect pest that attacks the crop is called the eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB). Scientifically, it is called Leucinodes orbonalis, a moth species prevalent in Asia and Africa. The moths’ larvae feed on eggplant shoots and fruits until maturity. 

How EFSB destroys an eggplant. Picture taken from a lecture (Henrylito D. Tacio)

“The EFSB can cause as much as 50-75 percent loss of fruits,” said former Science Secretary Emil Q. Javier. “The worm of the insect bore tunnels in the fruit, rendering them unfit for consumption.”

Unfortunately, there is no known genetic resistance to EFSB in cultivated and wild eggplants.  “The insects are concealed in the shoots and fruits and are difficult to reach,” Dr. Javier explained. 

To reduce the population of EFSB, some farmers practice integrated pest management, which include: regular crop rotation, or intercropping eggplant with other vegetables; removal and burying of infested and damaged shoots and fruits; and using nylon net barriers to protect plants from the insects. 

Other farmers employ the following: using light or pheromone traps; growing eggplants in a screen house before transplanting in their farms; and conservation of beneficial arthropods (spiders, parasitoids, and predators). 

Using pesticides 

But there are farmers who spray their eggplants almost every other day with insecticides to protect the crops. 

In his 15 years of vegetable farming, Talasan said that in every eggplant cropping cycle, he sprayed at least twice a week. For every 1,000 eggplant hills, he used 0.5 kilogram of Lannate, two bottles (250 mL) of Prevathon, two bottles (250 mL) of Alika, one liter of Karate, one kilogram of Daconil, and 0.5 liter of Selecron. 

The current method of spraying chemicals to eggplants in order to control EFSB is unacceptable, according to Dr. Emiliana Bernardo, an entomologist or a scientist who studies insects. 

The practice is also unhealthy to consumers, farmers, and the environment, said Dr. Bernardo, who is also a member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee of the University of the Philippines Los Baños.

She said studies conducted in major eggplant producing provinces found that almost all farmers use chemical insecticides and that some even dip the unharvested eggplant fruits in a mix of chemicals just to ensure that harvests are marketable. 

“The very basic question is, which is safer, the present practice or the alternative, the Bt eggplant which is rigorously evaluated by experts?” she asked. “Is bathing the unharvested eggplant fruits in chemicals, which would end up in people’s dinner tables, safe?” 

Bt eggplant

 Are there other ways of controlling EFSB?  Scientists who tried various methods came up with Bt eggplant, a genetically modified (GM) crop. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis

Bt eggplant (Biotech Infocenter of the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture

 “Bt talong was developed by genetically engineering a gene from the bacteria so that the genetically modified eggplants now produce a protein that defends it against insect attacks,” explained Dr. Michael Purugganan, a Filipino plant geneticist who is the Dean of Science at the New York University.

“When ingested by the larvae of the target insect, the Bt protein is activated in the gut’s alkaline condition and punctures the mid-gut leaving the insect unable to eat. The insect dies within a few days,” noted a briefing paper circulated by the Laguna-based International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 

Conventional eggplant vs Bt eggplant. (Biotech Infocenter of the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture)

Bt is present in the Philippine soil and has been in use for years without any harmful effects. As it comes from the earth itself, Bt is very natural, according to Dr. Bernardo. In 1901, Bt was discovered to have an insecticidal property. By the 1950s, it became a well-known biological insecticide. 

Bt is easily cultured by fermentation,” the ISAAA briefing paper said. “Thus, over the last 40 years, Bt has been used as an insecticide by farmers worldwide. Organic farming has benefited from Bt insecticide, as it is one of the very few pesticides permitted by organic standards. The insecticide is applied either as a spray or as ground applications. It comes in both granules and liquefied form.”

The first Bt eggplant was developed by the Indian Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited (Mahyco).  The Institute of Plant Breeding at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños (UPLB) has developed the Bt eggplant in the country, in partnership with Mahyco and Cornell University and with support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 

The ISAAA says that before Bt eggplant is approved for commercial use, scientists and regulators ensure that it passes through many tests and safety assessments.  In the Philippines, the biosafety of Bt crops is evaluated by a pool of technical scientists in five stages: contained research in laboratories and screen houses; small limited confined field trials; multi-location field trials; food, feed and processing; and commercial propagation. 

Approved for propagation 

In July 2021, the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) – a line agency of the Department of Agriculture – approved Bt eggplant for direct use as food, feed and for processing (FFP).  In issuing Biosafety Permit No. 21-078FFP, it is found “to be safe as conventional eggplant” and “can substitute for its traditional counterpart.” 

A year later, on October 18, 2022, the government approved Bt eggplant as the third genetically engineered crop for commercial propagation, following Bt corn and golden rice (now known as Malusog rice).  

Bt eggplant’s approved followed regulatory procedures as detailed in the revised Joint Department Circular, which showed proof of the country’s commitment to science and improvements in biotechnology. 

Vegetable farmers need not to worry when it comes to planting eggplant.  “There are no differences in the production practices (fertilizer application, weeding, irrigation) used in growing of Bt eggplant compared to conventional eggplant except in insecticide application against the borer,” said Dr. Lourdes D. Taylo, study leader of the Bt eggplant project from UPLB. 

Dr. Lourdes D. Taylo, the study leader of the Bt eggplant project from University of the Philippines at Los Banos Henrylito D. Tacio)

Economic and health benefits

A recent study showed that Bt eggplant could bring health cost savings of P9.33 million yearly from its nearly pesticide-free use. Researcher Sergio R. Francisco has estimated savings in a survey of long exposure to pesticide spraying against the highly-infested EFSB in his study, “Health and Environmental Impacts of Bt Eggplant.” 

The study was based on the perception of 100 eggplant farmers from Batangas, Nueva Ecija, Pangasinan, and Quezon who sprayed their eggplant. These farmers have a long experience in farming – from 9.96 to 18.04 years. 

Another study showed that a Bt eggplant farmer gets P50,330.00 net income for every P100,000.00 gross sales. In comparison, a net income of P16,880.00 is all a farmer gets who plant conventional varieties. 

In a press statement, it was disclosed that the benefit to human health from health cost savings in growing Bt eggplant is equivalent to P2.49 million yearly as risk from illnesses is avoided. For farm animals, the projected benefit per year is at P2.12 million. 

For beneficial insects, the environmental benefit is valued at P2.45 million yearly and for bird species, P2.27 million – as these are saved from death, thereby contributing to biodiversity enhancement.  

Are Bt crops like Bt eggplant safe to eat? The GM Science Review Panel of the United Kingdom has this to say: “For human health, to date there is no evidence currently commercialized GM crop varieties or foods made from them, are toxic, allergenic or nutritionally deleterious.  On balance, we conclude that the risks to human health are very low for GM crops currently on the market.” 

The Geneva-based World Health Organization also assured: “The potential direct health effects of GM foods are generally comparable to the known risks associated with conventional foods, and include, for example, the potential for allergenicity and toxicity of components present, and the nutritional quality and microbiological safety of the food.”

Eggplant salad. One of the most popular ways of preparing eggplant for table. (Henrylito D. Tacio)

Photos by Henrylito D. Tacio
Additional photos by SEARCA

SIGN UP TO DAILY NEWSLETTERCLICK HERE TO SIGN-UP

© 2023 Manila Bulletin The Nation’s Leading Newspaper. All Rights Reserved.javascript:false 

about:blank

Read Full Post »

The profitability of planting transgenic eggplants

Published February 3, 2023, 5:00 PM

by Manila Bulletin Agriculture

Eggplants are among the vegetables being sold in the market (Henrylito D. Tacio)

By Henrylito D. Tacio

The eggplant is used in various cuisines around the world. It can be sliced, battered, and deep-fried, and then served with various sauces.  It can also be stuffed with meat, rice, or other fillings and then baked. In the Philippines, eggplant is one of the main ingredients of pinakbet, torta, sinigang, ensalada, and kare-kare.   

The popularity of eggplant is the reason why it is the number one vegetable in the country – in terms of area planted (20,000 hectares) and volume of production (179,000 metric tons).  Most of the top producing regions are located in Luzon like Ilocos, Central Luzon, Cagayan Valley, CALABARZON (composed of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and Quezon) and Bicol.

Resource-poor farmers in many provinces grow eggplant and depend on it for their livelihood. One of them is Edgar C. Talasan, a vegetable farmer from barangay Imalutao in Impasug-ong, Bukidnon. At one time, he planted 2,500 eggplants in his farm. In just one crop cycle, he got a gross income of P84,000. 

From the income of his farm, he was able to raise his family well. In fact, he sent his daughter through college by selling the vegetables harvested from his farm. “I was happy and content in my little kingdom,” he said.

But what makes him sad is the fact that eggplant production in the country suffers a severe yield loss from insect pests, diseases and extreme environmental conditions. In a technology forum he attended in Pangasinan, he realized that eggplant growers sprayed their crops with chemicals once a day to protect the eggplants from infestation. 

Destructive eggplant pest

The most destructive insect pest that attacks the crop is called the eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB). Scientifically, it is called Leucinodes orbonalis, a moth species prevalent in Asia and Africa. The moths’ larvae feed on eggplant shoots and fruits until maturity. 

How EFSB destroys an eggplant. Picture taken from a lecture (Henrylito D. Tacio)

“The EFSB can cause as much as 50-75 percent loss of fruits,” said former Science Secretary Emil Q. Javier. “The worm of the insect bore tunnels in the fruit, rendering them unfit for consumption.”

Unfortunately, there is no known genetic resistance to EFSB in cultivated and wild eggplants.  “The insects are concealed in the shoots and fruits and are difficult to reach,” Dr. Javier explained. 

To reduce the population of EFSB, some farmers practice integrated pest management, which include: regular crop rotation, or intercropping eggplant with other vegetables; removal and burying of infested and damaged shoots and fruits; and using nylon net barriers to protect plants from the insects. 

Other farmers employ the following: using light or pheromone traps; growing eggplants in a screen house before transplanting in their farms; and conservation of beneficial arthropods (spiders, parasitoids, and predators). 

Using pesticides 

ADVERTISEMENT

https://d232e7d84244f3a3918cab4f52c2a3c4.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

But there are farmers who spray their eggplants almost every other day with insecticides to protect the crops. 

In his 15 years of vegetable farming, Talasan said that in every eggplant cropping cycle, he sprayed at least twice a week. For every 1,000 eggplant hills, he used 0.5 kilogram of Lannate, two bottles (250 mL) of Prevathon, two bottles (250 mL) of Alika, one liter of Karate, one kilogram of Daconil, and 0.5 liter of Selecron. 

The current method of spraying chemicals to eggplants in order to control EFSB is unacceptable, according to Dr. Emiliana Bernardo, an entomologist or a scientist who studies insects. 

The practice is also unhealthy to consumers, farmers, and the environment, said Dr. Bernardo, who is also a member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee of the University of the Philippines Los Baños.

She said studies conducted in major eggplant producing provinces found that almost all farmers use chemical insecticides and that some even dip the unharvested eggplant fruits in a mix of chemicals just to ensure that harvests are marketable. 

“The very basic question is, which is safer, the present practice or the alternative, the Bt eggplant which is rigorously evaluated by experts?” she asked. “Is bathing the unharvested eggplant fruits in chemicals, which would end up in people’s dinner tables, safe?” 

Bt eggplant

 Are there other ways of controlling EFSB?  Scientists who tried various methods came up with Bt eggplant, a genetically modified (GM) crop. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis

Bt eggplant (Biotech Infocenter of the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture

 “Bt talong was developed by genetically engineering a gene from the bacteria so that the genetically modified eggplants now produce a protein that defends it against insect attacks,” explained Dr. Michael Purugganan, a Filipino plant geneticist who is the Dean of Science at the New York University.

“When ingested by the larvae of the target insect, the Bt protein is activated in the gut’s alkaline condition and punctures the mid-gut leaving the insect unable to eat. The insect dies within a few days,” noted a briefing paper circulated by the Laguna-based International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 

Conventional eggplant vs Bt eggplant. (Biotech Infocenter of the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture)

Bt is present in the Philippine soil and has been in use for years without any harmful effects. As it comes from the earth itself, Bt is very natural, according to Dr. Bernardo. In 1901, Bt was discovered to have an insecticidal property. By the 1950s, it became a well-known biological insecticide. 

Bt is easily cultured by fermentation,” the ISAAA briefing paper said. “Thus, over the last 40 years, Bt has been used as an insecticide by farmers worldwide. Organic farming has benefited from Bt insecticide, as it is one of the very few pesticides permitted by organic standards. The insecticide is applied either as a spray or as ground applications. It comes in both granules and liquefied form.”

The first Bt eggplant was developed by the Indian Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited (Mahyco).  The Institute of Plant Breeding at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños (UPLB) has developed the Bt eggplant in the country, in partnership with Mahyco and Cornell University and with support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 

The ISAAA says that before Bt eggplant is approved for commercial use, scientists and regulators ensure that it passes through many tests and safety assessments.  In the Philippines, the biosafety of Bt crops is evaluated by a pool of technical scientists in five stages: contained research in laboratories and screen houses; small limited confined field trials; multi-location field trials; food, feed and processing; and commercial propagation. 

Approved for propagation 

In July 2021, the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) – a line agency of the Department of Agriculture – approved Bt eggplant for direct use as food, feed and for processing (FFP).  In issuing Biosafety Permit No. 21-078FFP, it is found “to be safe as conventional eggplant” and “can substitute for its traditional counterpart.” 

A year later, on October 18, 2022, the government approved Bt eggplant as the third genetically engineered crop for commercial propagation, following Bt corn and golden rice (now known as Malusog rice).  

Bt eggplant’s approved followed regulatory procedures as detailed in the revised Joint Department Circular, which showed proof of the country’s commitment to science and improvements in biotechnology. 

Vegetable farmers need not to worry when it comes to planting eggplant.  “There are no differences in the production practices (fertilizer application, weeding, irrigation) used in growing of Bt eggplant compared to conventional eggplant except in insecticide application against the borer,” said Dr. Lourdes D. Taylo, study leader of the Bt eggplant project from UPLB. 

Dr. Lourdes D. Taylo, the study leader of the Bt eggplant project from University of the Philippines at Los Banos Henrylito D. Tacio)

Economic and health benefits

A recent study showed that Bt eggplant could bring health cost savings of P9.33 million yearly from its nearly pesticide-free use. Researcher Sergio R. Francisco has estimated savings in a survey of long exposure to pesticide spraying against the highly-infested EFSB in his study, “Health and Environmental Impacts of Bt Eggplant.” 

The study was based on the perception of 100 eggplant farmers from Batangas, Nueva Ecija, Pangasinan, and Quezon who sprayed their eggplant. These farmers have a long experience in farming – from 9.96 to 18.04 years. 

Another study showed that a Bt eggplant farmer gets P50,330.00 net income for every P100,000.00 gross sales. In comparison, a net income of P16,880.00 is all a farmer gets who plant conventional varieties. 

In a press statement, it was disclosed that the benefit to human health from health cost savings in growing Bt eggplant is equivalent to P2.49 million yearly as risk from illnesses is avoided. For farm animals, the projected benefit per year is at P2.12 million. 

For beneficial insects, the environmental benefit is valued at P2.45 million yearly and for bird species, P2.27 million – as these are saved from death, thereby contributing to biodiversity enhancement.  

Are Bt crops like Bt eggplant safe to eat? The GM Science Review Panel of the United Kingdom has this to say: “For human health, to date there is no evidence currently commercialized GM crop varieties or foods made from them, are toxic, allergenic or nutritionally deleterious.  On balance, we conclude that the risks to human health are very low for GM crops currently on the market.” 

The Geneva-based World Health Organization also assured: “The potential direct health effects of GM foods are generally comparable to the known risks associated with conventional foods, and include, for example, the potential for allergenicity and toxicity of components present, and the nutritional quality and microbiological safety of the food.”

Eggplant salad. One of the most popular ways of preparing eggplant for table. (Henrylito D. Tacio)

Photos by Henrylito D. Tacio
Additional photos by SEARCA

SIGN UP TO DAILY NEWSLETTERCLICK HERE TO SIGN-UP

ADVERTISEMENT

https://d232e7d84244f3a3918cab4f52c2a3c4.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

RELATED TAGS:

Amazo

Read Full Post »

Herbicide-tolerant rice developed at NRRI

Friday, 03 February 2023 | PNS | CUTTACK

  • Weed infestation causes 18–48% yield loss in rice. The weeds are managed by keeping stagnant water in the field or through manual or mechanical weeding. Thus, availability of any cost-effective weed control method will make rice cultivation economically viable and sustainable.

Besides, broad leaf and grassy weeds, weedy rice is an emerging problem under direct seeded conditions. Its competitive ability is very high and traditional herbicides can’t control such weeds. Herbicides which kill the weedy rice also kill the rice crop. Thus, there is a need for developing rice varieties which can control weedy rice as well as other weeds.

In India, scientists could successfully develop a mutant line ‘Robin’ in upland variety N22 which tolerates the herbicide Imazethapyr due to a mutation in Acetohydroxy Acid Synthase (AHAS) gene.

At the ICAR-National Rice Research Institute here, this herbicide-tolerant gene has been introgressed in four popular rice varieties, (Sahbhagidhan, Naveen, SwarnaSub1 and Pooja) and are currently under national testing.

Imazethapyr herbicide, when sprayed 21 days after sowing, effectively controls the weeds of rice as well as weedy rice without affecting the yield potential of the tolerant variety. Release and large-scale adoption of the herbicide tolerant rice can significantly reduce the cost of cultivation and enhance the acreage under direct seeded rice in India.

Read Full Post »

A ‘New Green Revolution’ is brewing — just in time, as the world population breaks past the 8 billion mark

Gurjeet Singh Mann | January 26, 2023

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Credit: CGTN
Credit: CGTN

You can mark the date on your calendar: On November 15, 2022, a mother [gave] birth to a baby who [was] the world’s 8 billionth person.

This milestone in human history comes to us from an estimate by demographers at the United Nations.

They also predict that next year, my country of India will pass China as the planet’s most populous nation, with about 1.4 billion people.

Credit: United Nations

This means the expanding population will need much more food than we ever had before. If we’re going to feed them, we need another Green Revolution and a lot more for

India as well as for the rest of the world. Farmers must enjoy access to the full power of modern technology so that we can do our part to meet the necessities of life.

The challenges of population growth are enormous. I’ve seen the effects in my region of northern India, where I’ve worked on my family farm for more than four decades and currently grow rice and wheat. Areas that once were devoted to agriculture now are dotted with dwellings to accommodate more families and people. The boundaries of cities and villages continue to expand, cutting into cropland. Everything feels more congested.

We’re losing arable land every day to urbanization and industrialization. Because we can’t make more of it, we must do more with what we have—and in a world of 8 billion people, that means growing more food on less land than ever before.

This is our task for the rest of the century, too. The UN predicts continued growth in global population, with 9.7 billion people in 2050 and 10.4 billion in 2100.

Prediction intervals (shaded area around a projected trend) were derived from a probabilistic assessment of projection uncertainty. Credit: United Nations

The problem is especially severe in India. Soon we’ll have more people than China, but China always will have more arable land.

China is also spending enormous resources to improve food security and production. Credit: Yuan Chai et al

Feeding our nation will involve one of history’s biggest tests.

This is a serious problem, but it can be transformed into an opportunity as well. The good news is that we know what to do, at least in principle, and that’s because we’ve done it before.

Back in the 1960’s, the global population topped 3 billion—and many experts worried about the ability of farmers to improve their production and keep up. Enter Norman Borlaug, the agronomist who made it his mission to find a solution. In India, he worked with M.S. Swaminathan and M.S. Randhawa to develop new seed varieties, which gave a big boost to the yield and total production of cereals, especially wheat in India.

At a time when pessimists were ready to surrender in the war on hunger, Borlaug showed the power of human ingenuity to solve problems with science and technology. He went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his achievements as an agronomist.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

This is the hidden benefit of population growth: For all the ways that additional people can present dilemmas, they also give us a better chance to create a new generation of innovators who will help us think our way to answers.

As they do, farmers like me stand ready to do our part. We are ready to innovate, too.

During my career as a farmer, I’ve watched technology transform everything. The advent of GMOs, for example, allowed cotton farmers finally to withstand the assaults of boll worms and other pests—and we enjoyed a massive boom in production. Although I’m now growing other kinds of crops, I was a full participant in this development and saw firsthand how much it helped farmers and consumers alike.

Sadly, our government has prevented us from adopting GM technology in edible produce. While much of the developed world has embraced this technology, India has hesitated, due mainly to the opposition of political activists. We have an amazing potential to grow more food. A couple of the most promising examples are mustard and brinjal (which is known as “eggplant” in other parts of the world). Today, we have a ray of hope as GM mustard recently received environmental clearance from the Government. Access to these GM seeds would immediately help farmers strengthen India’s food security.

Yet this is about more than just a single technology. The gene-editing technology called “CRISPR” gives us new abilities to grow crops in harsher conditions, including drought, heat, and frost. We should apply it to every crop—starting with wheat and rice, which may be the commodities that could gain the most from new technological approaches and farmer access needed to meet the worlds hunger challenge.

Credit: Somisetty V. Satheesh et. al.

Everything begins with having the best seeds, but we have other technological opportunities: Climate-smart farming requires better machinery, from large harvesters for big fields to small and micro size so a maximum number of farmers can adopt it to small drones for mapping and surveillance; micro-irrigation, for the efficient delivery of water in a time of climate change; improved weather forecasting, to help us make planting decisions; and crop-protection tools that fight weeds, pests, and disease.

These are the makings of a new Green Revolution—one that a world of 8 billion people and counting will need.

Gurjeet Singh Mann is a farmer who embraces new technology including GM crops, and he helps guide his fellow and young farmers with farm technologies. Gurjeet runs Mann Farms  out of Sirsa, India. 

A version of this article was posted at Global Farmer Network and is used here with permission. Check out Global Farmer Network on Twitter @GlobalFarmerNet

Read Full Post »

GM/Biotech Crops Report – August 2022

1st August 2022

  • GM/Biotech Crops Monthly Reports (BELOW) form part of BCPC’s free three-tier Biotech Crops Info service.
  • This service also includes a weekly round-up of news from around the globe – see BCPC Newslink GM Crops section.
  • Plus – Free access database on over 300 GM/biotech products covering 23 crops in the global market visit BCPC’s GM/Biotech Crops Manual – Register here for free access.
  • Already registered? Click here

GM/Biotech Crops Monthly Report August 2022

More accurate gene editing

CRISPR-Cas9 editing can cause off target edits and cuts both strands of the DNA helix at once. Now a system related to CRISPR but cutting only one strand of the DNA promises new options and greater accuracy in the edits.
Full Story.

Boost to rice yields

Over-expression of a single gene in rice seems to shorten the time taken for the plant to mature, improve nitrogen efficiency and boost yields by up to 40%.
Full Story.

Improved efficiency in food production

Photosynthesis is not the only way to produce food. Capturing the sun’s energy via photo-voltaic cells and using this energy to power an electrolyser that converts water and CO2 into acetate which can be utilised by mushrooms, yeasts and algae can be more efficient than growing crops. It sounds like an ideal food production system for space stations but here on earth there may be more resistance to this production method.
Full Story

Pod-borer resistance in chickpea

Gram pod borers account for a yield loss of 40-50% in chickpeas grown in India but a successful gene modification is achieving significant reductions in larval feeding damage.
Full Story

Australia starts to evaluate GM sorghum

Queensland University has been granted a licence to conduct field evaluations of GM sorghum over the next 3 years but the crop will not (yet?) be used for human or animal feed.
Full Story

Photosynthesis in overdrive

The University of Wisconsin have identified one of the brakes on photosynthesis and switched it off. The modified Arabidopsis plants produce greater quantities of aromatic compounds and, in doing so, absorb greater quantities of CO2.
Full story

Optimising wheat production

A study by Rothamsted has indicated that, if the genetics of wheat crops were optimised for the regions that the crop was grown in, growers could double their yields. However, a recent ‘Countryfile’ programme on the BBC reported a similar yield benefit achieved by a Ukrainian farmer who swapped his Russian-made combine harvester for a John Deere! Perhaps more widespread access to optimised harvest machinery could also improve harvested yields.
Full Story

This is rocket-science

By engineering the genome of soil bacteria, scientists have caused them to produce polycyclopropanated fatty acids that are sufficiently energy dense to be used as biofuels for road, shipping, aviation and rocket fuel. Let’s hope they can scale up production soon.
Full Story

Cassava Mosaic disease resistance

Cassava is a root crop that can grow in dry conditions without applied fertiliser and is a staple of many in India and Africa. Mosaic disease causes significant yield losses and the natural resistance of some landraces is easily lost during propagation. Now the gene involved has been identified, progress can be made on a more durable resistance:
Full Story

Improved immunity

Many plant pathogens switch off the plant’s immune response before they attack and now a team of scientists from Germany, France and Switzerland have decoded the signals that the pathogen uses to achieve this. They have also developed chemicals that re-activate the plant’s immune system in the lab and now they need to evaluate it in the field.
Full Story

Chitin for leaf blight control in rice

Chitin can be used as an insecticide due to the physical damage that it can cause to insect cuticles but now Chinese scientists have bio-engineered chitosan-iron nanocomposites that seem to have efficacy against bacterial leaf blight in rice.
Full Story

Wheat stripe rust resistance

The Sainsbury Laboratory has identified the genes that stop wheat rust infecting barley and now that the genes involved are known, it will allow this resistance to be transferred to other varieties:
Full Story

Phosphate biosensor

Many plants rely on soil fungi to scavenge for their phosphorus and reward the fungi with carbon compounds when they deliver the phosphates. Now a team at Texas University has developed a biosensor that allows them to monitor this trade and by optimising he process, they hope to make phosphate use by plants more efficient.
Full Story

Asian soybean rust resistance

Corteva and the 2blades Foundation based at the Sainsbury Laboratory have developed a durable rust resistance for soybeans, important because the yield losses caused by the disease can range 10 – 80%.
Full Story

Reduced pre-harvest sprouting in rice

Scientists at the Nanjing Agricultural University have used CRISPR-Cas0 to knock out various versions of the CsABA8ox gene to increase seed dormancy in rice. This makes pre-harvest sprouting less likely but they do not say if it affects the germination of a seed crop.
Full Story

THE LATEST ADDITIONS TO THE  GM/BIOTECH DATABASE ARE:

The latest approvals of biotech crops to report this month:

• HB4 wheat with improved drought tolerance approved for food and feed use in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Columbia, New Zealand, Nigeria and the USA.

FOR INSTANT ACCESS TO GM BIOTECH MANUAL CLICK HERE (Registration required)

Read Full Post »

India’s Supreme Court mulls impact of green lighting GM crops on peasant woman farm laborers, who will no longer need to hand-weed

Krishnadas Rajagopal | Hindu | December 5, 2022

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Credit: Getty Images
Credit: Getty Images

The [Indian] Supreme Court on [November 30] expressed concern about the plight of thousands of women agricultural labourers in rural areas, traditionally engaged in de-weeding, who will be part of the human cost if the government permits the commercial cultivation of herbicide-tolerant crops such as GM mustard in India.

“In rural areas, women are experts in removing weeds. They are a part of the labour force in agriculture in India. It brings them employment…” Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed orally while hearing challenges against the environmental clearance given to genetically modified mustard by the government.

Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, the lead judge on the Bench, agreed that women were an integral part of the Indian agricultural landscape, from paddy fields to tea estates, across the country.

“They work in knee-deep water in the fields, bending the whole day and working,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, for a petitioner, said the widespread use of herbicide-tolerant crops would encourage farmers to spray chemical weed-killers.

…“The Supreme Court’s own Technical Expert Committee [TEC] had said that these GM crops were not meant for agriculture in the Indian context. They may be suitable in the western context where there are large farms, but not here,” Mr. Parikh argued.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »