As readers of my blog have observed, I have not posted a blog for a few months.  About all that could be written about the battle over application of rbST in the dairy industry in the United States, and defending the freedom of dairy farmers to use safe and effective technologies has been discussed.  The stories currently being written by opponents of this biotechnology are simply a rehash of a rehash…nothing new.  This all has been chronicled in Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology.

There are other issues confronting society and agriculture that are enormous challenges and merit debate about how to solve them.  One pressing issue that looms on the horizon pertains to how the global village is going to feed a growing world population.  Projections are that between now and 2050, the world’s population will grow from 6.5 billion to about 10 billion people  (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications – ISAAA).  Another “metric” that hammers home the challenge that lies ahead is that the amount of cultivable crop land for food production (on a per capita basis) is plummeting.  In 1966, there was about 0.45 hectares (ha) per person in the World – in 2050 the projections are that this will be approximately 0.15 ha (ISAAA).

The shrinking land base (on a per capita basis) is very problematic.  Many presume that climatic conditions will be stable and not adversely affect food production.  That is not a given, however.  In addition, geo-political strife is ever present, and affects food production and distribution.  Moreover, it is not easy to predict future conflicts and what impact they might have on the food system.  The other “wild card” that has a huge potential impact to up heave food production is a targeted strike on food production via a bioterrorism attack.

The question society confronts is very simple – how are we are going to feed the growing World population?  I don’t think many would endorse the idea of chopping down more rain forest to expand acreage for food production.  Science and new innovations are needed – new technology-based products will have to be developed and applied.  A key target for application of new science-based solutions will be to improve food production efficiency, i.e., more apples per tree, more milk per unit of feed consumed by a dairy cow, etc.

An “ugly” reality intertwined in this issue is the cost of discovering and developing the science, and distributing the new technologies (and food) to both developed and developing countries.  This will be enormously challenging!  Will developed countries be willing to cover the costs to do this?  Is there the political “will” to do this?

The current world-wide economic crisis is a daunting problem.  A March 5, 2009 editorial in the New York Times (The Crisis at Home and Abroad) observed that the European Union’s wealthy members rejected calls for a bailout from its poorer members.  This is not encouraging illustration that rich countries will provide assistance to poorer or developing countries.

Another emerging challenge is that there is evidence that cereal crop reserves are decreasing.  If there are a couple of “bad” food production cycles in the World, the amount  of food reserves becomes critical.

These issues are going to be the ones that I focus on in my blogs over the next few months.  The issue of feeding the growing World population is complex.  In addition, many consumers in developed countries simply don’t see the “problem” because their grocery store shelves are full.  I wonder what would happen in America if consumers went to the grocery store and only half of the food was there?

According to the Food Biotechnology: A Study of U.S. Consumer Attitudinal Trends, 2008 Report commissioned by IFIC, the majority of Americans would be likely to purchase foods from plants produced through biotechnology for specific benefits, including 78% who responded that they would be more likely to purchase foods produced through biotechnology that required fewer pesticides as well as products that provide more healthful fats like Omega-3. The IFIC survey follows several recent studies published that demonstrate growing support for agricultural biotechnology worldwide.

European Studies
On October 14, The European Union released a report entitled: Do European Consumers Buy GM Foods? The EU funded study found that consumers are buying foods containing biotech ingredients, despite a perceived opposition to biotechnology in the EU. The study traces consumers’ actual shopping behaviors with respect to agricultural biotechnology products in ten EU countries following the EU introduction of a mandatory labeling program for biotechnology foods in 2003.

The results unveil significant discrepancies when comparing people’s everyday choices at supermarkets to the attitudes they expressed towards biotechnology foods in questionnaires. Nearly half of the people who bought agricultural biotechnology-labeled foods said they would not buy such products, while 30 percent of consumers buying them did not know whether they had bought them.

In September, EuropaBio, the European biotech industry association, released data demonstrating that more European Union farmers are choosing to use biotechnology crops to boost their productivity despite a 10-year moratorium on new product approvals.

Asian Study
An Asian Food Information Centre (AFIC) survey published in early October reported that in light of the region’s growing demand for high volumes of quality food, consumers in China, India, Japan, Philippines and South Korea are ready to accept foods produced using agricultural biotechnology. The report, entitled Food Biotechnology: Consumer Perceptions of Food Biotechnology in Asia, found that in the midst of heightened media attention on food concerns, Asian consumers have high confidence in the role agricultural biotechnology can play in increasing future food supplies and are open-minded to the various benefits of food biotechnology. In addition, the study found that Asian consumers are especially inclined to accept plant biotechnology if the technology contributes to a more sustainable way of producing foods. Similar to the European Union consumer study, the AFIC report concluded that the presence of labeling of biotechnology-derived ingredients is not of significant importance to consumers in their choice of foods.

Washington, D.C. (September 18, 2008) – The multiple benefits of animal biotechnologies are closer to being realized thanks to efforts today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The FDA announced today the long-awaited draft guidance describing a regulatory framework for governing genetically engineered (GE) animals. In addition, USDA is seeking comment on their coordinated role in the regulatory process.

Dr. Barbara Glenn, Managing Director for Animal Biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) released the following statement expressing the industry’s support for the FDA’s and USDA’s actions today:

“BIO supports the release today of the first U.S. government draft guidance, which initiates a public and transparent comment process toward development of a final regulatory system.

Through years of scientific research with goats, pigs, sheep, chicken, fish and cattle, these technologies have the proven ability to provide solutions for public health through biomedical, food and environmental applications. These benefits will not be realized without a published rigorous science-based regulatory process that assures safety for consumers, animals and the environment.

“For example, there are now many products under development derived from GE animals that hold the promise of advancing human health. Through genetic engineering, animals can produce pharmaceutical proteins and replacement tissues in their milk, eggs, and blood, which can be used in the treatment of human diseases such as cancer, heart attacks, hemophilia, rheumatoid arthritis, pandemic flu, malaria and small pox. In addition, research is being conducted to produce transplant organs in pigs that may be a source of organs for humans.

“Animals that are genetically engineered can have improved food production capabilities, enabling them to help meet the global demand for more efficient, more nutritious, higher quality and lower-cost sources of food.

“GE animals can also contribute to improving the environment by consuming fewer resources and producing less waste. In addition, genetic engineering offers tremendous benefits to the animals themselves by imparting disease resistance traits and enhancing their overall health and well-being.

“BIO supports FDA’s framework to apply a mandatory science-based regulatory process to the regulation of GE animals and their products, based on the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act’s New Animal Drug (NAD) framework.

“Furthermore BIO supports FDA’s efforts to make this guidance consistent with international guidelines established earlier this year. On July 4, 2008, the Codex Alimentarius Commission approved guidelines for assessment of the safety of foods derived from GE animals. This move represents a policy breakthrough in the area of animal biotechnology in the international arena. Codex standards are recognized as international benchmarks and act as models for governments in the establishment of their own food safety policies.

“Regulation based upon an internationally recognized approval process will lead to more efficient commercialization of GE animals, processes and products that are proven safe for consumers, animals and the environment. The federal government has set the precedent for oversight of biotechnology through the development of its GE plant regulatory framework.The time has come for the benefits of GE animals to be realized in the areas of health care, food production and the environment.

“The potential of GE animals has been detailed in the report, Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health – Compelling Benefits for Health Care, Nutrition, the Environment and Animal Welfare, released in June of this year. The report was authored by Scott Gottlieb, MD, of the American Enterprise Institute, and Matthew B. Wheeler, PhD, of the Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Gottlieb and Dr. Wheeler are experts in the field of genetic engineering of animals.

Because of my commitment to defend science, scientists, and technological innovation in agriculture, I encounter folks and groups on the “other side” who use all sorts of interesting — even bizarre, and dysfunctional — tactics to scare consumers about science, food safety, and the need for technological innovation in agriculture.

Their objective?

To get consumers to think something is unsafe about foods produced by biotechnology … that they are unhealthy or even dangerous. And, oh yeah, to promote a sense of urgency to “encourage” consumers to buy other versions of the same product sold with labels such as natural, farm-fresh, no added hormones, or organic, etc. The obvious intent is to infer that these foods are better for you!

The other objective is to get consumers to pay a whole lot more. Great marketing scheme! Especially, when there are no discernible differences in nutrient content or wholesomeness.

As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology and other science-based information sources know, organic food production practices are NOT the answer to the question: How are we going to feed a growing world population?

I appreciate that farmers who wish to produce food using the organic standards have every right to do this. Likewise, consumers who wish to buy these products should be able to do so. This is the foundation of a democratic marketplace … if you produce something, and someone buys it, you have created the market.

However, the marketing approaches used to promote these products are a problem. I have written extensively in my Blogs about the deceptive and misleading attacks on safety of milk from cows treated with rbST; plants and plant-derived foodstuffs produced using the tools of genetic engineering; and other products produced using the tools of modern biotechnology (drugs, cloned animals, diagnostic tools, etc.).

A standard strategic response by the Luddites is to attack whatever I write about or present. Nothing new; this has been going on for a long time.

The attacks come in different ways. They write all sorts of letters, fill up their Web sites with trash, and spew out blogs. A keystone of their attacks is that facts (based on sound science) are not important. It is a lot easier to make it up than spend time finding facts to support their argument.

These authors often present what they call “science-based evidence,” “replicated research,” and the like to support their claims. The messages are very misleading. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that either the “research” does not exist or has been done in a such a biased and poor manner that nothing meaningful can be concluded from it — at least not to scientists working at reputable universities, nonprofits, and companies.

To make matters worse, many in the scientific community are missing the larger implications of all this: A large percentage of the public cannot, or do not, want to differentiate good science from bad. They just make decisions and move on.

Studies have consistently shown that the more consumers know about technology, the more they support it. A long-standing challenge has been how to deliver scientific education programs to the U.S. population in an exciting and informative manner that results in learning. It is an enormous challenge.

Especially, when it is easier to scare individuals than educate them.

An example of slander

The College of Agricultural Sciences at Penn State recently put on some educational programs to present the facts about different production practices used in animal agriculture. A component of these programs was to compare different production and husbandry practices, including comparing organic versus conventional farming.

A long story made short: I received a letter from some groups expressing their outrage over these programs. Interestingly, they took great exception to the programs we “delivered” — however, we received the letter before the programs were even presented…the groups were responding to the press release!

I will share one excerpt from that letter to illustrate my point:

“…As a dairy scientist, I find Penn State’s treatment of organic dairy management unobjective, unscientific, unprofessional and deleterious to many livestock farmers in Pennsylvania who are making extra efforts to farm well. Replicated research shows that there are nutritional benefits in organic milk that are beneficial to human health…”

These two sentences illustrate how facts are repeatedly skewed by the opponents of biotechnology. In reality, the programs were nothing like the above blather about being “unprofessional and deleterious.”

At the same time, the inference here is that if you don’t farm using organic production practices, you are not farming well. This is absolute nonsense. Amazing! This author is actually a dairy farmer!

Further nonsense is the statement that “replicated” research shows nutritional benefits. There is no credible evidence in support of these assertions. This fallacy is well illustrated by a blog I posted on July 27, 2008 “Scientist Debunks Myth of Organic Nutritional Superiority.”

The fact is there are countless farmers using conventional production practices, and biotechnology, who farm well and produce safe and wholesome food. And this food is compositionally the same as that labeled organic.

Most unfortunate of all is this: The ongoing smoke and mirrors debate and continuous fretting over the U.S. food system distracts all of us from confronting and solving far more serious and pressing issues.

The New York Times published an interesting article “A Conversation with Nina Fedoroff – An Advocate for Science Diplomacy” on August 19, 2008. Dr. Fedoroff, formerly at Penn State, is Science Adviser to the Secretary of State and Administrator of the Agency for International Development.

Dr. Fedoroff discusses the reality that science and technology are the drivers of the most successful economies in the 21st century. She also addresses the importance of technological innovation for feeding a growing world, and that organic farming can’t support the earth’s current population.

The article is an interesting read that clearly presents why we need to continue investing in science to develop new technologies to feed a growing world.

Enjoy the article!

Genetically engineered (GE) animals provide innovative technologies that can transform public health through biomedical, food and environmental applications, according to a scientific report released by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).

The report, Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health – Compelling Benefits for Health Care, Nutrition, the Environment and Animal Welfare, discusses how GE animals will enhance human health, food production, environmental protection, animal health and cutting-edge industrial applications. The report was authored by Scott Gottlieb, MD, of the American Enterprise Institute, and Matthew B. Wheeler, PhD, of the Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Gottlieb and Dr. Wheeler are experts in the field of genetic engineering of animals.

Genetic engineering is the deliberate modification of the animal’s genome using the scientific tools of modern biotechnology. By incorporating genes from other organisms in a process called transgenesis, GE animals are being developed to address five broad goals:

1. Advance human health: GE animals will improve human health by producing novel replacement proteins, drugs, vaccines and tissues for the treatment and prevention of human disease.
2. Enhance food production and quality: Animals that are genetically engineered will have improved food production capabilities, enabling them to help meet the global demand for more efficient, higher quality and lower-cost sources of food.
3. Mitigate environmental impact: GE animals will contribute to improving the environment and human health by consuming fewer resources and producing less waste.
4. Optimize animal welfare. Genetic engineering offers tremendous benefits to the animals by enhancing the health, well-being and welfare of the animal itself.
5. Improve industrial products: Genetic engineering can produce high-value industrial products, such as spider silk, for both medical and defense applications.

“There are now dozens of products under development derived from genetically engineered animals that hold promise of benefit to human health,” says Dr. Gottlieb. “But the practical benefits of this technology have not yet reached American patients and consumers primarily because of regulatory and political obstacles rather than the limits of science.”

The authors make a strong case for creating a regulatory pathway for commercialization of these beneficial biotechnologies. The Bio Report illustrates how the production of GE animals promises benefits for both biomedicine and agriculture. But Gottlieb and Wheeler agree that the science requires regulations that bridge the divide between food and biomedical products.

I have written extensively about the importance of biotechnology in the Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology. The BIO Report, Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health – Compelling Benefits for Health Care, Nutrition, the Environment and Animal Welfare, reinforces the need for and value of biotechnology in society. The numerous benefits of of GE animals only can be realized when policy obstacles are resolved that are limiting investment in this research and holding back product development.

IN Gulliver’s Travels, the King of Bobdingnag — the land of the giants — claimed that whoever could make two ears of corn grow where only one grew before was a greater patriot than all the politicians put together.

It’s sad to note then that nearly 300 years on from the publication of Swift’s satire, the politicians are still standing in the way of an agricultural technology that has the potential to do just that.

Despite food prices having risen by 50% in two years, the Government appears to have no strategy to reverse things. On the contrary, the direction of policy is all towards supporting the inefficient organic sector. Moreover, it shows no sign of dropping its opposition to new food technologies that offer the prospect, among other things, of higher yields from the same acreage.

It’s not hard to guess from which quarter in the current coalition the opposition to GM (genetically modified) food principally emanates. Earlier this month, Environment Minister John Gormley mused out loud that Ireland must keep open the option of declaring itself a GM-free zone. This despite the fact that the Food Safety Authority — the expert body — has been generally positive about GM-derived foods.

In delaying cultivation, the anti-GM lobbies have exacted a heavy price, not least in the Third World. Closer to home, incredibly, the programme for government not only stakes out an anti-GM position but declares itself in favour of biofuels which require land to be given over from food to fuel production.

Is it any wonder supermarket prices are skyrocketing? The politicians believe, of course, that they are reflecting public concerns. If the entire world was well-fed and food prices were static, stay-as-we-are might be an affordable luxury. But when a large proportion of the world’s population is still undernourished, don’t politicians have a responsibility to show leadership, to support the scientific and agricultural sectors as they explore ways to grow more, better food?

In a free society, shouldn’t the ultimate decisions lie with consumers who can make up their own minds? As long as the relevant experts are satisfied that GM food is safe — and they are — shouldn’t we be left to decide whether or not to purchase it?

Isn’t that the correct approach rather than engaging in a spurious, never-ending public debate that will inevitably be hijacked by the tiny number of green fundamentalists? ‘Safe’ is the last word the romantics would use to describe GM. Despite Americans having eaten it for years with no discernible side-effects, these so-called earth-lovers continue to raise claims that eating GM food can cause cancer and liver disease (and heart failure and brain damage and any other unpleasant health complication they can concoct on the basis of some kooky laboratory experiment, one suspects).

All credit to the self-styled defenders of our environment, though: they have managed to scare the life out of most of us. They are working with the grain: in the current zeitgeist anything processed or industrialised is potentially harmful, while anything that appears to be close to nature is pure and uncorrupted.

So, rather than embracing GM as opening up the possibility of greater control over the properties of plants, the environmentalists reject it as dangerous interference in nature with all sorts of unknown potential problems.

Have they forgotten that Mother Nature supplies not only delicious things for us to eat, but also its fair share of toxic fungi, bacteria and viruses?

There is a clear paradox here. While we in the developed world enjoy prosperity and health as never before, when it comes to GM foods superstition, ignorance and fear appear to be triumphing over human reason. One suspects that if matters had been left to the likes of Greenpeace, we would all still be hunter-gatherers.

Superstition, of course, is as old as time. When Charles Darwin provided a mechanism for the origin of species by means of natural selection, he violated the ancient notion that species are immutable and created by God in a hierarchy — with humans near the top, just below angels. The superstition about GM is similar: a sense that we are ‘playing God’ by moving genes around.

The further each generation is from the land and, thereby, a direct knowledge of crop production, the more susceptible to the scaremongering we become.

Many other innovations that are now commonplace in our lives were met with similar scepticism and opposition when first introduced. Some might be able to recall the horror stories about microwave ovens. Before that, pasteurisation and even technologies such as canning and freezing provoked alarm.

For all the frightening talk about ‘Frankenstein foods’, though, GM is simply a new tool for plant breeding, a development of what humans have been doing successfully for centuries: breeding wild grasses into wheat and barley, wolves into dogs and so on. In each case, human choice replaced biological chance. The difference is that now we have the ability to isolate the genes which carry specific traits: the randomness has been taken out of the equation. Throughout history there have been those who embraced this kind of change and those who clung to the old ways because they felt at least the risks were known. And since feeding ourselves was the primary occupation of mankind for most of our history, changes in food production have tended to be accepted only very slowly. Modern intensive agriculture has a bad press. The need to increase food production has resulted in the loss of one-fifth of the world’s topsoil and one-third of its forests.

BUT organic farming is scarcely the answer: it requires even more land to be devoted to agriculture. This is the dirty little secret the disillusioned financiers who give up the rat-race to sell organic jam, the New Age religionists and the middle-class hypochondriacs don’t want you to know. Their response is to turn their fire on new technologies to make agriculture more efficient so more land can be left wild — or to call for us all to eat less and breed less.

This hostility to GM makes no sense. Already, GM crops have been designed which are insect-resistant or have a herbicide resistance so they need less spraying. Another benefit is that agricultural land doesn’t require such extensive tilling, which allows more organic matter to accumulate in the soil.

This is just the beginning. The future holds promise for new GM crop varieties with increased tolerance of drought, heat and cold; with improved disease resistance or nutritional value, or as production systems for pharmaceutical compounds (such as edible vaccines for the developing world) and renewable industrial compounds (such as biodegradable plastics). These ideas might be unfamiliar, but that is no reason to reject them out of hand.

The discussion of food illustrates a broader need to remind ourselves just how much modern society has achieved in changing the lives of people for the better through the application of science, industry and reason. Perhaps then we will all be better able to see the ideas of the anti-GM brigade for the manure they really are.

On July 15, 2008, The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced its final scientific opinion that food from cloned cattle and pigs is safe, and there are no implications of animal cloning on the environment.

The findings of the EFSA Report concur with those presented in the Risk Assessment (RA) released on December 28, 2006, by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

As previously discussed in the Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology, the FDA RA (“A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny – DRAFT”) concluded that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats. Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.”

Key findings of the EFSA Scientific Committee Report are:

- There is no indication that differences exist in terms of food safety for meat and milk of clones and their progeny compared with those from conventionally bred animals.

- Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT (the most common technique used to clone animals) results in the production of healthy cattle and pig clones, and healthy offspring that are similar to their conventional counterparts based on parameters such as physiological characteristics, demeanor and clinical status.

- From the data collected, no environmental impact is foreseen.

In February 2007, EFSA was asked by the European Commission to provide a scientific opinion on the food safety, animal health, animal welfare and environmental implications of animal clones, obtained through the SCNT technique, of their progeny and of the products obtained from those animals. The final opinion also follows public consultation on a draft opinion issued earlier this year.

As I have discussed previously, cloned animals will be of value because of their increased genetic merit to provide healthy and nutritious meat and milk. Cloned animals also will increase food production, improve disease resistance, and enhance reproductive efficiency. An additional benefit is that cloning can be used to protect endangered species.

Terry D. Etherton

A new scientific study by Vicini et al. published in the July issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of the first in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST). The study that we published found that there were “no meaningful differences” in the composition of milk with the three different label claims.

Prompted by the recent trend in misleading food labeling based on dairy cow management, the study looked specifically at three label claims: conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk.

While minor differences were observed in milk composition for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The coauthors of the study concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured.” The only difference among conventional, rbST-free and organic milk is price, according to the study, with milk labeled rbST-free or organic selling for anywhere from $1 to $4 more per gallon than conventional milk.

Because absence-claim labels can imply that the milk labeled rbST-free or organic is safer or better than conventional milk, the published report emphasizes the importance of consumers being mindful about how product labels impact the food they purchase, that purchase decisions should be based on science and not on perceptions created by retail marketing, which can be misleading.

This peer-reviewed paper is important because it will help health care professionals respond effectively to consumer questions and perceptions about different milk-label claims.

Specifically, the study revealed the following:

• Quality: Antibiotics were not detectable in any milk samples. This is a not surprising result since milk containing antibiotics is not permitted to enter the food system. Bacterial counts were less for conventionally labeled milk compared with organic or rbST-free milk, but the differences were small and not significant.
• Nutrient Composition: Protein concentration was greater in organic milk compared to either conventional or rbST-free milk, which both had similar protein content. Again, the difference is not significant, and protein in milk accounts for little of the recommended protein intake for humans. There were no differences in milk fat, lactose or solids among the three label types.
• Hormone Levels: There were no differences in concentration of bST in milk regardless of label type. Concentrations of IGF-1(insulin-like growth factor-1) in milk were similar in conventional and rbST-free-milk, both were slightly higher in comparison to organic milk. Concentration of the steroid hormone progesterone was greater in organic milk compared to conventionally labeled milk or milk labeled rbST-free. Conventionally labeled milk had less estradiol compared to organic and rbST-free milk with concentrations of estradiol in samples labeled organic and rbST-free being the same.

Milk samples for the study were obtained from all 48 contiguous states, though some states did not have rbST-free milk, and some did not have organic milk samples pasteurized by the more conventional, lower-temperature methods. Samples were obtained during a three-week period, and states with larger populations and greater milk production were oversampled.

Reference for the study:

Vicini J, T Etherton, P Kris-Etherton, J Ballam, S Denham, R Staub, D Goldstein, R Cady, M McGrath, & M Lucy. Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108:1198-1203.

With world wheat stocks at historic lows, some longtime opponents of transgenic (often called genetically modified organisms) are coming to the realization that, without increased adaptation of transgenics, the world’s farmers cannot produce enough safe, wholesome food to feed its people.

According to a non-profit, farmer-founded interest group called Growers for Biotechnology, recent comments by European governments are an indication that public opinion is turning the corner. A news article posted on the Web site, www.growersforbiotechnology.org, reports that in late June, Great Britain’s Environment Minister, Phil Woolas, addressed the world’s food price crisis with this comment: “There is a growing question of whether GM crops can help the developing world out of the current food price crisis. It is a question that we as a nation need to ask ourselves. The debate is already under way. Many people concerned about poverty in the developing world and the environment are wrestling with this issue.”

Europe’s resistance to transgenic crops has been one of the main obstacles to more rapid adoption of the technology around the world. Developing African nations, even those with mass starvation, have rejected transgenics out of fear that they might lose the opportunity to sell any surplus crops to Europe. Now, with a global food shortage exacerbating hunger around the world, the United Kingdom is beginning to see that Europe’s resistance cannot be sustained.

Meanwhile, the chairman of Great Britain’s Nestle, the world’s biggest food company, has told British lawmakers that transgenic crops are critical to combat poverty and hunger.

You cannot today feed the world without genetically modified organisms,” Nestle’s Peter Brabeck told the London Financial Times. “We have the means to make agriculture sustainable in the long term. What we don’t see for the time being is the political will.”

Brabeck said Europe’s opposition to biotechnology had encouraged African policymakers to reject transgenic crops. South Africa is the only country on the African continent to commercialize them, growing transgeneic maize, cotton and soybeans.

What are the benefits to wheat farmers should biotechnology be an option for the world’s wheat geneticists? Herbicide resistance, tolerance to fungal diseases or drought tolerance all are possibilities. In fact, an Australian researcher told Bloomberg News last week that Australia could have transgenic, drought-tolerant wheat available globally in five to 10 years.

GMO wheat under field trials in Australia’s Victoria state contains genes from plants such as corn and moss as well as yeast, Spangenberg said on July 2. Test results show the transgenic grain generated a 20 percent gain in yield compared with non-GMO crops under drought stress, according to German Spangenberg, head of Australia’s Victorian AgriBiosciences Center.

This is a very significant increase. GM wheat for drought tolerance will be important to sustain agricultural production into the future.”

DuPont Co., the world’s second-biggest producer of seeds, plans to engineer wheat and rice to boost yields as rising demand lifts grain prices to records. Growers and buyers have asked Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont to develop higher-yielding wheat varieties to help keep pace with output of crops such as corn.

Syngenta AG is also developing disease-resistant, transgenic wheat.

Despite this growing momentum, Japan and other Asian countries have vowed to buy non-transgenic wheat and either pay a premium, or rely on their own farmers for wheat production.

According to the farmers of Growers for Biotechnology, the need for more food production will grow exponentially in the next several years, and farmers must have access to new technologies to keep pace with demand. Farmers have known this for decades, but have fought an uphill battle. However, it looks like we may be winning.