GMO Timeline – A History of Genetically Modified Foods

As originally seen on Rosebud Magazine, ©2012, with sources added by GMO-Awareness

GMO foods are such an embedded part of our food system these days, but it’s not difficult to think back to a time when food was simpler and healthier. How did we get to the point that genetically modified organisms infiltrate so much of what we eat? In a recent issue of Rosebud Magazine, GMO expert GL Woolsey took a look at the history of GMOs. We present that for you here now.

1935 – DNA Discovered

Russian scientist Andrei Nikolaevitch Belozersky isolates pure DNA.

1973 – Recombinant DNA Created

The idea for man-made DNA, or rDNA, comes from a grad student at Stanford University Medical School. Professor Herbert Boyer and a few of his biologist colleagues run with it.

1975 – Asilomar Conference

A group of biologists get together with a few lawyers and doctors to create guidelines for the safe use of genetically engineered DNA. Source

1980 – First GMO Patent Issued

A 1980 court case between a genetics engineer at General Electric and the U.S. Patent Office is settled by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling, allowing for the first patent on a living organism. The GMO in question is a bacterium with an appetite for crude oil, ready to gobble up spills. Source

1982 – FDA Approves First GMO

Humulin, insulin produced by genetically engineered E. coli bacteria, appears on the market. Source

1994 – GMO Hits Grocery Stores

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the Flavr Savr tomato for sale on grocery store shelves. The delayed-ripening tomato has a longer shelf life than conventional tomatoes. Source

1996 – GMO-Resistant Weeds

Weeds resistant to glyphosate, the herbicide used with many GMO crops, are detected in Australia. Research shows that the super weeds are seven to 11 times more resistant to glyphosate than the standard susceptible population. Source

1997 – Mandatory Labels in Europe

The European Union rules in favor of mandatory labeling on all GMO food products, including animal feed. Source

1999 – GMO Crops Dominate

Over 100 million acres worldwide are planted with genetically engineered seeds. The marketplace begins embracing GMO technology at an alarming rate. Source

2003 – GMO-Resistant Pests Appear

In 2003, a Bt-toxin-resistant caterpillar-cum-moth, Helicoverpa zea, is found feasting on GMO Bt cotton crops in the southern United States. In less than a decade, the bugs have adapted to the genetically engineered toxin produced by the modified plants. Source

2011 – Bt Toxin Discovered in Humans

Research in eastern Quebec finds Bt toxins in the blood of pregnant women and shows evidence that the toxin is passed to fetuses. Source

2012 – Farmer Wins Court Battle

French farmer Paul Francois sues Monsanto for chemical poisoning he claims was caused by its pesticide Lasso, part of the Roundup Ready line of products. Francois wins and sets a new precedent for future cases. Source

2014 – GMO Patent Expires

Monsanto’s patent on the Roundup Ready line of genetically engineered seeds ends in 2014. However in 2009, Monsanto introduced Roundup 2 with a new patent set to make the first-generation seed obsolete. Source

© GMO-Awareness.com 2011–2014.

SOURCE : https://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-timeline-a-history-of-genetically-modified-foods/

NEWS : Resistance emerged in Bond Ali for BT 2 cotton - nandurbar

ARTICLE : ‘Sarso mein IP ka tadka’ leaves local farmers in the dock

GM MUSTARD
As debates around genetically modified (GM) mustard pick up in India, Shalini Bhutani takes a look at the neglected diversity of the oilseed mustard crop on native farmers’ fields and points to the bias of the existing law.

29 June 2015 - Shalini Bhutani

 

Can the provisions on farmers’ rights in India’s intellectual property (IP) law on plant varieties help promote farmers’ varieties? While millions of people in India temper their daily diets with mustard oil and seeds, IP politics continues to temper the broader issue.

As of 3 June 2015, 54 applications for farmers’ varieties (FV) of Sarso were received (through 2010-2015) by the National Plant Authority in Delhi. The large number of varieties is evidence of the grassroots’ innovation in this crop. It also reflects the crop diversity that exists in the Indian fields. But if the government and the public sector do not promote these FVs, this diversity will continue to remain only on paper. Farmers would then have no incentive to continue to conserve and grow local varieties.

The Indian Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001 Act defines a ‘farmer’s variety’ (FV) as that which has been traditionally cultivated and evolved by the farmers in their fields, or is a wild relative or land race or a variety about which the farmers possess common knowledge. According to the Act, an FV can be applied for by any farmer(s) or group of farmers or community of farmers claiming to be the breeder of the variety. The word extant meaning still in existence, by definition under the law [Section 2(j)] refers to those varieties that in India are either:
(i) notified under section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966; or
(ii) farmers’ variety; or
(iii) a variety about which there is common knowledge; or
(iv) any other variety which is in public domain.

Indian Mustard was notified by the Ministry of Agriculture as a crop eligible for IP protection on 30 April 2010.The notification was issued by the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (DAC) under the Indian law - Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001. This implies that the National PPVFR Authority functioning under the Ministry was ready to receive applications for IP registration of varieties of Indian Mustard, both Sarso (Brassica juncea) and Karan Rai (Brassica kurinata).

Politics of Time
Once a crop is so notified, there are time limits prescribed for the registration of farmers’ varieties (FV) and extant varieties (EV). FVs may be registered within five years after the date of crop notification. In other words, FVs of Sarso were eligible for plant variety protection (PVP) till 29 April 2015. Likewise, EVs can be registered up to three years after notification, which in this case means that they were eligible till 29 April 2013.

The PPVFR Rules, 2003, were specifically amended by the PPVFR (Second Amendment) Rules dated 27 October 2009 to notify these time-bound schedules. However, the amendment gives the Registrar the power to register FVs or EVs even after the expiry of the prescribed five and three years respectively, provided he records his reasons in writing.

New varieties (NV) of a notified crop may be registered at any time after a crop is so notified. There is no time limit prescribed for that. The NV however must conform to the criteria of ‘NDUS’ - novelty, distinctiveness, uniformity and stability.

Effect of PVP registration
When an application for such IP registration is accepted, the registrar issues a certificate of registration in the prescribed form. It is valid for six years in the case of crops. It may be reviewed and renewed upon payment of fees as fixed by the rules made in this regard. This is subject to the condition that the total period of validity shall not exceed fifteen years.

During the term of registration, the Act grants the breeder of the variety or his successor, his agent or licensee the exclusive right to produce, sell, market, distribute, import or export the registered variety. These are clearly a set of rights vis-à-vis the ‘formal’ seed market.

In the case of an extant variety, unless a breeder or his successor has established his right, the Central Government shall be deemed to be the owner of such right. In cases where such extant variety is notified for a state or any area thereof, the rights will accrue to the state government.

What this means is that if farmers choose not to seek IP on the varieties they have developed, or do not have the wherewithal to make an application to the PPVFR Authority, they are at risk of losing both credit for their innovation and any chance of receiving a share in benefits, if the variety is used for commercialization by someone else.

Popular protests against the genetically modified (GM) Mustard. Pic: Sarson Satyagraha

A farmer-friendly law?
If one looks at recent data in the above context, two issues of significance emerge. First, within the window of time for registration of FVs of Indian Mustard, only one FV – Sitara Sringar, was granted the plant variety certificate (No.812 of 2014). It is that of Shri Hukum Singh Lodha from Village Sitara, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur in Rajasthan.

Second, in sharp contrast to the single FV, a total of forty-six extant varieties have been registered under the Act and granted IP by the PPVFR Authority as of 31 March 2015. Most of these registered EVs belong to the ICAR and state agricultural universities (SAUs). One of these forty-six is the plant variety certificate (No. 350 of 2014) granted to Dhara Mustard Hybrid-1 (DMH-1) applied for jointly in 2013 by the National Dairy Development Board along with the University of Delhi, South Campus.

Private competition and the GM controversy
Let us now put this in larger perspective.
The seed industry obviously does not want competition from farmers. If a farmer-breeder develops a ‘new’ variety after five years, s/he too has to file for fresh registration under the category of new variety (NV) as a seed company would. Seed companies have applied for PVP for 25 varieties under the ‘new’ category, which are now being processed by the Authority.

Through 2013-2015 ten Indian Mustard varieties applied for by private seed companies were also granted PVP. In fact, the PVP certificates were granted beyond the cut-off date of 29 April 2013 for registration of extant varieties of Sarso, as shown by the table below based on data as of 3 June 2015:

Table: Registrations of Indian Mustard varieties by private seed companies

 

No.	Variety	Category	Company	Applied	Granted
1	Coral 432 (PAC 432)	Extant	Advanta India Ltd.	2012	20 May 2013
2	Palak	Extant (VCK)*	Nirmal Seeds Pvt. Ltd.	2011	2 Dec 2014
3	Parasmani-1	Extant (VCK)	M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd.	2012	3 Dec 2014
4	Ladli	Extant (VCK)	Shakti Vardhak Seed Pvt. Ltd.	2012	6 Dec 2014
5	Black Gold (NML-100)	Extant (VCK)	Nirmal Seeds Pvt. Ltd.	2011	11 Dec 2014
6	Albeli-1	Extant (VCK)	Shakti Vardhak Seed Pvt. Ltd.	2012	15 Dec 2014
7	Parasmani-8	Extant (VCK)	Shakti Vardhak Seed Pvt. Ltd.	2012	17 Dec 2014
8	Parasmani-2	Extant (VCK)	M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd.	2012	27 Jan 2015
9	44S01	Extant (VCK)	Pioneer Overseas Corporation	2010	25 Mar 2015
10	Nirmal Bold (NML-64)	Extant (VCK)	Nirmal Seeds Pvt. Ltd.	2013	27 Apl 2015

* VCK – Variety of common knowledge

Source:  Compiled by the author from data available on the PPVFR Authority web site

Mustard hybrids and the frenzy around their IP applications as detailed above gain greater significance in the context of the controversy around genetically modified (GM) crops in India.
A GM Brassica juncea mustard hybrid (DMH 11) has been developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP), University of Delhi, South Campus. The mustard hybrid has reportedly completed Biosafety Research Level (BRL) II trials, which in the Indian biosafety regulatory parlance is the penultimate research stage, before the variety can be considered for commercial cultivation. The developers of this GM variety have applied for and been granted several patents on different aspects of this ‘invention’ both in India and the USA.

However, Section 29(3) of the PPVFR Act expressly excludes crop varieties with GURT or ‘terminator technology’ from IP protection. The Act classifies genetic use restriction technology (GURT) and terminator as a technology that is injurious to the life or health of human beings, animals or plants. It also clearly lays down that no variety of any genus or species that involves GURT will be registered.
Meanwhile, the go-slow by the Authority on the applications of FVs of Sarso can only be inferred as keeping at bay apparent competition for the hybrids and GM varieties waiting to be marketed both by the public and private sector.

Key Questions
In the light of the above, a number of key questions arise:

• Why have the other pending applications for farmers’ varieties of Indian Mustard not been granted PVP certificates? And why isn’t the only FV registered so far being supported and popularised by the public sector?
• What are the valid reasons the Registrar of Plant Varieties can give for the grant of PVP to companies for EVs beyond the date of expiry for registration of extant varieties of Indian Mustard?
• If the implementation of the PPVFR Act through its rules and regulations is visibly inclined towards IP protection of varieties developed by the seed industry – public or private, then why is it (still) called a ‘Farmers’ Rights’ Act?
• Law and politics around IP on plant varieties aside, with farmers varieties consistently denied access to the domestic market, will Indian consumers ever taste what the country’s native farmers grow?

Shalini Bhutani
29 June 2015

The author is a legal researcher and policy analyst based in Delhi

SOURCE : http://indiatogether.org/ip-debate-on-gm-mustard-agriculture

ARTICLE : A scientist’s journey from devout GMO believer to skeptic

By Ken RoseboroPublished: February 28, 2014
Category: Food Health Risks

Belinda Martineau, Ph.D.
“There are many imprecise aspects of genetic engineering, many related to our very incomplete knowledge about genetics and genomics. That is why regulation of every product of this technology should be required and why they should be labeled.”

To access all the articles in this month's issue of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, SUBSCRIBE NOW.

GM tomato developer is now skeptical about the promises of GM foods
Belinda Martineau, Ph.D. was a genetic engineer who helped develop the world’s first commercially available genetically engineered whole food, the Flavr Savr™ tomato. But during the development of that tomato, she says “was transformed from a devout believer in the promise of agricultural biotechnology into a skeptic wary of its uncertainties.”
Belinda now works in academic research. She wrote a book about the Flavr Savr and her personal transformation, First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr™ Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Food, and occasionally gives talks to promote discussion of the technology, “warts and all,” as she puts it. She also publishes a blog, Biotech Salon (www.biotechsalon.com), where she aims to “clear the entire situation” about the science supporting genetic engineering.


Tell me about your involvement in developing the Flavr Savr genetically modified tomato.
Belinda Martineau: I carried out experiments and library research and coordinated outside researchers the company hired to carry out additional studies, and helped write the documents Calgene, Inc. submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration to demonstrate the safety of the Flavr Savr tomato.


What led the Flavr Savr team to promote and label the tomato as GM?
Martineau: I give credit for Calgene’s transparency, and the decision to label Flavr Savr tomatoes as “Grown from Genetically Modified Seeds” specifically to the company’s CEO at the time, Roger Salquist. We had nothing to hide, and Roger thought consumers would be more accepting of the product if we were completely above board about it.


What caused the failure of the Flavr Savr tomato in the marketplace?
Martineau: The GM trait, meant to keep tomatoes firmer while they ripened naturally on the vine, didn’t keep them sufficiently firm to allow trucking them to market on a large scale; Calgene spent more money getting the tomatoes to market in good shape than it charged for them in the grocery store.


What led you to become skeptical about GM foods?
Martineau: The major incident was when the FDA asked us whether we were sure that only the DNA we intended to insert into the tomato’s DNA was actually inserted. After we answered “yes” they asked us to carry out the experiments that would demonstrate that that was indeed the case. In fact, the experiments showed that in 30% of the tomato plants, sometimes more, much more DNA—DNA that was not well characterized and usually contained an additional antibiotic resistance gene—was inserted into our plants.


The Calgene scientists weren’t aware how this added DNA got into the tomatoes?
Martineau: We did not expect the additional DNA to be inserted and, as far as I know, scientists still haven’t figured out how to avoid this from happening.
There has been one case of a GM crop plant, called Bt10, which contained such extra DNA, including a gene conferring resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin. Fortunately, the crop developer pulled the product from the market.


What are other risks do you see with genetic engineering of foods?
Martineau: There can be risks associated with the genes being inserted. For example, the gene inserted into StarLink corn failed multiple tests designed to determine whether it could be a human allergen. The FDA and Center for Disease Control were worried enough about StarLink corn’s possible allergenicity that the US corn crop was monitored for the presence of that GM corn for seven years after it was taken off the market. The gene in another GM corn crop, Bt176, was found to present a much higher risk to Monarch butterfly larvae than other Bt corn crops.
There are also risks associated with the fact that genetic engineers have no control over where in a plant’s DNA their gene will land and they often land in another gene, mutating that gene. Unexpected changes can occur in GM plants as a result of such unintended insertions–and other possible mutations.


John Vandermeer, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Michigan, has said that genetic engineering is based on “dramatically incomplete knowledge of the genome,” which he compares to a complex ecosystem. Do you agree with that perspective?
Martineau: I agree with Dr. Vandermeer. Genetic engineering is based on the reductionist belief that taking a gene out of its context in one organism and inserting it—essentially randomly—into another organism’s genome comprises a “precise” process that requires minimal regulatory oversight before being sold in grocery stores for human food.
I heard a plant scientist claim that “we know exactly what we’re doing” with genetic engineering and then ask audience members to support grants for plant science because “there’s a lot we still don’t know about plant genomes.” It might be laughable if this situation wasn’t affecting the food system in the US and worldwide.
There are many imprecise aspects of genetic engineering, many related to our very incomplete knowledge about genetics and genomics. That is why regulation of every product of this technology should be required and why they should be labeled.


What was your reaction to Professor Seralini’s study, which found harm to rats fed GM corn, being retracted by the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology?
Martineau: I realize that there are issues with the number and strain of rat used and whether Seralini’s results are test article-related. But I still think that the best way to resolve the controversy is to repeat the experiments using many more, and, perhaps a different strain of, rats.
To retract a paper for being inconclusive is highly unusual and this entire incident “represents a dangerous erosion of the underpinnings of the peer-review process....” to quote an editorial in the current issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.


What are your thoughts about labeling GM foods?
Martineau: This is America. In this capitalist society we have a right to know what we’re buying in grocery stores to feed our families. And in this democracy we have a right to vote for or against a technology with our pocketbooks. These products are labeled in some 60 other countries; they should be labeled in the United States as well.
Calgene’s tomato, the only example of a GM food that has been labeled in this country, was well received by consumers. This may have been because the company was transparent and up front with consumers.


The Grocery Manufacturers Association recently formed a “Coalition for Safe Affordable Food” comprising food and agriculture industry groups to lobby the government for voluntary labeling standards and to pre-empt state labeling laws. What are your thoughts about this?
Martineau: This is just a move to undermine the labeling laws being put in place in individual states around the United States. There is no need for a federal volunteer labeling law; developers of GM foods can already voluntarily label their products just as we did at Calgene. Most Americans want GM foods labeled, they’ve indicated as much for decades now, and the FDA has failed us in this regard.
Shame on our government if it gives in to the GMA, especially after what they did (to defeat GMO labeling) in the recent Washington state election.


With the polarized debate over GMO foods do you think there is room for middle ground? Martineau: I feel I’m on the middle ground. I’m not against the use of the technology; but when science moves out of the lab and onto the plates of consumers we must be more cautious about it. We scientists must explain what is imprecise and could pose potential problems as well as what is precise about the technology so that society as a whole can make informed decisions about how to use and regulate such a technology.
There is not enough transparency about genetic engineering technology right now and that contributes to consumer wariness about it.

© Copyright The Organic & Non-GMO Report, March 2014

SOURCE: http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/march2014/scientist-journey-from-gmo-believer-to-skeptic.php