BIOTECH-ROOM2-L Archives

Moderated conference on GMOs in the pipeline, hosted by the FAO Biotechnology Forum in 2012

Biotech-Room2-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Biotech-Mod2 <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:47:44 +0100
text/plain (1 lines)
Here is Wayne Parrott again. I forwarded Message 76 by Mairson Santana on crops in Brazil to a colleague on CTNBio, and here is his response to the many points Mr. Santana is bringing up:



Santana is bringing to the discussion some interesting points, but it is important to discuss each one of them separately, in order to achieve the necessary understanding. 



He points to the Brazilian legal framework, including CTNBio (the National Biosafety Commision) as a pivotal element making GMO releases an uncertain adventure. By reading the next lines we come to the conclusion that every GM plant approved by CTNBio immediately enters the market and this may be a real problem in cases of asynchronous approvals (i.e. approved in the producer country but not by the importer). This is not true: CTNBio has the sole task to do risk assessment. Market questions must be considered elsewhere. The Brazilian market is well conscious of the problems generated by asynchrony and that was the reason why Bayer withdrew its request for commercial release of a GM rice. It is the same reason why Monsanto now decided not to market Intacta Pro Soybeans. 



Many other corn, cotton and soybean varieties (either single or stacked events) will soon follow, but the same rule (i.e. the market control) will apply: neither the seed companies nor the farmers or the exporters want to have problems. As for a possible segregation, this is fully impossible: therefore, asynchrony should be avoided in every export commodity. 



Santana briefly comments two long-debated questions: the food safety of GM rice and other food staples for direct human consumption and the possible contamination of non-GMO fields. Questions on food safety have been adequately answered by CTNBio; on the other hand, the coexistence rules are effectively ensuring that essentially no “contamination” occurs. Only anecdotal reports on alleged contamination are available. 



Santana is correct in saying that BGYMV (Bean golden yellow mosaic virus) resistant bean is not important for the Brazilian farmers. However, the reason is that said virus is not found in Brazil! The virus that causes the golden mosaic in this country is the BGMV (Bean golden mosaic virus) which is a distinct species, and it causes major yield losses. BGMV is a very serious problem in Brazil and the GM bean is resistant to BGMV, which will be in the market late next year, and will certainly be generally adopted and the positive economic impact will be very significant. For this crop asynchrony is not a problem, as Brazil is an importer of beans.



Wayne Parrott

Department of Crop and Soil Sciences,

University of Georgia,

Athens, GA 30602

United States

wparrott (at) uga.edu





########################################################################



To unsubscribe from the Biotech-Room2-L list, click the following link:

https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=Biotech-Room2-L&A=1


ATOM RSS1 RSS2