Both organic and conventionally produced foods present consumers with trade-offs in terms of food safety and nutritional content, according to a food toxicologist at the University of California, Davis.

"While there is a growing body of research demonstrating the qualitative differences between organic and conventional foods, it is premature to conclude that either system of food production is superior to the other," says Carl Winter, director of UC Davis' FoodSafe Program. Winter's review of conventional and organic foods was published in the December issue of the Journal of Food Science.

The popularity of organic foods has been growing rapidly in the past two decades, with consumer sales of organic foods increasing by nearly 20 percent annually since 1990, reaching $13.8 billion in 2005, Winter notes.

Surveys indicate that many consumers think organically produced foods are more nutritious and healthful. One survey found that consumers also are choosing organic foods to avoid pesticide residues and genetically modified foods.

Winter's review notes that while organic fruits and vegetables have fewer pesticide residues, they do not necessarily carry less health risk. Research has shown that in some cases organic foods have higher levels of naturally occurring chemical compounds -- including both health-promoting antioxidants and naturally occurring toxins that might be of concern for human health.

In the area of microbial food safety, Winter points out that animal manure fertilizer - used frequently in organic farming and, to a lesser extent, in conventional farming - can pose an increased threat of microbiological contamination. He notes, however, that certified organic production standards provide specific requirements for composting animal manure aimed at preventing microbial contamination, while there are no such standards for conventional food production.

One comprehensive study indicated that certified organic fruits and vegetables did not pose a higher microbiological risk than conventionally produced food crops.

The review notes that there have been mixed findings in the area of microbial safety and animal-based foods. The review does report that the prohibition of antibiotic use in organic animal production seems to result in a lower incidence of resistance to antimicrobial drugs among organically raised animals than among animals raised conventionally.

This peer-reviewed paper was prepared as a Scientific Status Summary by the Institute of Food Technologists.

Copyright © The Regents of the University of California, Davis campus, 2005-06

An innovative biotechnology firm is a firm that uses biotechnology for the purpose of developing new products or processes.

Combined, these 532 companies generated revenues of $4.2 billion in 2005, up 9% from 2003. Their spending on research and development (R&D) also increased 15% to $1.7 billion.

Large biotech companies, those with at least 150 employees, represented only 10% of the 532 biotech firms in 2005, but accounted for 68% of biotech revenues. Three-quarters of all companies were small firms, that is, they had fewer than 50 employees.

By contrast, biotechnology related R&D was more equally distributed between the three sizes of firms.

More than 75% of the innovative biotechnology firms were in three provinces: Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. These provinces continue to comprise the bulk of Canadian biotechnology activity, accounting for more than 90% of biotechnology revenues in 2005.

Ontario firms led the way in biotechnology revenues, R&D expenditures and employment, whereas those in Quebec accounted for the largest share of biotechnology firms.

Biotechnology related to human health remained the most significant biotechnology sector in terms of number of firms, employment, R&D and revenues.

The number of employees with biotechnology responsibilities increased to over 13,400 from about 11,900 in 2003.

But Huang said Beijing was still against commercialization of GMO rice, a staple food for many of its 1.3 billion people.

"We still hope GMO rice could also be approved for production in the next two to three years," said Huang, adding Beijing was reluctant to give go-ahead because of social and political reasons. He did not elaborate.

Though Beijing looked close to approving GMO rice in early 2005, it has put the brakes on the move following reports that transgenic rice was traded illegally in China.

As Beijing was eager to develop biofuel to reduce its reliance on imported oil, Huang said rapeseed could be the next farm product approved by Beijing for commercial production after it had approved the production of GMO papaya in 2006.

China also plans to raise its budget for biotechnology after spending about 2 billion yuan a year, which mainly goes to the research of GMO rice, said Huang.

ISAAA said it expected the global biotech area to nearly double to 200 million hectares by 2015 from 102 million hectares in 2006 after a 60-fold increase between 1996 and 2006.

© Reuters 2007

WATERLOO - A leading researcher at the University of Waterloo's school of optometry was recognized January 25, 2007, as a top educator by a United States organization, which advances optometric practice by fostering research and disseminating knowledge in vision science.

Lyndon Jones, an associate professor of optometry at UW, has received the 2006 Michael G. Harris Family Award for Excellence in Optometric Education. It was presented last December by the American Optometric Foundation, affiliated with the American Academy of Optometry.

"This is an important award as it recognizes high standards in teaching and scholarship that enhances optometric education," says Thomas Freddo, director of UW's school of optometry. "The award is given to an optometric educator who has shown excellence in the education of optometry students and the advancement of optometric education."

A winner of a UW distinguished teacher award in 2005, Jones has been teaching optometry undergraduates and graduate students since arriving on campus in October 1998. Students have said he "is able to make the most complicated of subjects both interesting and simple" and that his lectures are "interesting, relevant and well-presented."

Jones connects the background theory with clinical practices through his mastery of PowerPoint. He uses relevant diagrams, videos and up-to-date information so students can see real-world applications of theory.

As well, Jones integrates his own research and past experiences into his lectures. He is known as a teacher who encourages classroom discussion. Outside of the classroom, students find him to be approachable and always willing to help.

Jones also strives to help improve optometry education in general.

He was involved in the establishment of Optometric Educators Ltd. in Britain, a company devoted to motivating continuing education in optometry. He gives international lectures to optometrists about improvements in optometric education and the latest developments in optometry, particularly contact lenses and eye disease.

He is in much demand around the world and has given more than 300 invited lectures in over 25 countries. This year, he has invitations to lecture in Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the U.S. and several countries in Europe.

Jones is also the associate director of UW's Centre for Contact Lens Research, which performs clinical research on the ocular response to contact lenses and other forms of vision correction.

He is an expert on bio-compatibility -- the interaction between contact lens materials and eye tissue. His research interests includes the assessment of contact lens deposits, wettability (the degree to which liquids will spread evenly across a surface), friction and the interaction of contact lens materials with the ocular environment.

Like any other infection, the wrath of maize streak waxes and wanes with different environmental conditions. Some years, crop losses are minimal. But in bad years, such as 2006, it can wipe out from 5% to 100% of a farmer's maize crop.

For the past 25 years, African crop scientists have been trying to breed resistant maize by crossing plants that carry some degree of natural resistance. But the task has not been wholly successful. The trait is conferred by several genes on different chromosomes and isn't consistently transmitted to the next generation. "It's not quite clear how resistance genes are inherited," says Kloppers of Pannar Seeds. Moreover, traditionally bred varieties do not completely resist the virus, Kloppers explains. Many tolerate an infection but still produce stunted or deformed cobs.

A solution

In 1988, when Thomson took over as head of microbiology at UCT, GM technology seemed a perfect solution. Rybicki's plant virology group there was already intensively studying the virus. Perhaps they could engineer a way to stop it in its tracks?

The design seemed simple enough: The team studied the proteins necessary for the virus to replicate. If they inserted a mutated viral gene into the plant, which in turn expressed a mutated protein necessary for the virus to replicate at very high levels, it could beat out the virus's normal protein and immobilize the virus, they reasoned.

But getting the genes in proved tough, Thomson says. The UCT team first tried infecting maize with a widely used vector, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, carrying the genes, but to no avail. Ultimately, they successfully shot DNA into the plant using a gene gun. The GM maize plant carries a mutated form of a gene from the maize streak virus and two additional regulatory genes, one derived from maize itself and another from Agrobacterium.

Into the field

That was 6 years ago. Since then, the UCT scientists have been working closely with Kloppers at Pannar Seeds to test the plant's hardiness against infection. Kloppers has bred a previous version of the plant that carried an antibiotic-resistance gene through four generations. So far, it resists infection consistently. Moreover, the trait appears to be inherited in a dominant fashion.

Kloppers is repeating the experiment with a new group of plants that, because of environmental safety concerns, no longer carry an antibiotic-resistance gene. He expects to carry on crossing and checking inheritance and resistance through the next few months. Provided there are no major setbacks, he expects to apply for field trials during the latter part of this year.

Field trials are crucial to assess environmental and health risks, says Dionne Shepherd, a UCT postdoc who has been working on the project for the past 10 years. The scientists plan to examine whether the crop affects soil microorganisms and also whether it affects insects that feed on it. Other studies will also ensure that the added protein is indeed digestible and not an allergen.

If all goes well, the resistant maize will be the first GM crop to be field-tested in South Africa; to date, all GM crops planted in the country have been developed and tested elsewhere. The government is now developing its own expertise to evaluate environmental and human safety, says Shepherd, and because "UCT's maize is the most advanced locally produced GM product, they want to use our plant as a guinea pig," she adds.

To avoid the pitfalls that have beset other African GM crop varieties, the UCT scientists and Pannar have been working with regulators all along. At stake, they say, is not only their crop's fate, but also the technology's reputation.

A few years ago, Kenyan scientist Florence Wambugu, who was trained and supported by Monsanto, developed a sweet potato plant resistant to the feathery mottle virus. But when scientists field-tested the crop, traditionally bred resistant varieties outperformed it. Other efforts have also stumbled during field tests. Just a few months ago, scientists at the nonprofit Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, Missouri, announced that cassava plants genetically modified to resist cassava mosaic disease lost the trait after a few generations.

Both setbacks have fueled ongoing skepticism about GM technology. "All this talk about the technology's benefit for Africa is just a lot of PR hype to garner funding," says Mariam Mayet of the African Centre for Biosafety, an anti-GM lobby group in Richmond, South Africa. Most of the GM crops in the world are grown for animal feed or go toward food aid, Mayet says. "The benefit mainly goes to industrial agriculture, not to small-scale farmers."
Because UCT's maize is homegrown and was supported with very little corporate money--Pannar was the project's only corporate contributor--Thomson and Rybicki hope it can dodge some of these criticisms. Private foundations that typically give money with no strings attached and the South African government funded the project's bulk. To recoup its share of investment, Pannar expects the seed to cost no more than 15% higher than non-GM seed, says Kloppers. Small-scale or subsistence farmers would likely be charged much less, he adds.
If UCT's plant succeeds, it would be the first GM crop developed by a developing country. But Africans might not be the only beneficiaries. It might also become the poster child of what many argue is a useful and important technology--and for better or worse, one that desperately needs a public relations makeover.
Science, Jan. 12, 2007 Vol. 315. no. 5809, pp.182
© 2007 American Association for the Advancement of Science

TMA Foresight can be used for a wide variety of analysis of the tissue microarray data, ranging from simple descriptive statistics that include mean, sum, and variance to more advanced data correlation such as Hierarchical clustering and Kaplan Meier survival plots. You can explore the relatedness of prognostic marker expression and clinico-pathological variates with the outcome. Cox's Proportional Hazard analysis can be used for prognostic marker identification. Hierarchical clustering can be used to group patients on the basis of a clinico-pathological parameter or a biomarker. Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests can then be used to identify prognostically significant clusters. You can threshold a particular marker and stratify patients into high risk and low risk cohorts.

TMA Foresight enables easy data pre-processing. It helps map the character data to numeric values with a click of a button. Moreover, the measurement level of each variable can be conveniently defined for use in different statistical analysis.

Says Kay Brown, V.P. Business Development and Marketing, "The tissue microarray market, is predicted to grow at 42% per year to over $163 million by 2008. We have designed TMA Foresight seeing the need for an easy-to-use specialized data analysis software tool."

Please visit the PREMIER Biosoft web site (www.premierbiosoft.com/tissue-microarray/index.html) to experience what TMA Foresight can do for you.

CALIFORNIA - Growing genetically engineered (GE) crops in the United States continues to stir debate, but some University of California scientists believe attention should now be focused on how farmers opposed to the technology and those in favor of it can step back from the controversy and successfully produce and market their crops in the way they personally see fit.

“A debate is being fueled by the perception that there has to be a choice between either organic agriculture or genetic engineering,” said Alison Van Eenennaam, a University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) specialist in animal genomics and biotechnology. “This ignores the possibility that different production systems can coexist alongside each other.”

Coexistence depends on establishing and implementing practical measures to ensure the integrity of crops destined for different markets. The first step, say some UC experts, is providing accurate information on the issue to farmers, environmentalists, lawmakers and consumers. UC’s biotechnology workgroup has crafted 13 fact sheets, reviewed by scientific experts for accuracy, outlining basic information about the production and safety of GE crops, foods, animal feed and animals.

The information will help counties and state agencies as they hammer out coexistence plans for organic farmers, farmers producing products for markets that reject GE crops, and farmers who consider GE crops necessary to compete in the global marketplace.

Interest in the use of GE in California agriculture began in earnest when Measure H, Mendocino County’s ordinance that banned the growth and propagation of GE plants and animals, was passed in March 2004. Subsequently, the Trinity County Board of Supervisors passed a similar measure imposing a ban within county borders and ballot initiatives like Mendocino’s were considered in Marin, San Luis Obispo, Butte and Humboldt counties. (Only the Marin initiative succeeded.) Groups opposed to the use of GE in California agriculture remain active in a number of California counties.

“The discourse regarding genetic engineering is often being inflamed by alarming assertions and facts that are not derived from, nor are they supported by, scientific research,” Van Eenennaam said. “There is a continued need to ensure that the public has access to science-based information and educational materials.”

According to a report released in December 2006 by the Pew Charitable Trust, 34 percent of Americans say they believe genetically modified foods are safe, 29 percent say they are unsafe and 37 percent had no opinion. According to a UC fact sheet, scientific evidence to date has indicated that foods developed using GE pose no greater risk to consumers than foods produced using traditional methods.

In the Pew study, consumers consistently underestimated their consumption of GE foods, with just 26 percent believing they have eaten such foods and 60 percent believing they have not. In fact, it is likely that all U.S. consumers have eaten foods containing some ingredients derived from GE crops.

“Seventy-five percent of processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients – things like cotton seed oil, soy protein, canola oil and high fructose corn syrup,” said UCCE biotechnology specialist Peggy Lemaux, author of two of the fact sheets.

A primary concern of growers producing food for GE-sensitive markets is the potential for some unintended presence of GE material in their product. A small amount of engineered genes in non-GE food can result from pollen flow or unintentional mingling during post-harvest storage, transportation or food processing. One hundred percent purity of any processed product, Lemaux said, is not achievable. Tolerance levels for unwanted material are applied in every crop sector, from certified seed to mainstream commodity production.

“The only way we can have coexistence is if both sides are willing to work together to ensure that they can successfully deliver products that meet their customers’ tolerance thresholds,” Lemaux said. “An achievable tolerance level for unwanted material in an end product is probably 1 percent or less. In Europe, products with 0.9 percent GE presence are marketed without labeling.”

San Luis Obispo County officials are currently developing a protocol for coexistence of GE and non-GE crops. The majority of voters there rejected Measure Q in 2004, which would have banned GE crops. But at the polls, nearly 50,000 individuals expressed their support for the ban.

At the request of the board of supervisors, San Luis Obispo County agricultural commissioner Bob Lilley assembled a committee to develop coexistence methods. UCCE horticulture advisor Mary Bianchi served as a member, supplying technical information from UC. Many questions raised by the committee are addressed in UC’s new series of fact sheets. The committee’s recommendations for coexistence were presented to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors last summer.

“One of the primary considerations is communicating where and when GE crops are grown to minimize GE presence in non-GE foods,” Bianchi said. “This has been done successfully for years by seed producers with mapping systems that identify where their certified seed fields are planted so that other seed producers can plan their planting strategies around the existing crops. We are exploring development of a similar notification process for county growers.”

Lemaux believes the efforts in San Luis Obispo County may serve as an example for other counties in California or regulators at the statewide level to implement policies that will allow for peaceful coexistence of those who favor GE crops and those who do not.

The free, downloadable fact sheets are:

Introduction to Genetic Modification by Lemaux
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8178.pdf

Plant Genetic Engineering and Regulation in the United States by Alan McHughen, UC Riverside biotechnology specialist
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8179.pdf

Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods by Carl Winter, UC Davis food toxicologist
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf

Genetic Engineering and Pollen Flow by Norman Ellstrand, UC Riverside geneticist
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8182.pdf

Genetic Engineering and Animal Feed by Van Eenennaam
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8183.pdf

Genetic Engineering and Animal Agriculture by Van Eenennaam
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8184.pdf

Genetic Engineering and Fish by Van Eenennaam
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8185.pdf

Plant Genetic Engineering and Intellectual Property Protection by Brian Wright, UC Berkeley agricultural economist
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8186.pdf

Some Food and Environmental Safety Issues with GE Products: A Scientific Perspective by Lemaux
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8187.pdf

Genetic Engineering and Organic Production Systems by Pamela Ronald, UC Davis plant pathologist, and Benny Fouche, UCCE San Joaquin County small farms advisor
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8188.pdf

Methods to Enable Coexistence of Diverse Production Systems Involving Genetically Engineered Cotton by Robert Hutmacher, UC Davis agronomy specialist, Ron Vargas, UCCE Madera County emeritus field crops farm advisor, and Steven Wright, UCCE Tulare County field crops farm advisor
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8191.pdf

Methods to Enable Coexistence of Diverse Corn Production Systems by Kent Brittan, UCCE Yolo County field crops farm advisor
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8192.pdf

Methods to Enable Coexistence of Diverse Production Systems Involving Genetically Engineered Alfalfa by Dan Putnam, UC Davis agronomy specialist
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8193.pdf
© 1992-2007 by SeedQuest

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of $5.58 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 1,700 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives about 40,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes nearly 10,000 new funding awards. The NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.
Copyright ©2007 by AAAS

After a decade of consumer attitudinal research, it is clear that a majority of consumers are confident in the safety of the U.S. food supply and express little to no concern about food and agricultural biotechnology. A significant majority also have no outstanding concern about labeling foods produced using biotechnology as such.

Higher awareness correlates with purchase intent, with a few exceptions, and the provision of information and context has a positive effect on attitudes. Therefore, with increasing numbers of consumers who state that they have heard nothing about biotechnology, there is a clear need for science-based information about the subject. This information should be conveyed clearly and accurately to the public, using understandable language and providing contextual information.

Methodology

The International Food Information Council (IFIC) commissioned Cogent Research to conduct the 11th in a series (1997 to 2006) of quantitative assessments of U.S. adult consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology during June and July of 2006. The purpose of the study is to:

track public awareness and perceptions of food biotechnology;

identify concerns related to foods that have been produced using biotechnology, within the context of broader food safety and labeling issues;

measure the extent to which consumers change their behavior because of biotech foods; and

measure the extent to which certain benefits of agricultural biotechnology resonate with the public.

In 2006, the IFIC consumer survey on food biotechnology migrated from phone to Web methodology. Collection of consumer data via the Internet is currently considered the preferred survey methodology, due to improved access to consumers and potentially a more accurate measure of consumer opinion, compared to phone data collection.

The migration to Web from phone included measures to ensure the continued ability to track attitudes over time, and to correct for observed differences that were due to changes in methodology. The sampling error is = 4.4%, and statistically significant differences are represented at the 95% confidence level. Finally, the data were weighted according to U.S. Census data, in order to be nationally projectable.

Findings

Overall, a majority of Americans are confident in the safety of the U.S. food supply and express little to no concern about food and agricultural biotechnology.

Nearly three-fourths (72%) of consumers say they are confident in the safety of the U.S. food supply. When prompted to indicate food safety concerns, most consumers mention microbial foodborne illness (36%) or improper handling (35%), while only three percent of all consumers cite food biotechnology.

And although more than half of all Americans report avoiding some type of food or food ingredient (59%), none mention biotech foods as something they are avoiding. When asked directly, only two percent say they have recently changed their behavior due to concerns about food biotechnology.

Many consumers are neutral (33%) or unsure (18%) when asked specifically for their opinion on food biotechnology. However, those consumers who do have an opinion are almost twice as likely to have a positive view (32%) than to have a negative view (17%).

Food biotechnology is not a consumer labeling demand.

An overwhelming majority of consumers (82%) state that there is no information that they would like to see added to food labels. Only one percent name biotechnology as information they would like to see added. These findings have been consistent since 2001 when the question was first asked on the survey. Additionally, support for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current policy regarding labeling of foods produced through biotechnology is strong at sixty-four percent, with another one-fourth (24%) holding neutral views, and only twelve percent opposing the current policy.

Although many consumers have heard at least “a little” about food biotechnology, awareness has declined and knowledge is superficial.

Although close to three-fourths (71%) of consumers have heard at least “a little” about biotechnology, only eight percent have heard “a lot”. Three-fourths (74%) of consumers are unaware that biotech foods are currently available in the supermarket, and the twenty-six percent who are aware most often name “vegetables” as the food that is available.

In light of the lack of high awareness of food biotechnology, it is not surprising that over half (53%) of consumers are unsure about potential benefits. However, consumers with an opinion are twice as likely to believe biotechnology will provide benefits in the next few years than not (33% vs. 14%, respectively). Those who believe there will be benefits are most likely to cite improved nutrition (41%) or quality (35%).

Communicating specific benefits may enhance perception.

Learning of the benefits of biotech foods has a significant impact on consumers’ likelihood to buy, particularly for a health benefit (77% likely to buy for increased omega-3 fatty acid content; 75% for reduced saturated fat content) or insect protection/pesticide reduction (75%), but also for improved taste or freshness (63%).

In general, likelihood to purchase biotech foods increases as awareness increases. However, awareness levels have less impact on purchase intent when it comes to consuming healthful fats, where purchase intent is high across all awareness levels.

Although awareness is low, consumers remain open to the broad concept of animal biotechnology, in general.

Animal biotechnology favorability has shifted toward both more positive impressions (“very favorable” has increased from 1% to 6%) while the most negative impressions have declined (12%, down from 16%). Still, there are more who don’t know enough to form an opinion (30%, up from 24%), and twenty-eight percent are neutral.

At the same time, the number of consumers who have read or heard "nothing at all" about animal biotechnology has increased for the second year in a row (55% vs. 46% in 2005 and 40% in 2004). Indeed, those who don’t know enough to form an opinion are more likely to have heard nothing at all about the technology.

There is evidence of the positive impact that information can have on acceptance of animal biotechnology, in some cases. Information examined in this study included descriptions of specific types of animal biotechnology, benefits, and government conclusions regarding safety. When specific types of animal biotechnology are described, consumers express higher favorability for animal genomics (37%) and genetic engineering (35%), compared to favorability for the broad concept of animal biotechnology. (See discussion of animal cloning below.)

Regarding the impact of benefits information, more than half of consumers say that their impression of animal biotechnology improves when they are told it can improve the quality and safety of food (59%). Nearly half are positively impacted by information regarding increases in farm efficiency (47%), and reduction of environmental impact of animal waste (49%). In addition, more than half (58%) of consumers say they would be likely to buy products from animals enhanced through genetic engineering if the FDA determined they were safe.

Consumers remain opposed to the notion of animal cloning, as well as the use of cloned animals for breeding.

Less than one-fifth (16%) of U.S. adults give a favorable rating for their impression of animal cloning, while over half (56%) give an unfavorable rating. Regarding the use of cloned animals for breeding purposes, more consumers are neutral (36%) compared to those who are neutral toward cloning (28%), and fewer are unfavorable (46%).

Fewer consumers state that they are “not at all likely” to purchase foods from cloned animals (30% vs. 35%), compared to 2005, as well as an increase in those who are “very likely” to purchase foods derived from the offspring of cloned animals (9% vs. 4%), with safety assurances from FDA. However, the majority remain unlikely to purchase foods from cloned animals (58%) or their offspring (59%).

The majority of consumers continue to be unaware of plant-made pharmaceuticals, but those who are aware tend to be favorable.

The majority (59%) of consumers say they know "nothing at all" about using biotechnology to produce medicine in food crops. Although twenty-five percent of consumers say they don’t know enough about plant-made pharmaceuticals to form an opinion and twenty-seven percent are neutral, those who have formed an opinion lean heavily towards the positive (42% favorable versus 6% unfavorable).

Conclusions

While there is no overwhelming consumer demand for more information about food biotechnology, it will be important to continue to make science-based information available to the public. Should interest in foods enhanced through biotechnology increase, or questions arise, health professionals, government officials, and food providers should be prepared to help the public understand issues such as safety, regulation, and benefits of the technology. Such efforts can contribute to an overall appreciation for how the foods consumers enjoy make the journey from farm to plate.

A complete copy of the report can be downloaded from IFIC at the following address: http://www.ific.org/research/upload/2006%20Biotech%20Consumer%20Research%20Report.pdf

Copyright © International Food Information Council

DUSSELDORF - Prominent companies in the chemicals, pharmaceuticals and nutrition industries have come together mid December 2006 for the first time under the umbrella of the “Industrieverbund Mikrobielle Genomforschung” (industry/science association to promote microbial genome research), Dusseldorf, with the aim of advancing microbial genome research as a technology with broad industrial application.

The work is being carried out in close cooperation with the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and academic research groups. An international body of experts has already delivered a very positive assessment of the first projects, which have a total volume of 42 million euros over five years and are each financed equally by the BMBF and industry. Over the next few years the projects will seek to improve how efficiently micro-organisms are used in technical processes and to develop new products from micro-organisms with new properties.

This work will make a substantial contribution to the further development of white biotechnology in Germany, a country that is assuming a pioneering role in this technology both in academic research and in industrial application. Industry and the BMBF will provide around 600 million euros for white biotechnology projects over the next ten years.

The Industrieverbund Mikrobielle Genomforschung is supported by BASF, Bayer Crop Science, BRAIN, Degussa, Henkel, Milupa, Schering, Südzucker and Wacker, as well as other small and medium-sized companies. Dr. Karl-Heinz Maurer, Chairman of the Industrieverbund Mikrobielle Genomforschung, comments: “The use of genome information to optimize micro-organisms and their products is becoming a key factor in the global race to be first with the best products and processes in white biotechnology.”

Th