INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY - NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

May 1999

NEWS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMUNITY

---

IN THIS ISSUE:
Biotechnology in Latin America After Cartagena
Overcoming Insect Resistance to Bt
Enzyme Inhibitor Protects Plants from Fungi
Gene Vectors—Agents of Transformation
Field Study on Transgene Release
Life Sciences Preprint Archive May be on the Horizon
Companies, Corn Growers Finalize IRM Measures for Bt Corn
DuPont Acquires Pioneer Hi-Bred
Upcoming Meetings

---

---

BIOTECHNOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA AFTER CARTAGENA

After February’s UN-sponsored biosafety talks in Cartagena, Colombia failed to produce a consensus among the 134 countries present, it is worth taking the pulse of the region surrounding this Caribbean city. How do the different Latin American nations fit into the global biotechnology picture?

First, it should be said that these talks did not neatly divide along north vs. south lines, despite how some journalists covered it. The so-called Miami Group (United States, Canada, Australia, and three Latin nations—Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile), named after the site of last year’s meeting, is the principal opponent to an eleventh-hour version of what would have been the first international protocol on transboundary movement of genetically engineered organisms. This illustrates the diversity within this region when it comes to biotechnology research, development, trade, and regulations.

Argentina leads the latin nations with 4.3 million hectares dedicated to herbicide resistant soybean, second only to the U.S. with more than 20.5 million hectares (1). This sizable production has been possible primarily owing to Argentina’s temperate climate, in marked contrast to its neighbor, Brazil. Argentina’s development in this area creates one of the most marked splits within the region's 23 nations, as environmental groups and even some of the other Latin delegations at the talks vilified Argentina and its neighbors for being associated with the Miami Group.

"We’ve been accused of treason," said Ricardo Lagorio of Argentina’s Foreign Affairs Ministry. "But we're acting in an open, transparent manner, as part of a group with shared interests. And we consider that the future of the world food is with biotechnology . . . while also seeing it important that environment not be affected."

Although Brazil did not align itself with the Miami Group, the region’s most populated country has contemplated the role that genetically engineered crops could play in its agriculture since the 1990s (2). In fact, Brazil adopted Latin America's first biosafety law in 1995. "In Cartagena, we didn't want to sign a protocol that would be less stringent than our national law, or that would force us to change our regime," said researcher Genaro de Paiva. He serves on Brazil’s Biosafety Commission, created by this same law. "We are a center of megabiodiversity," said Dr. De Paiva. "Brazil is where these issues are being played out. At the same time, we think that the use of these organisms can be regulated in a case-by-case, scientific manner." The scientist added that Brazil differed with the Miami Group over including commodities such as corn and soybeans in a proposed review process prior to the first shipment between countries.

The group of exporting countries adamantly opposed this measure, and said the process should apply only to genetically engineered seeds destined to be planted in the ground. They alleged that seeds should be reviewed for possible risks to the environment and biological diversity, but that commodities posed no such risks. In a recent interview, Dr. De Paiva added, "We are now creating an operating list of products that could be exempted from review on the second movement." The scientist also emphasized that commercial production of transgenic crops in Brazil is still a few years off, and that "most products being evaluated at this point are still routine, like Bt maize and Roundup®-ready soy."

The latter is the most extensively planted in field trials, with around 2,500 hectares in all. Dr. De Paiva emphasized that wild relatives of soy are not found in Brazil, and so the issue of possible gene flow and threats to biodiversity are minimized with this crop. He also mentioned that varieties being tested are local, and not suitable for temperate climates (unlike Argentina’s, which are).

Like Brazil, Colombia is a global center of megabiodiversity. But as host country in Cartagena, it wound up in an unusual position, saddled with the difficult position of peacemaker. Delegate Cristian Samper said his country was pushing for a "wide scope," and that "without a protocol, we’ve temporarily lost the possibility of having a multilateral, international instrument of control, which we hoped would place some responsibility on exporting countries."

At the same time, Colombia is presently testing its new national biosafety regulations and review committee. The regulations were adopted in December of last year; the review committee established to enforce them will be meeting for the first time next month to review applications for field trials, which can still be counted on two hands. According to Carlos Silva, of the Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA)—the government entity charged with maintaining the Andean country’s biosafety regulations—these applications range from Bt potatoes and maize to blue carnations. There is also an application pending for a variety of indica rice developed at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). The rice is engineered for resistance to hoja blanca, a disease-causing virus found only in Latin America, and which is capable of destroying as much as 80% of commercial crops.

Dr. Samper, director of the Humboldt Biological Resources Institute, added that "the Andean Group plans to adopt its own biosafety protocol this year, taking advantage of our similarities in biodiversity, culture, and foodstuffs." Silva echoed this concept, stating, "why wait for an international protocol—we could create an Andean pact and then make any necessary changes." The Andean group also includes Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela, countries with little development in biotechnology as of yet.

The region’s other major player is Mexico. In fact, Mexico is the only Latin nation apart from Argentina that figures in a list of global leaders in commercial cultivation of transgenic crops, with about 100,000 hectares total (1). According to Dr. Amanda Galvez, a member of the Mexican delegation in Cartagena and part of a national commission on biodiversity (CONABIO), the correct term should be "pre-commercial," since the Bt cotton in question here is still being closely monitored for commercialization by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Being the genetic and evolutionary homeland of maize, transgenic work with this crop has been of some concern in Mexico. Apart from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center’s (CIMMYT) limited, enclosed experiments with apomixis, the Mexican government has now restricted transgenic maize release. (This despite the lack of alarm expressed by Damaso Luna, Environmental Director of Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cartagena delegation member. Shortly after Cartagena, he stated that it was "too early and alarmist to be saying that the apocalypsis is at hand for maize.")

As for Mexico’s position in Cartagena, Dr. Luna said, "We were interested in having a protocol with clear rules that could protect biodiversity without duly interrupting trade. We’re concerned that the very genetic resources on which this technology and the future will depend are in balance here. But we have our own guidelines and will continue to develop them, with or without a protocol."

In fact, as the ISB News Report goes to press, Mexico President Ernesto Zedillo is reviewing new recommendations made by a body of 15 scientists coordinated by CONABIO on biodiversity conservation and biotechnology research for meeting national needs. As Dr. Galvez put it, "in Mexico, we’re still importing this technology, and most of our concerns as a nation are still not being addressed."

Of course, there is a flip side to the issue of possible gene flow to wild relatives and land races—as raised with maize in Mexico, potato in the Andean nations, and in nations with high biodiversity in general. At this point, neither the public nor the private sector offer the small farmer incentive for developing land races; wild relatives are left out of the picture altogether. Subsistence farmers will tend to look for varieties that help them feed their families, either by increasing yield or lowering costs (for inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers)—whether obtained from traditional breeding or genetic engineering.

Small-scale farmers in Latin America are either going to be financially compensated for conserving the native germplasm that is at the heart of many of the concerns regarding genetically engineered crops, biosafety, and biodiversity, or more resources will have to be put into seed banks and germplasm research. This will be a key issue in the years to come, from the southern cone up to Mexico, as genes and agriculture converge to an even greater degree (3).

Sources

1. James C. 1998. Global Review of Transgenic Crops: 1998. ISAA Briefs No. 8. Ithaca, N.Y: ISAA.

2. Sampaio M. 1999. Perspectives from National Agricultural Research Systems. In Biotechnology and Biosafety, eds. I Serageldin and W Collins. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Timothy Pratt
Journalist
Cali, Colombia
v.communicaciones@cgiar.org

OVERCOMING INSECT RESISTANCE TO Bt

A report describing what could be a significant breakthrough in the efforts to combat insect resistance to transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-expressing crops, has just been published. Kota et al. (1999) show that a combination of very high transgene expression due to insertion in the chloroplast genome, coupled with protein stability can result in mortality of even Bt-resistant insects.

In the U.S., millions of acres have been planted with Bt crops, mainly corn and cotton; however, permission to do so in European countries has not yet been granted. One of the main obstacles is the potential for insects to become resistant to the Bt toxin. This issue is also of concern in the U.S. and is being addressed by a number of organizations including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA). (See related article, pg. 8). U.S. producers of Bt crops strongly encourage farmers to grow non-engineered plants in plots alongside Bt-expressing varieties, hoping that creation of this Bt-free refuge community will postpone the evolution of Bt resistant insects. Seed companies, embroiled in a no-holds-barred marketing battle, have agreed on the importance of planting Bt-free refuges, which shows the importance they place on this issue. And rightly so, as evolving insect resistance could make or break Bt technology.

A general consensus has been reached on the need to maintain non-Bt refuges to thwart the emergence of insect resistance; however, some aspects of this insect resistance management (IRM) approach continue to be challenged. The rationale behind leaving Bt-free refuge communities is to provide a source of susceptible mates for any resistant insects that survive exposure to the Bt toxin. The strategy, though, is based on the assumption that resistance is a recessive trait, therefore the offspring of such a mating will be susceptible. This assumption has been questioned in some quarters but as yet there is little evidence that resistance is dominant.

A second unresolved issue is how to handle IRM when insects have access to more than one Bt crop. A prime example is corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) which feeds on corn in the spring and early summer, then migrates to cotton where it is called cotton budworm. Also currently in contention is the size of the refuge area required to discourage evolution of resistant pests. The NCGA is currently recommending a 20% refuge in primary corn-growing regions and 50% in primary cotton-growing areas. These allotments may have to be increased if farmers find they need to use additional chemical pesticides to protect crops in times of unusually heavy insect predation, since sprays increase the risk of developing Bt resistance. There is also some concern that if farmers determine they need to spray a large percentage of their acreage, they may elect to spray the entire crop. Eventually they may find it more economical to spray than to employ Bt technology.

After considering some of the difficulties inherent in maintaining a Bt-free refuge, it becomes clear that continued advancements in Bt technology would be welcomed. One recommended strategy is to genetically alter crops to express multiple protein toxins, including non-Bt toxins. The availability of such "stacked" products could eventually permit a reduction in refuge size. Other suggestions include increasing the level of Bt expression, and targeting expression to tissues particularly sensitive to damage.

Kota et al. have outlined an approach for overcoming Bt resistance in insects that combines high levels of Bt gene expression with tissue specificity. Most commercial transgenic plants that target lepidopteran pests contain either the cry1Ab or cry1Ac genes. However, the proteins expressed by these genes share more than 90% homology, which increases the risk of cross-resistance. The authors chose Cry2Aa2 because it has limited homology to 1Ab and 1Ac and because its protoxin is only 65 kDa, compared with the 130-135 kDa proteins of 1Ab and 1Ac. As gene size can be a limiting factor for optimal expression in plants, this small size enabled them to introduce a gene encoding the entire protoxin, which is considered to be more environmentally stable.

They targeted the gene to the tobacco chloroplast which, due to its prokaryotic origin, could express the native DNA sequence without the necessity of codon optimization. The cry2Aa2 gene was cloned downstream of the spectinomycin-streptomycin resistance gene and driven by the chloroplast constitutive promoter Prrn. The chimeric gene was then integrated between the rbcL and accD genes, a region that is highly conserved among plants and can even be used to integrate genes into monocot chloroplasts.

Sixteen putative transformants were obtained of which two were shown to have a single insert in all the 5,000 to 10,000 chloroplasts. This high level of integration resulted in Cry2Aa2 representing 2% to 3% of total leaf protein, some 20- to 30-fold higher than current commercial nuclear transgenic plants. The importance of this high level of expression was clear when they tested the mortality of Bt-susceptible, Cry1Ac-resistant and Cry2A-resistant tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens) by feeding them Bt-transgenic leaf material. They achieved 100% mortality, even though tobacco budworm is less sensitive to Cry2A than to Cry1Ac. They also obtained 100% mortality when leaves were fed to corn earworm and beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua), despite the latter having a high tolerance to Cry2Aa2.

The authors state that the high levels of expression did not affect tobacco plant growth rates, photosynthesis, chlorophyll content, flowering, or seed setting in the laboratory. However, long-term tests under field conditions are needed before the full potential of this new technology can be determined. It should also be noted that a significant additional benefit of the introduction of the Bt gene into the chloroplast, rather than into the nuclear genome, is that the chloroplast genome is maternally inherited. This should help alleviate the fears of transgene spread via pollen to non-target plants.

This paper will be greeted enthusiastically by researchers involved in the development of Bt-expressing plants. It could well prove to be a watershed in the fight against insect resistance to Bt in transgenic crops.

Source

Kota M et al. 1999. Overexpression of the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) CryA2Aa2 protein in chloroplasts confers resistance to plants against susceptible and Bt-resistant insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 96:1840-1845.

Jennifer A Thomson
Department of Microbiology
University of Cape Town
jat@molbiol.uct.ac.za

John T. Lohr
Assistant Director, Education & Outreach
Utah State University
johnlohr@cscfs1.usu.edu

[The following article by Tara Weaver-Missick, ARS Information Staff was originally published in the April 1999 issue of Agricultural Research Magazine (http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov/programs/cppvs.htm). It is reprinted here with permission.]

GENE VECTORS—AGENTS OF TRANSFORMATION

A genetic element called piggyBac, which has a propensity for jumping into other genes and riding along in their chromosomes, can be used to transform insects. Agricultural Research Service insect physiologist Paul D. Shirk and geneticist Alfred M. Handler want to use piggyBac to change the characteristics of insect pests. They are with the ARS Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology (CMAVE) in Gainesville, Florida.

Shirk, who is in CMAVE’s Postharvest and Bioregulation Research Unit, and research associate O.P. Perrera modified the original piggyBac gene to create the gene vector. Now Shirk is testing piggyBac in the Indianmeal moth (Plodia interpunctella) the number-one stored-product pest, and in two other pests that infest stored foods—Mediterranean flour moth (Anagasta kuehniella) and red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum).

Initially, Shirk says, they’ll use the piggyBac vector to mark laboratory-grown insects for use in sterile release programs. This control method involves growing pest insects in the lab, sterilizing the adults, and then releasing them to breed with wild populations. Nonfertile matings eventually reduce the pest insect populations, and the genetically altered insects do not affect humans or wildlife. "PiggyBac can also be used to provide a genetic analysis of agricultural pest insects that is not possible now," Shirk says.

In the Beginning

So where did piggyBac come from? In 1983, Malcolm Fraser, Jr., Associate Professor in the University of Notre Dame’s Biological Sciences Department discovered piggyBac while looking at baculoviruses in cabbage looper moths. Baculoviruses are strains of viruses that infect insects. "I found that mutations of the virus were occurring from a mobile piece of DNA within the cell," says Fraser. "This DNA essentially piggybacked into the baculovirus. The transformation efficiency appeared higher by far than by using other similar elements."

Shirk and Handler have successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of piggyBac as a vector by using eye-color transformations to signal genetic changes. Some abnormal moths are born with red eyes, when they should have black ones. Red-eyed moths lack an enzyme that keeps them from producing the normal eye color.

"Perrera inserted a normal gene that produces the black eye color into piggyBac, to carry that trait into Mediterranean flour moths," says Shirk. "A new gene was permanently introduced into the host and changed the eye color of its offspring." The progeny have carried the genetic modification for black eyes over 12 generations.

In using the eye-color mutant of the Mediterranean flour moth, Shirk says, "The neat thing is that these moths are from a strain originally isolated in the 1920s and used in experiments that led to today’s idea of what a gene really is. That’s real use of genetic diversity and return on the investment in long-term research."

What Does All This Portend?

Three important and possible future uses of piggyBac, Shirk says, will be introducing genes to mark a population so scientists can track and learn about it, developing a system that can spread certain genes into an insect population, and introducing genes to create sterile insects for use in sterile-release pest control programs.

That’s where Handler’s research in CMAVE’s Behavior and Biocontrol Research Unit is focused. He’s looking at piggyBac as a way to transfer genes to improve sterile-release programs to control fruit flies—pests that cause major damage to citrus and other crops worldwide.

One of the most notorious of these is the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata). It feeds on many fruits and vegetables and has most recently become a problem in parts of Florida. Handler is collaborating with Susan D. McCombs, an entomologist at the University of Hawaii, to genetically transform medflies.

He first conducted experiments using piggyBac marked with the medfly white gene, which restores red eye color to mutant white-eyed medfly strains. He wanted to see if gene transformation would be possible in this species. Since then, he has used piggyBac with green fluorescent protein (GFP) from a jellyfish to transform Caribbean fruit flies (Anastrepha suspensa) and Drosophila, as well as medflies. Under ultraviolet light, transgenic fruit flies modified with GFP glow like green lightbulbs.

"The fact that a vector from a moth works so well in several fruit fly species is very encouraging for its use in many other insects," says Handler. "The success with GFP is equally important. This marker should also work in many insects, whereas eye-color markers are available for only a few."

Another Measure of Success

"This is a major breakthrough," says Handler. "People have been trying to transform insect pests of agricultural and medical importance for nearly 14 years. In the past 2 years, our lab and others have had success with several species using only four vector systems. PiggyBac has been successful in the most insect species to date. Many exciting experiments for basic knowledge and field application are now possible."

Handler says this research will be useful in medfly and caribfly monitoring and sterile-release programs. Flies that are marked with GFP and released will be easily distinguished from the targeted wild flies in the field under ultraviolet light or by simple biochemical tests. This is critical to determining a release program’s success and ensuring that wild flies have not infested fly-free zones. Handler says that although the GFP marker may be used in the near future, the real benefit of this work relates to more sophisticated genetic manipulation of medflies that would allow genetic sexing and male sterilization.

Another promising gene vector the scientists are studying is tagalong, also discovered by Fraser. It’s like piggyBac, but it can’t move by itself. While piggyBac relies on a transposase enzyme to help it move, tagalong lacks this enzyme and relies on something else to help it travel. The scientists aren’t sure what that something else is, but in the future they may be able to use tagalong as a gene carrier.

They agree that piggyBac’s potential is promising. They hope that they will soon use piggyBac to insert foreign genes that cause sterility or death in insects under certain conditions, such as low temperature. Such genes could be spread through an insect population in summer and have their effect in winter. This would allow the control of wild populations of pest insects without use of toxic chemicals.

Scientists in other states are also studying piggyBac’s effectiveness for transforming pink bollworms, boll weevils, codling moths, and mosquitoes.

John T. Lohr
Assistant Director, Education & Outreach
Utah State University
johnlohr@cscfs1.usu.edu

LIFE SCIENCES PREPRINT ARCHIVE MAY BE ON THE HORIZON

The preprint system, a cyberspace analog of circulating unpublished papers among colleagues, is gaining popularity in the biological sciences. The basic idea behind the preprint approach is that a researcher will transfer an electronic copy of a report to an internet-accessible archive before paper journal reviewers evaluate the report. In this way, the information is rapidly accessible from the electronic preprint, while the report winds its way through the traditional review process leading to paper publication.

Although a limited number of specialized Web sites offer preprints on biological research, there has been some resistance to the creation of a central preprint archive for the life sciences (1). Recently, two proponents of a broad-spectrum biology preprint site seem to be gaining ground for such an archive. David Lipman, director of the U.S. National Council for Biotechnology Information, and Patrick Brown, a researcher at Stanford University, have been proposing a Web-based server that would accept and freely distribute preprints from any source (2). Harold Varmus, director of the NIH, is reportedly considering several life science preprint archive proposals this spring.

Unlike preprint servers in other disciplines, the life science preprint system may require reviewers to sort papers according to quality. The inclusion of an editorial filter would address the long-standing concern about posting electronic medical research reports without the benefit of any peer review (3). This issue is no less significant in the area of agbiotech, as shown by the recent transgenic potato controversy.

Another concern raised by the preprint system is that electronic publication will preclude later publication in a traditional peer-reviewed journal. Publishers are developing policies about preprint publication that run the gamut. For example, the policy of the American Society of Plant Physiologists is that an author must remove a preprint from a Web site before review of the corresponding manuscript. Meanwhile, the editor of a particular Academic Press journal may refuse to consider a report that was posted on a personal server even though Academic Press itself does not object to posting preprints. According to the publisher of Nature, there is no conflict between preprint circulation and submission to its journal. This laudable policy is somewhat muddled by the position that an article may become disqualified for publication in Nature if there is a prior exposure of results in the "public media."

Editors may agree to publish the final version of a paper under the theory that electronic publication is not a "proper publication" (4). Inventors who wish to participate in a preprint system should bear in mind that patent law does not distinguish between flavors of publication; information is either published or not published. This means that posting the description of an invention in a publicly accessible preprint archive can create prior art that may bar patent protection for that invention. So, the best course is to file the patent application before electronic publication.

Sources

1. The University of Nebraska AgNIC Plant Sciences Page is an example of a specialized archive (www.unl.edu/agnicpls/preprint.html).

2. Butler D. 1999. US biologists propose launch of electronic preprint archive. Nature 397:91; Marshall E. 1999. NIH weighs bold plan for online preprint publishing, Science 283:1610-1611.

3. Kassirer JP and Angell M. 1995. The internet and the journal. New England Journal of Medicine 332:1709-1710.

4. Smith R. 1999. What is publication? British Medical Journal 318:142.

Phillip B. C. Jones, PhD., J.D.
Seattle, Washington
pbcj@wolfenet.com

COMPANIES, CORN GROWERS FINALIZE IRM MEASURES FOR Bt CORN

Four major companies selling new Bt-corn technology today submitted a plan for regulatory approval recommending a common approach to prevent insect resistance to field corn containing genes derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The Bt genes are registered for use in corn by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The industry insect resistance management (IRM) plan for Bt corn was submitted by Monsanto Company, Mycogen Seeds/Dow AgroSciences, Novartis Seeds, Inc., and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. in conjunction with the National Corn Growers Association. If the EPA approves expeditiously, registrants say it could be implemented for the 2000 growing season. "The goal…is to sustain and protect Bt technology while allowing growers and society…to realize fully the economic and environmental benefits of this technology," wrote the companies. The companies note that their plan is based on an approach recommended by an EPA scientific advisory panel last year and that it "…seeks to…protect Bt technology with the need to establish a practical approach that growers will implement."

"This uniform IRM plan balances today’s scientific knowledge with the real world challenges that growers face each day," says Joe Panetta, chairman, American Crop Protection Association Biotechnology Committee, which represents the majority of the companies registering and selling Bt-improved corn hybrids. "It’s a practical, flexible and protective plan that everyone—from companies to growers—supports and can make work."

"Grower needs are addressed by this plan because it is straightforward and incorporates easy-to-understand instructions that can be applied across diverse cropping practices," said Scott McFarland, director of industry relations, National Corn Growers Association (NCGA).

Under the plan, refuge requirements will be imposed for all corn growing regions of the United States. Growers will have to plant a minimum of 20 percent non-Bt corn in the corn belt states and the northern portion of the corn/cotton region. A minimum 50 percent refuge of non-Bt corn will be required in the southern portion of the corn/cotton-growing region. In addition, the plan encourages growers to plant non-Bt corn within one-quarter mile of Bt corn, where feasible, but requires refuges within one-half mile. In limited regions of the corn belt conventional insecticide treatments have historically been used. Growers will have the option of applying these treatments to the non-Bt corn refuge based on economic thresholds. If they do so, they must plant the non-Bt corn within one-quarter mile of their Bt corn plantings.

With the purchase of Bt hybrids, growers will receive a comprehensive guide to IRM measures and must sign a stewardship agreement stipulating they will follow IRM requirements. Annual surveys will be conducted to determine grower adoption. Should any area fall below expectations, the area will be targeted for increased and enhanced grower education.

Sponsoring companies will develop comprehensive programs to inform growers of the IRM plan and its importance. NCGA, the American Crop Protection Association, Biotechnology Industry Organization, and a number of other organizations will reinforce company education efforts.

A complete copy of the Industry Insect Resistance Management Plan for Bt Field Corn can be obtained by linking to http://www.ncga.com.

DUPONT ACQUIRES PIONEER HI-BRED

In March, DuPont announced the acquisition of Pioneer Hi-Bred in a deal valued at $7.7 billion. DuPont, which already owned a 20 percent equity stake in Pioneer, now holds complete ownership of the company. The move is part of DuPont’s evolving strategy to enhance its capability to discover, develop and commercialize new products in a number of areas including food and feed crops, food ingredients, industrial applications, and nutrition science.

Under the terms of the agreement, Pioneer shareholders will receive $40 per share, with 45 percent of the shares receiving cash and 55 percent of the shares receiving DuPont stock. The boards of directors of both companies have approved the transaction. It is anticipated that the acquisition will close sometime during the summer of 1999. As a wholly owned subsidiary of DuPont, Pioneer will continue to do business under the Pioneer name and will remain headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa (1). The acquisition of Pioneer is a significant augmentation of DuPont’s efforts to buildup its position in the biotechnology area.

Prior to announcing the Pioneer purchase, DuPont had embarked on a number of other strategic efforts to enhance its life sciences portfolio. Most recently these included the announcement that the company was actively seeking alliances to strengthen DuPont Pharmaceuticals. In addition, the company’s board authorized the creation and issuance of a "tracking" stock for its life sciences businesses. The purpose is to allow DuPont’s expansion of its portfolio by operating more flexibly in the existing environment of industry consolidation (1).

A recent article from the Dow Jones Newswire pointed out the impact of the Pioneer acquisition on DuPont’s long term strategy in contrast to Monsanto’s. The two companies have become the major players in the ag-biotech arena, although each appears to be using differing tactics. Monsanto has focused more on input traits in its development efforts. The company has already achieved success with some of its transgenic crop products, most notably its Roundup Ready® crops such as soybean, which has lowered crop production costs. Some estimates put this year’s revenue potential to Monsanto and its partners from Roundup Ready® soybeans as high as $300 million (2).

DuPont, on the other hand, is developing products with more of an eye towards output traits. DuPont and Pioneer already had a crop biotechnology joint venture (Optimum Quality Grains) aimed at output traits. Products in development include plants with altered levels of fatty acids and amino acids. Although Monsanto is also interested in output traits, it is believed DuPont now has the largest patent estate for output traits in crops (2).

Sources

1. DuPont and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Sign Merger Agreement. Press Release, March 15, 1999, www.pioneer.com.

2. Kilman S. Crop Biotech Leaders DuPont, Monsanto Taking Different Roads. Dow Jones Newswire, March 16, 1999, wsj.com.

William O. Bullock
Institute for Biotechnology Information
http://www.biotechinfo.com

---

3^rd Annual Biotechnology Roundtable: Liability and Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms
May 26, 1999, Missouri Botanical Gardens, St. Louis, Missouri

The roundtable is the third in an annual series of one-day meetings bringing stakeholders of many viewpoints together with leading scientists and lawyers to discuss the latest developments in the regulation of genetically modified crops (GMOs). Presentations will include a discussion of the science behind recent legal developments in the E.U., which has approved labeling requirements for genetically modified food. Roundtable speakers and participants will discuss, in detail, the legal and scientific issues raised by this quest for harmonized international standards for labeling and the liability issues that will arise.

Program highlights include:

• the consumer’s "right to know" that the process of growing food may include genetic engineering through labeling of substantially equivalent foods
• the pros and cons of treating genetic engineering as a process creating unique risks and unique legal standards
• the use of information technology to expedite risk assessment and liability risk management
• legal mechanisms and testing methods for segregating unapproved varieties
• legal and scientific methods for protecting native plant varieties used by indigenous farmers from displacement by genetically modified varieties
• risk management for sales of GMOs not yet approved in major overseas markets

Obtain a registration form by calling 312-988-5724 or faxing 312-988-5572. The deadline for advance registration is May 12.

---

1999 Meeting of the Society for In Vitro Biology

June 5-9, 1999, New Orleans, LA

This meeting is an interdisciplinary forum designed to promote scientific knowledge concerning the growth, maintenance, and experimental use of tissue and cells in vitro.

Sessions on biotechnology include:

• Non-Traditional Agricultural Biotechnology – various aspects of plant genetic engineering for improving food and beverage products of interest to the fruit and grain industries.
• Focus on Vegetable Biotechnology – new approaches in the areas of virus protection beyond coat protein expression, including the use of untranslated sequences for virus protection, and the biology of Gemini viruses and how it relates to potential resistance in vegetables.
• Building a Better Transgenic Plant: Advances in Transformation Technology – various approaches to producing transgenic plants with more predictable or less variable transgene expression or to allow for multiple gene inserts.
• Innovation in Biomechanical Systems and Devices-Designing for High Quality and Cost-Efficiency – innovations in micropropagation technology for asexually propagated crop varieties.
• Transformation and Functional Genomics - The Challenge Ahead – advances in improving the efficiency of transformation coupled with the development of high throughput transformation schemes including the development of techniques which allow more targeted integration of genes
• Functional Genomics – new developments on functional genomics with emphasis on plant studies

Call 301-324-5054, visit http://www.sivb.org/meeting/annualme.htm, or email at sivb@sivb.org for more information.

Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy

June 24-25, 1999, Washington, DC

This conference is focused on the roles of economics in projecting and assessing the future structure of the biotech input sector and its effects on farmers and consumers. It is structured around a series of methodological approaches for an understanding of potential contributions to be made to appraising the "new" agriculture with biotechnology. "It is too early in the agbiotech transformation to assess the appropriate strategies and potential outcomes, but not too early to identify potential emerging policy issues while the sector remains in flux."

Sessions include:

• Acceptance and Effects of Agbiotech at Farm and Home
• Public Sector Role in Agbiotech
• Private Sector Strategy and Public Acceptance
• Supply Channels and Regulation
• Institutional Analysis and IPR
• Trade and Development

For information email:

talenda@resecon.umass.edu or visit http://www.umass.edu/ne165/conferences99/ta_registration.html

A parallel but separately-organized conference titled "The Shape of the Coming Agricultural Biotechnology Transformation" emphasizing agbiotech issues in Europe and developing countries is planned for June 17-19, 1999 at the University of Rome, Tor Vergata. It is organized by the International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR).

Visit http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr to obtain information regarding this conference.

ISB News Report
120 Engel Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061

The material in this News Report is compiled by NBIAP's Information Systems for Biotechnology, a joint project of USDA/CSREES and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or of Virginia Tech. The News Report may be freely photocopied or otherwise distributed without charge.

• Patricia L. Traynor, Editor (traynor@vt.edu)
• Ruth Irwin, Associate Editor (rirwin@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu)

To have the News Report automatically emailed to you, send an email message to news@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu and type subscribe newsreport [your_name] in the message section. Connect to http://www.isb.vt.edu for internet access to ISB News Reports, textfiles, and databases.

Information Systems for Biotechnology, 120 Engel Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, tel: 540-231-2620, fax: 540-231-2614, email: isb@vt.edu