This document places special focus on navigating the ePermits system. You will find helpful information on a wide range of ePermits topics, including how to submit an ePermits application, what type of permit to apply for, and what information to include, as well as permit examples.  The document explains what is covered under 7 CFR part 340 and offers resources to obtain additional information beyond the Permit Guidance. Additionally, it discusses containment facilities, time frames for permitreview and APHIS’s implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

This new guidance is effective immediately and supersedesprevious APHIS-BRS guidance documents. The guide can befound at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/guidance.shtml

In addition:
The US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (DOE JGI) Community Sequencing Program (CSP) is now accepting letters of intent for large-scale sequence-based genomic science projects that address questions of relevance to DOE missions in alternative fuels, global carbon cycling, and biogeochemistry. http://1.usa.gov/JGI-CSP13

Letters of intent will only be accepted electronically and should be submitted at http://bit.ly/CSP-Proposals between now and April 12, 2012.  Applicants will be advised whether to prepare a full proposal within two weeks, and full proposals will be due June 13.  Proposals will be independently peer-reviewed and ranked.  Final decisions based on ranking will be made by JGI senior management with final approval given by DOE program management.   For questions about the appropriateness of projects, program specifics or application process, please contact Jim Bristow (jbristow@lbl.gov).

Additional CSP 2013 Details:
While applications will be accepted that address any aspect of the DOE mission areas, up to 50% of capacity for this call will be allocated for projects that address the following areas of special emphasis, and exploit the diversity of JGI capabilities.

Plant and Plant-Microbe interactions: Plant phenotypes are likely to be strongly influenced by their associated microbes.  Proposals are encouraged that explore the interaction of plants with their rhizosphere communities and other plant-associated microbes or fungi that affect bioenergy-relevant phenotypes.  Plant resequencing or transcriptomic projects are of interest but whole-genome de novo plant sequencing projects are discouraged for this CSP call. Plant phenotypes of interest include, but are not limited to: drought or salt tolerance, nutrient use, primary productivity, biomass composition or yield or recalcitrance.

Microbial emission and capture of greenhouse gases: Bacteria, Archaea, fungi, and algae are important consumers and producers of greenhouse gases in the environment.  Proposals are encouraged that will provide insight into global carbon, nitrogen, and methane cycles, and/or suggest novel strategies for carbon capture, nitrogen processing, or methane reduction from environmental sources.

Metagenomics: Most microbes live in complex communities in often dynamic environments where the impact of changing environmental parameters on community structure and function are largely unknown. Proposals are encouraged that couple metagenomic analyses with measures of the active component of microbial populations and associated environmental biogeochemistry to explore dynamic changes in the active community composition and expressed metabolism of microbial communities in DOE mission-relevant areas. Such areas may include: Bioenergy-related plant-microbe interactions, carbon/nitrogen cycling and/or carbon sequestration processes in soils and sediments, and biogeochemical processes contributing to contaminant biotransformation and/or immobilization.

Single-cell Genomics:  As many microbes inhabiting environments of central importance to DOE missions cannot be grown in culture, acquisition of genomes from isolated single cells has proven to be an important adjunct to metagenome sequencing.  JGI has an expanding capability for the isolation, whole genome amplification, sequencing and assembly of single cells, expected to approach 1,000 in FY13. Most single-cell genome projects are anticipated to be part of a larger metagenome or isolate sequencing proposal.

DNA Synthesis: Sequence data from genomes, metagenomes and single cells allow the prediction of millions of novel genes as well as higher-level functions such as carbon-source utilization, secondary metabolite production, stress response, photosynthesis, or nitrogen fixation. DNA synthesis proposals are encouraged that address the re-factoring, screening and functional characterization of multi-gene pathways involved in DOE mission-relevant areas, both in microbes and eukaryotes.  Particular focus areas of this call are projects that involve functional prospecting of diverse species/metagenomes, require the construction of large DNA molecules (> 10Kb), and exploit coupling to high-throughput screening technologies. Small-scale DNA synthesis requests that could be easily performed by commercial providers are discouraged.

Project Structure – CSP projects are expected to generate publicly available data that will answer important questions relevant to the organism or environment being sequenced, as well as providing the substrate for broader use by the DOE research community. CSP projects have historically provided a means for user communities to assemble and interact in collaborative ways.  Proposals are encouraged that involve some or all of the following features: 1) a significant scale, 2) large DNA/RNA sequencing need on the order of hundreds of gigabases or exceeding a terabase, 3) engaging a large group of collaborators, 4) involving more than a single species, and 5) requiring JGI capabilities in addition to genome sequencing.

Overall JGI sequencing capacity is expected to be about 90 Terabases (Tb) in FY13, of which as much as half may be available for this CSP. Each proposal must carefully justify the amount of sequencing requested but no single proposal should expect more than a maximum of 2 Tb.

JGI DNA synthesis capacity for FY2013 is expected to be 4 Mb, of which up to 1.5 Mb will be available for this CSP. Individual projects are expected to require up to 250 Kb of sequence although larger requests may be considered. Additional JGI capabilities including data mining, vector engineering, and construct design can also be included within synthesis proposals.

JGI Capabilities
JGI employs almost exclusively next-generation short read sequencing platforms, with very limited longer-read capabilities. The capabilities available for this call are listed below. Individual proposals may draw from one or more of these capabilities as needed to fulfill project goals but if longer read sequencing is needed, the burden is on the submitter to justify the request. Successful projects frequently exploit a combination of capabilities:

Core Capabilities Include:

• De novo sequencing of fungal, bacterial, and archaeal genomes
• Resequencing for variation detection
• Metagenomic DNA/RNA sequencing
• RNA-Seq for genome annotation
• RNA-Seq for reference gene sets
• RNA-Seq for gene counting
• Analysis pipelines for the datasets above

JGI also has limited capacity for the following developing capabilities:

• 3rd generation single-molecule sequencing
• Fluorescent Activated Cell Sorting
• Micro-manipulator isolation of single cells
• Single-cell DNA sequencing
• Multiplex emulsion PCR amplicon sequencing
• Limited DNA/gene synthesis
• Custom genome analysis of generated datasets

David E. Gilbert

Public Affairs Manager
DOE Joint Genome Institute
2800 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
www.jgi.doe.gov
925-296-5643

APHIS’ Stakeholder Information Page includes a link to the survey and the Federal Register Notice.  All meeting details will be posted on this page.  For those unable to attend the meeting in person, we will host a live Webcast in “listen only” mode, which will also be accessible from the stakeholder information page:  http://www.aphis.usda.gov/stakeholders/

- Hallie Zimmers

National Stakeholder Liaison
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
hallie.zimmers@aphis.usda.gov
202-720-0378 or 202-799-7029

His peers within the Forest Biotechnology Partnership, an international group of forestry and biotechnology professionals, selected Tuskan as the fourth scientist to win this award, which recognizes the forest biotechnologist who best exemplifies responsible uses of forest biotechnology and actively promotes science, dialogue and stewardship through their work.

According to his peers, Tuskan was nominated because of his leadership, long-term vision and vast scientific knowledge of forest biotechnology.

Malcolm Campbell, Vice-Chair of the IFB and Professor & Vice-Principal, Research at University of Toronto Scarborough said “Jerry Tuskan is a superb selection for Forest Biotechnologist of the Year. Jerry spearheaded the sequencing of the first tree genome, an accomplishment that has been, and will continue to be, transformative for not only forest biotechnology specifically, but for the entire discipline of biology more generally.”  Dr. Campbell goes on to say, “In addition to the remarkable impact Jerry has had on forest biotechnology research, he also has been a galvanizing force in the forest research community, bringing disparate members of the community together to realize common goals, and inspiring the next generation of forest biologists to propel the discipline through the next century. All told, Jerry is an ideal recipient of the accolade of Forest Biotechnologist of the Year.”

In 2006, Tuskan led the International Populus Genome Consortium in sequencing, assembling, annotating and publishing the Populus genome, which has been cited more than 1,000 times over the past five years. Tuskan has more than 120 publications in the areas of genetics and genomics of perennial plants, including 45 publications with nearly 800 citations that exclusively relate to biotechnology, biomass production and bioenergy.

“Jerry exemplifies the ability to connect social need with original science in this field,” said Adam Costanza, president of the IFB. “He clearly cares about the future of our world’s forests. Even while fostering ground-breaking genomic work in one tree species, he is communicating the benefits of forest biotechnology to government agencies and scientists around the world.”

Tuskan co-leads DOE’s plant microbe interaction scientific focus area and leads the Populus portion of the Biomass Formation Activity for DOE’s BioEnergy Science Center. His research interests included genetic advancement of Populus and other woody crops in the deployment of biomass cropping systems for energy.

Dr. Ronald Sederoff, last year’s award recipient, sums up the impact Jerry Tuskan’s genomic work on the field of forest biotechnology, “It is a major landmark in the history of Forest Genetics and Biotechnology.”

Tuskan earned his doctorate in genetics from Texas A&M University, master’s in forest genetics from Mississippi State University and bachelor’s in forest management from Northern Arizona University.

The Forest Biotechnology Partnership will name another Forest Biotechnologist of the Year in 2013.  The recipient can be any practitioner in the field regardless of their research affiliations.  More information is available at the IFB website: www.forestbiotech.org

Institute of Forest Biotechnology Contact: Susan McCord
919-678-7613

Oak Ridge National Labs Media Contact: Emma Macmillan
865-241-9515

Related Press Release from ORNL: www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20120203-00

The following statement was read by Clint Nesbitt, Chief of Staff of APHIS’ Biotechnology Regulatory Services, in a stakeholder call on November 14, 2011:

As you know, APHIS has a process by which developers of new genetically engineered organisms may petition APHIS to grant the organism nonregulated status if the organism does not pose a plant pest risk.

The process has been a part of APHIS regulations since 1992, and we have considered well over 130 petitions in that time.  Over the course of the last decade or so, however, the time it takes the agency to reach a decision has increased significantly—it now often takes 3 years or more—and the timeframe varies considerably from petition to petition.

APHIS understands the importance of making timely decisions, while carrying out its mission of protecting U.S. agriculture and the environment from the harmful impacts of potential plant pests.

Over the course of the last year, I led a team of APHIS subject matter experts and, using “Lean Six Sigma” business process improvement techniques, we have taken a hard look at the way we have been reviewing petitions.

To do this, we reviewed the process that all petitions followed since 1992, and took a much more detailed look at the petitions we have reviewed in the last five years.

We used this information to identify the causes of the delays and timeline variability, and have developed innovative solutions specifically tailored to address those key root causes.

As a result, we have created an improved petition process that we think will cut the overall timeline in half and reduce its variability significantly, without cutting any corners on the quality of analyses supporting our decision making.

That last point is worth repeating.  The process improvements we’re talking about are just that—process improvements—that is, changes to the behind-the-scenes steps we follow,  who does what steps, the timing of the steps, how we allocate staff resources, and so on— improving process efficiency.  We were very deliberate in not making any changes that would adversely affect the quality of the decision-making.  In fact, we think some of these changes will have the added benefit of improving the quality of our decision making and the documents that support them.

Most of the improvements in the overall timeline come from standardizing and streamlining process steps behind the scenes and improving the overall efficiency of the process.  There are a few changes, however, which will be more visible to petitioners and stakeholders, and I want to take the time to walk you through some of those new features now [these are roughly in the order they occur in the process].

• First, at the beginning of the process, APHIS will greatly compress the amount of time it takes to review the petition for completeness.  Within one month of submission of a new petition, petitioners should expect to hear back from APHIS whether the petition has been deemed complete or whether APHIS needs additional information.  We are able to gain this time savings largely by changing the way we allocate staff resources to petitions as they are received.

• Another change to the completeness review period is that it will be focused entirely on a review of data required by 7 CFR 340.6; that is, data needed by APHIS to prepare its plant pest risk assessment.  No NEPA specialists will be involved in the completeness review, and any NEPA-related supporting documents submitted by petitioners will be reviewed later in the process.

• If APHIS does require additional information from the petitioner, APHIS will ask that the petitioner respond to the request within 30 days.  Most companies are currently responding within that timeframe, but some responses may require additional experiments or analysis and take considerably longer.  If a petitioner is unable to respond to APHIS request within 30 days, the petition will be treated as “incomplete” and will be given a new petition number once the petitioner responds.  This is primarily an administrative change on our part, to take the petitions we are waiting on off of our books and free resources to do other things.  The petitioner should not perceive any significant change—they are still free to resubmit a revised petition at any time and it shouldn’t take any longer to review once it comes back in— it will just be given a new petition number, and depending upon how long it takes for the petitioner to respond, it may or may not be assigned a different reviewer.

• The next big change to the process is that as soon as the petition has been deemed complete, we will publish the petition itself in the Federal Registerfor a 60-day public comment period (i.e. within a few months of receipt).  This is the way the process is described in 7 CFR 340.6, and the process we followed in the 90’s.  By publishing the petitions for comment earlier in the process, we will be able to use the feedback as scoping for preparation of our NEPA analysis, and use that input to prepare our analysis up-front—that is, to help us inform the issues we should be analyzing in our environmental analysis— as opposed to waiting for and responding to public input after we have prepared our analysis.  We hope that this change will help make more effective use of stakeholder input in our decision making process.  Holding this comment period early in the process is also a time-savings, because it allows us time to prepare some other work in parallel with the comment period.

• Next, using the public input as scoping, APHIS would spend the next 6 months preparing its environmental analysis, at which time the process would take one of two possible paths:
  
  1. For more routine petitions— those petitions that are very similar to things we have reviewed in the past and don’t raise any new issues— we would publish the EA with a preliminary determination to grant nonregulated status to the organism for a 30-day public review period.  At the end of that period, the decision would become effective unless APHIS receives new information that would cause us to change the decision.
  2. For petitions that might raise new issues—either those we identify in our scoping notice or those raised during the comment on the petition—we would publish the EA as a draft and solicit public comment for 30-days. After this time, we would prepare a response to comments and revise our documents if needed, and then publish the final documents and decision in a subsequent notice.

  -  We will be publishing a Federal Register notice in the near future which will describe in more detail the changes we intend to make in the way we solicit public input, and we will not implement any of those particular changes until after the notice is published.

Altogether, we expect these process changes to represent a timeline that will take approximately 13-16 months to complete, from first receipt of a petition to final determination.

I want to stress that the process I’ve described is the process that we expect most petitions to follow, based upon past experience.  However, there are a few notable exceptions I should mention that would cause a petition to follow a different timeline:

1. If we receive a very large number of substantive comments during a comment period, it will likely take us more time to review and respond to them. 
2. Timeline assumes that we are able to reach a FONSI after preparation of our EA.  If we are not, and preparation of an EIS is necessary, the timeline will likely be considerably longer.
3. It should also be stressed that not every petition will be granted.  If the organism is found to pose a plant pest risk, then the petition process will take a different path.

In terms of implementation, these improvements will not take place overnight, but will be phased in gradually over the course of the next several months.  We are still working out some of the last details about when and how the new changes will be implemented. We will keep stakeholders informed as implementation plans are finalized.

It is also important to recognize that we currently have a backlog of 22 pending petitions under consideration.  Even once we implement the process changes, the backlog will continue to slow the overall process until we catch up.  Our preliminary estimates are that it may take a year or more before we are fully achieving the new timeframes.  How to address that aspect of the transition is part of what we are still working out.

Finally, we will be hosting a stakeholder meeting on December 13 in Riverdale, MD, and the process improvements will be one of the topics we discuss.  So we hope to have more details about implementation plans to give you by then.

So please stay tuned.  More details will follow in the near future.  We’ll keep you informed through a combination of email, web postings, the Federal Register, and at our upcoming stakeholder meeting.

The conference took place October 26th at the Haywood County Extension Center, in Waynesville, NC and included talks on the potential development of Hemlock hybrids for the landscape industry; researching artificial infestation techniques and susceptibility of various hemlock species; and identification, evaluation, and propagation of Adelgid-resistant Eastern Hemlocks for reforestation purposes. The symposium was also presented as a webinar which will be available for viewing on the ASTF website threatenedforests.org

The ASTF is a non-profit that is part of the Center for Integrated Pest Management at North Carolina State University – a Forest Biotechnology Partner.

Learn more about the Forest Health Initiative at foresthealthinitiative.org

The American chestnut tree was among the tall stalwarts of the Appalachian forest for centuries. Its rot-resistant wood was used in barns, railroad ties and telephone poles; its nuts fed people, farm animals and wildlife; its canopy offered shade and mopped up a growing country’s pollution.

Giant chestnut trees were once abundant in the Southeast, and an economic lifesaver in some Western North Carolina communities. Workers sit atop chestnut logs waiting for a logging train in the Great Smoky Mountains.

Accounting for one out of every four hardwood trees in its Maine-to-Alabama range, it was a king of the forest: fast-growing, straight-grained and, in some areas, an economic lifesaver.

“The people in Canton, N.C., never knew the Depression. They were making money hand over fist,” says Paul Sisco, president of the Carolinas chapter of the Asheville-based American Chestnut Foundation.

They worked for Champion Paper & Fiber Co., which was chewing up chestnut and spitting out not only pulp for paper but globally marketed tannic acid for tanning leather.

But by the mid-1940s, scarcely a mature tree was left standing: A blight that arrived from Asia about 1900 took a disastrous toll. It attacked through cracks in bark until it girdled a tree with a ring nutrients could not penetrate. Roots remained, continuing to produce young trees that also were doomed.

The China option

The last big trees had hardly fallen before scientists and chestnut-loving lay people started looking to create a chestnut tree that could withstand blight. In the years since, various groups have planted more than a half-million experimental trees, usually mixing stock from the doomed young trees with that of blight-resistant foreign trees.

Now, two groups think they’re close to success. They are the traditional cross-breeders of TACF, who in 2009 started planting their most advanced American-Chinese crosses in forests to propagate on their own, and biotechnologists, who hope that a genetically engineered Chinese-American seedling will prove its resistance by 2013.

Louis Acker, a volunteer American Chestnut Foundation orchardist, prepares a tree for cross-pollination at his Ashe County sheep farm. Cross-breeding and genetics are being used to bring the chestnut back to forests in the Southeast.

Ornamental Chinese trees are short, bushy and slow-growing, but have resistance built up over centuries of coexisting with blight. TACF’s goal was to create a tree with 94 percent commercially valuable American characteristics and a minimum of Chinese traits.

Biotechnologists hope more is at stake than just recovering a piece of our ecological past

By providing a proving ground for the use of genetic engineering against one enemy of the forest, they say, the chestnut may show the way toward subduing others, such as the woolly adelgid now attacking Carolina hemlocks.

The current biotech effort, known as the Forest Health Initiative, brings together scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Clemson University, the State University of New York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry, the University of Georgia, and Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Ronald Sederoff, co-director of N.C. State University’s Forest Biotechnology Group, is on the advisory committee. It’s underwritten by nearly $6 million from Duke Energy, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities.

It builds on gene mapping done in American and Chinese chestnuts by scientists from Penn State, NCSU, Clemson, the Connecticut Agricultural Research Station, TACF and SUNY-ESF.

Those advocating both approaches are encouraged by what’s happened so far.

The culmination of 25 years of TACF cross-breeding – 4,500 “final generation” trees – are now growing in national forests in Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee.

As for the biotech advocates, “There are a lot of breakthroughs that we’ve gone through,” says SUNY’s Dr. William Powell. “Just the ability to put genes in a tree took a long, long time.”

Yet neither group is ready to say it has found the Holy Grail.

“You can only declare continued optimism rather than victory at least for another 50 years or so,” says Dr. Fred Hebard, staff pathologist for TACF’s research station in Meadowview, Va. “When those things are 100 feet tall, you can definitely declare victory.”

And biotech researcher Dr. Scott Merkle of the University of Georgia says of the Chinese genes that he hopes turn out to be the right ones: “We call them ‘candidate genes’ because we don’t really know.”

By 2013, the biotechnologists expect some answers. American chestnut seedlings implanted with a Chinese gene are already in the field. A couple of years from now, they’ll be inoculated with blight to test their resistance. Others, bearing some 20 other genes that researchers have isolated, are in the pipeline for planting.

Powell thinks at least three genes are involved in resistance, and “We think we can find the resistant genes within the first 30 that we test.” Clemson and Penn State researchers studying the 45,000 or so Chinese genes paved the way by narrowing the likely ones to 100 or so.

“Once we have a tree that we know is resistant, we will cross it with as many different wild parents as possible to increase diversity,” Powell says.

TACF’s diversity search

The creation of TACF’s national forest trees is being replicated on farms across the chestnut’s former range, including 40 in North Carolina, as volunteer orchardists and researchers work to come up with trees suited to a variety of growing climates. The organization has 6,000 members in 20 states.

The trees in the national forests are too young to be massively attacked by blight, but Stacy Clark, who tends them for the U.S. Forest Service, says they show little sign of it so far and are generally doing well. Some are 12 feet tall.

But last year, a new problem showed up – one Clark hopes was brought in inadvertently from the nursery. It’s Phythopthora cinnamomi, a root rot that thrives in poorly drained soil and warm climates. It’s also an enemy of citrus, shortleaf pine, and even Fraser fir in some areas.

In Seneca, S.C., a retired orthopedic surgeon who has been growing TACF trees for years is fighting the new problem. Except that Dr. Joe James calls it a very old problem, one responsible for the chestnut’s being considered a mountain tree.

His reading – prompted by the fact that all the chestnuts he planted on flat land promptly died – told him that chestnuts’ range once included the Carolinas Piedmont. Their presence near Atlanta has been documented, and remnants of a chestnut forest remain on a Crowders Mountain ridge.

The thinking is that the root rot advanced through warm, wet areas, chasing the chestnuts into mountain areas where freezing temperatures could penetrate thin soil and prevent the rot from taking hold.

Thinking that Chinese trees, which historically coexisted with Phythopthora as well as blight, might carry resistance to both, James planted 12,000 Chinese-American seedlings. Some 4.5 percent proved resistant to root-rot.

James gave his results to FHI, which used them to map for resistant genes, one of which is being put into seedlings due for field-testing in 2013.

No one knows whether crossbreeding or biotech ultimately will prevail as the favored weapon against the enemies of the chestnut. Success could come even from a combination of the two approaches, James says.

“When (geneticists) get the maps worked out thoroughly, then we can start selecting trees based on their genetic analysis. That would speed up our breeding program tremendously,” he says. “We’re going to join hands and cross the finish line together.”

Source: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/10/17/1571619/new-hope-for-a-vanished-giant.html

Learn more about the Forest Health Initiative at foresthealthinitiative.org

Emerald Ash Borer

Scientist Daniel Doucet is using genomics to study the emerald ash borer (EAB), a highly destructive alien pest that is threatening North America’s ash tree population. Specifically, he is studying the mechanisms of olfaction, or how EAB detects tree volatile semiochemicals (chemicals that evoke a behavioural or physiological response in another organism) at the molecular level. Insects use olfaction as a way to find host trees, which give off volatile compounds or chemical odours. Insects also use olfaction to find mates, with males detecting pheromones given off by female insects. The highly developed antennae of insects are capable of responding to the lowest levels of odours and this response can be measured using electroantennography, a technique that measures nerve impulses that the antenna sends to the brain when the insect is exposed to a given odour. The electrical response of the antenna increases as it responds to odours of biological significance.

Chemical odour receptors in the antennae of EAB are capable of converting the odour stimulus (a chemical signal) into a nerve impulse in the sensory neurons located inside the antennae. A family of proteins called the Odorant-binding proteins (OBPs) is present in the insect antennae and plays a key role in this process. OBPs act like molecular chaperones, capturing and transporting volatile semiochemicals to odorant receptors present on the surface of the sensory neurons, which are located inside the antennae. Doucet’s team is striving to identify the key OBPs in the insect that carry host tree volatiles to the neurons. Once the OBPs are known, their molecular structure can be determined. The molecular structure of an OBP can help determine with which volatile molecule it binds, and with what affinity.

The task of finding OBPs in the EAB genome is like looking for a needle in a haystack. To date, Doucet’s team has found what they believe to be five OBPs from amongst 16,000 pieces of genetic material (DNA) taken from the EAB. They are now beginning to study these OBPs as part of a longer-term effort that could lead to a biocontrol strategy for EAB. For example, by identifying the molecule that binds to a given OBP, a replacement (false) volatile molecule could be designed to prevent the receptor from receiving the true molecule. In this way the insect would not be able to receive the odour signal it needs to locate a host tree, its food or its mating partner.

Understanding EAB olfaction as it is related to tree volatiles will also be useful for attracting and trapping insects. Once the tree volatiles that signal an insect to find a host tree are known, they can then be purified or synthesized and used as lures in traps. Traps are an essential tool in the early detection of new infestations, and early detection is of critical importance in managing outbreaks of invasive insect pests such as EAB.

Research conducted at GLFC will help scientists decipher how EAB navigates in a universe of odours, locates a suitable host tree, and finds mating partners and food. This information is critical for developing a complete understanding of this invasive pest’s biology, and for developing better monitoring and control options. Ultimately, this research might help mitigate economic losses to the forest industry and contribute to the sustainability of Canada’s forests.

Source: http://www.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/e-bulletin/5

The discovery of the gene controlling ethanol production in a microorganism known as “Clostridium thermocellum” will mean that scientists can now experiment with genetically altering biomass plants to produce more ethanol.

Current methods to make ethanol from a type of biomass found in switchgrass and agricultural waste require the addition of expensive enzymes to break down the plant’s barriers that guard energy-rich sugars. Scientists, including those at BESC, have been working to develop a more streamlined approach in which tailor-made microorganisms produce their own enzymes that unlock the plant’s sugars and ferment them into ethanol in a single step. Identifying this gene is a key step towards making the first tailor-made microorganism that produces more ethanol.

Although scientists have studied Clostridium thermocellum for decades, the genetic basis for its ability to tolerate higher concentrations of ethanol had not been determined. Rather than using just one technique or one approach, the research team that made the discovery was able to draw upon multiple experts spanning several scientific disciplines to contribute a broader set of analyses because of the BESC partnership.

“The Department of Energy relies on the scientific discoveries of its labs and research centres to improve the production of clean energy sources,” said US Energy Secretary, Steven Chu. “This discovery is an important step in developing biomass crops that could increase yield of ethanol, lower production costs and help reduce our reliance on imported oil.”

BESC is led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and is one of three DOE Bioenergy Research Centers established by the DOE’s Office of Science in 2007. The team’s results were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and their invention is now available for licensing.

Metabolic analysis
In a separate development, researchers at Brookhaven National Laboratory have developed a computational model for analysing the metabolic processes in rapeseed plants. It is hoped that the model will help boost the production of plant oils for the biofuel industry.

Commenting on the two breakthroughs, Keri Fulton from the Energy Department’s Office of Public Affairs, said “Both developments sound complicated, but the results are pretty simple: We’re moving in the direction of creating crops that will make it cheaper to produce biofuels, so it’s more competitive with oil”.

Original post

A group of MORE THAN 60 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) members is calling on EPA to scrap a pending first-time proposed rule to strengthen risk reporting and other requirement for regulation of genetically modified crops, saying such measures are not based on scientific evidence, provide no further health protections and could stifle innovation.

What’s more, the group argues, the three agencies involved in regulating the crops need to develop a single set of rules governing their use.

But a source with the Center for Food Safety says that it is “really important” that EPA tighten its genetically modified crop regulation to prevent pests from developing resistances to the plants, a problem that is being seen in some areas, and address lingering questions over whether the crops contribute to food allergies.

In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson last month, the NAS members argued that EPA’s proposed data requirements for plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) are not part of “a science-based regulatory process, and are walking down a path towards one based on the controversial European ‘precautionary principle’ that goes beyond codifying data requirements.”

“Such expanded regulation would serve only to increase costs, hinder research, undermine the long-term viability of public university research programs, and limit product development from the private sector,” the letter says. “They would also weaken the competitive advantage of U.S. Public research programs in the global research arena, all with no increase in safety for consumers, farmers or the environment — indeed the contrary would be the case in many instances.”

The letter was led by Nina Fedoroff, a professor at Pennsylvania State University and former science and technology adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who says that in all 60 NAS members signed the letter.

EPA in March sent a draft proposed version of its “Pesticides; Data Requirements for Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) and Certain Exemptions for PIPs” to relevant congressional committees and the secretaries of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS), who share authority on PIPs for review.

The rule, according to a March 4 copy sent to the House Committee on Agriculture and obtained by Inside EPA, aims to create unique requirements for PIPs rather than rely on current measures based on regulation of microbial pesticides; provide EPA with the data and information needed to perform risk assessments that will inform “regulatory decisions that are neither too stringent nor too lenient”; and exempt cisgenic PIPs — which cannot reproduce on their own — from Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, & and Cosmetic Act requirements.

EPA toxics chief Stephen Owens told House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) in a March 4 letter that the proposed rule seeks to identify data requirements for PIP applications that are currently determined on a case-by-case basis. “Specifically, the proposed rule would identify the types of information and data that EPA needs to register a PIP, issue a tolerance or a tolerance exemption for PIP residues in food, or allow experimental use of a PIP,” he said.

Under FIFRA, USDA and HHS had 60 days to comment before Jackson could issue the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public inspection. However, the agency has thus far not moved forward with the rule, and in a response to the NAS members’ letter, Steven Bradbury, head of the pesticides office, said earlier this month that the proposed rule is “under development” and will be made available sometime in 2012.

In the Aug. 18 letter, Bradbury said the rule would “codify data requirements that specifically address the data to support scientific evaluation of PIPs. These data requirements would provide EPA with the information necessary for the registration of a PIP” and “improve the agency’s ability to make regulatory decisions about the human health and environmental effects of these products.” Finalizing the rule will help the regulated community better understand what is required of it in the registration process, Bradbury wrote.

Tiered Data Approach
In the proposed rule, EPA laid out a tiered approach for data requirements that is “based on an understanding of the potential exposure for a specific use pattern or the hazard associated with a particular PIP,” according to an agency summary sent to Lucas with the rule.

The agency is further codifying product identification requirements, which involve information on dietary and environmental exposures, reproductive biology, geographic distribution and taxonomy; the pesticide’s mode of action; a characterization of the DNA that is used to alter the plant genome; and product performance data.

In addition, the agency is expanding its human health data collection requirements to include dermal exposures as well as oral exposures, toxicity of pesticidal substances in a PIP and information on environmental fate and effects on non-target organisms, such as soil toxicity and avian, fish, mammal and honeybee dietary toxicity.

Most PIP applicants will be required to do tier I testing, although waivers will be allowed on a case by case basis. The agency is further planning to require experimental use permits.

But the NAS members — which Fedoroff says includes Nobel Prize laureates Jim Watson and Gunter Blobel — say they are troubled by the proposals, particularly the efforts to provide oversight for areas such as virus resistance, weediness and “matters which are still not deemed to be threats even after years of study, such as potential gene transfer from plants to soil microorganisms.”

“With the draft proposed rules, EPA would further expand its regulations and data demands to other areas historically covered by [USDA] without the slightest justification based on either data or experience,” the letter says.

‘No Ill Effects’
Given all the research done in the field that has shown “no ill effects,” and benefits of the expanded crop yields from PIPs, the letter calls for regulatory burdens to be “reduced and refocused,” not further augmented as the NAS members claim the rule would do.

The NAS letter touted the benefits of PIPs in an Aug. 18 editorial in The New York Times, where she argued that the genetically modified plants are responsible for feeding the world’s growing population while shrinking the environmental foot print of agriculture. “Myths about the dire effects of genetically modified foods on health and the environment abound, but they have not held up to scientific scrutiny,” Fedoroff wrote. “And, although many concerns have been expressed about the potential for unexpected consequences, the unexpected effects that have been observed so far have been benign.” As such, the letter concludes, “It is time to relieve the regulatory burden slowing down the development of genetically modified crops. The three United States regulatory agencies [EPA, USDA and HHS] need to develop a single set of requirements and focus solely on the hazards — if any — posed by new traits.”

The Center for Food Safety source, however, says that “EPA should demand a lot more data on human health impacts on these insecticidal toxins.” For example, the source points to testing requirements concerning crops with multiple protectants calling for additional data on the effects of the mixture and individual pesticides that could help prevent pests developing resistance.

The source defends EPA’s efforts and argues that recent attacks on the agency, including Fedoroff’s editorial are coming from people who “don’t understand” the issue of genetically modified crops. “They are coming at it from a stand point of no more regulation,” but that may not protect human health.

– Jenny Hopkinson ( jhopkinson@iwpnews.com)