bio central information

2007-06-13T00:09:00.000-07:00

website biotechnology

2007-05-06T02:50:00.000-07:00

Ngaønh coâng ngheä sinh hoïc:
1.1.Trong nöôùc:
www.ttvnol.com/forum Dieãn ñaøn coâng ngheä sinh hoïc
www.sinhhocvietnam.com Dieãn ñaøn sinh hoïc Vieät Nam
www.bio4sh.com Dieãn ñaøn coâng ngheä sinh hoïc
www.vnbio.org/forum Dieãn ñaøn coâng ngheä sinh hoïc.
www.clst.ac.vn/opac/forum Dieãn ñaøn coâng ngheä sinh hoïc.
www.aquarium.ppvn.com/diendan : Dieãn ñaøn coâng ngheä sinh hoïc.
www.chuyensinh.iwebland.com/forums Dieãn ñaøn chuyeân sinh
www.diendannongnghiep.info Dieãn ñaøn noâng nghieäp
www.tinsinhhoc.org Dieãn ñaøn tin sinh hoïc
www.cbl-ibt.ac.vn Vieän coâng nheä sinh hoïc
www.agbiotech.com.vn Vieän coâng ngheä sinh hoïc
www.biovn.host.sk/index.htm Sinh hoïc Vieät Nam.
www.biotechvn.com.vn Trung taâm chuyeån giao tieán boä SH
www.congnghemoi.com.vn Coâng ngheä sinh hoïc
www.sweb.cz/euro.tr.com Coâng ngheä bia töôi
www.its-vietnam.com Cung caáp thieát bò phoøng thí ngieäm vaø moâi tröôøng nuoâi caáy
www.taiphat.com.vn Cung caáp thieát bò phoøng TNghieäm

www.vi.wikipedia.org/wiki Baùch khoa toaøn thö (tieáng Vieät)
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki Baùch khoa toaøn thö (tieáng Anh)
www.sinhthaivietnam.com Sinh thaùi Vieät Nam.
www.vncreatures.net Sinh Vaät Röøng Vieät Nam.
www.thiennhien.net Thieân nhieân Vieät Nam.
www.thiennhien.org Dieãn ñaøn thieân nhieân
www.kinhtemoitruong.dk3.com
www.xangsachdep.dk3.com Moâi tröôøng
www.dominh.com Cty TNHH Ñoã Minh
http://nature.org Hieäp hoäi baûo veä thieân nhieân
www.nea.gov.vn Cuïc baûo veä moâi tröôøng.
www.ciren.gov.vn Boä taøi nguyeân moâi tröôøng.
www.khoahoc.net/sinhhoc.htm
www.monre.gov.vn Taøi nguyeân moâi tröôøng Vieät Nam.
www.vnxanh.com Coâng ngheä moâi tröôøng.
www.moste.gov.vn Boä KHCNä & MT
www.vista.gov.vn/khtn Sôû KHCN TP HCM
www.mast.gov.vn KHCN NN vaø PTNT
www.caycanhvietnam.com Caây caûnh Vieät Nam
www.bio.ioit-hcm.ac.vn Phaân vieän coâng ngheä thoâng tin
www.ncst.ac.com Vieän Khoa Hoïc vaø Coâng Ngheä VN www.cares.org.vn Trung taâm noâng nghieäp Haø Noäi.
www.khuyennong.gov.vn Cuïc khuyeán noâng
www.virila.ac.vn Vieän NC Boä Taøi Chính TNMT
www.
1.2. Nöôùc ngoaøi:
www.bioformatics.com Coâng ngheä sinh hoïc.
www.isaaa.org TT Tri Thöùc Toaøn Caàu veà Bio.
www.greenworld.org.ru

Bt Insect Resistance Technology

2007-05-06T02:38:00.000-07:00

Have you ever seen a leaf eaten off by plant pests or seen an entire harvest destroyed by insects? Plant pests cause a lot of problems to farmers and home gardeners alike. Because of this, farmers have had very little recourse other than to continually spray their plants with pesticides. Unfortunately, some of these pesticides pose health risks to people who are exposed to them.
It is for this reason that scientists sought alternative ways of dealing with plant pests.
The Bt Organism
Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) a common soil bacterium so called because it was first isolated in the Thuringia region of Germany.
Bt produces a protein, which paralyzes the larvae of some harmful insects, including the Colorado potato beetle, cotton bollworm, and the Asian and European corn borers, all of which are common plant pests with devastating effects.
Mode of Action
When ingested by the larva of the target insect, the Bt protein is activated in the gut’s alkaline condition, binds to specific receptors and then punctures the mid-gut leaving the insect unable to eat. The insect dies within a few days.
It is because of its ability to produce the insecticidal protein that much research is being done to exploit the organism’s agronomic value. To date, there are more than 200 types of Bt proteins identified with varying degrees of toxicity to some insects.
Earlier Bt Technology
Bt is easily cultured by fermentation. Thus over the last 40 years, Bt has been used as an insecticide by farmers worldwide. Organic farming in particular has benefited from Bt insecticide as it is one of the very few pesticides permitted by organic standards. Whether as granules or in liquefied form, the insecticide is applied either as spray or granules.
The efficiency of both applications are quite limited as often, the target organisms do not come in contact with the insecticide. This is because the larvae are found on the underside of leaves or have already penetrated the plant. That is why scientists working to overcome these problems found a solution in modern biotechnology.
Modern Bt Technology
Scientists have taken the Bt gene responsible for the production of the insecticidal protein from the organism and incorporated it in plants. Thus, these plants have a built-in mechanism of protection against targeted pests. The protein produced by the plants does not get washed away, nor is it destroyed by sunlight. The plant is thus protected from the bollworm or the corn borer, round the clock regardless of the situation.
Safety Aspects of Bt Technology
Effects on Human Health
So how safe is the Bt protein to non-target organisms? The specificity of Bt for its target insects is one of the characteristics that make it an ideal method of biological pest control. In fact, different strains of Bt have specific toxicity to certain target insects. The specificity rests on the fact that the toxicity of the Bt protein is receptor-mediated. This means that for an insect to be affected by the Bt protein, it must have specific receptor sites in its gut where the proteins can bind. Fortunately, humans and majority of beneficial insects do not have these receptors.
Before Bt crops are placed in the market, they must pass very stringent regulatory tests including those for toxicity and allergenicity.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) administered toxicology assessments and the Bt proteins were tested even at relatively higher dosages. According to the Extension Toxicology Network (Extoxnet), a pesticide information project of several universities in the US, “no complaints were made after 18 humans ate one gram of commercial Bt preparation daily for five days, on alternate days...Humans who ate one gram per day for three consecutive days were not poisoned or infected.” Furthermore, the protein was shown to be degraded rapidly by human gastric fluid in vitro (in laboratory conditions) (Extoxnet, 1996).
Effects on the Environment
Soil ecosystems and groundwater
The Bt protein is moderately persistent in soil and is classified as immobile as they do not move, or leach with groundwater. The proteins do not particularly persist in acidic soil conditions. When exposed to sunlight, they are short-lived as UV destroys them very rapidly.
Independent experts have conducted studies to investigate the impact of Bt crops on soil organisms and other insect species that are considered beneficial in agriculture. No adverse effects have been found on non-target soil organisms, even when these organisms were exposed to quantities of Bt far higher than what would actually occur under natural crop-growing conditions. Likewise, research done by the US-EPA revealed no changes in the soil microbiota in fields with Bt plant material or conventional plant material (Donegan, et al., 1995), or between fields of Bt and non-Bt crops (Donegan, et al., 1996).
Animals and insects
On tests conducted on dogs, guinea pigs, rats, fish, frogs, salamanders and birds, the Bt protein was found not to have any harmful effects. It is also noteworthy that no toxic effects were found on beneficial or predator insects such as honeybees and lady beetles. (Extoxnet, 1996).
In 1999, it was reported that pollen from Bt corn had a negative impact on Monarch butterfly larvae. This report raised concerns and questions about the risks of Bt plants on non-target organisms. Recent studies, however, show that Bt corn poses negligible threat to Monarch butterflies in the field. A collaborative research effort by scientists in the US and in Canada has produced information to develop a formal risk assessment of the impact of Bt corn on Monarch butterfly populations. They concluded that in most commercial hybrids, Bt expression in pollen is low, and laboratory and field studies show no acute toxic effects at any pollen density that would be encountered in the field.
Advantages of Bt Crops
Improved pest management. Insect protected Bt crops provide the farmer with season long protection against several damaging insect pests and reduce or eliminate the need for insecticide sprays. This eliminates the yield loss that results from less than optimal pest control by applied farm insecticides and it allows the farmer more time for other farm management duties.
Reduction in insecticide use. A study by the US Department of Agriculture reported that 8.2 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients were eliminated by farmers who planted Bt crops in 1998. Significant reductions have also been reported in China and in Argentina, where pesticide reductions resulting from the use of Bt cotton ranged from 60-70%.
Greater net return. Lower input costs often contribute to a higher net return compared to conventional crops. Bt cotton farmers in the US earned an incremental $99 million as a result of decreased pesticide costs and/or increased yields. Similarly, Bt cotton farmers in Argentina reported that Bt cotton generated an average incremental benefit of $65.05/ha.
Improved conditions for non-target organisms. Since Bt crops are able to defend themselves against pests, the use of chemical insecticides is significantly reduced thereby encouraging the proliferation of beneficial organisms. These beneficial organisms can help control other secondary pests, which can often become a problem when predator and parasite populations are reduced by conventional broad-spectrum insecticides.
Less mycotoxin in corn. Aside from being effective against insect pests, Bt crops have lower incidences of opportunistic microbial pathogens such as the fungus, Fusarium. This fungus produces mycotoxins that can be deadly to livestock and also cause cancer in humans.
Insect Resistance Management (IRM)
Since Bt crops are capable of season long expression of the Bt protein, precautionary steps have to be taken in order to avoid the development of insect resistance. The EPA usually requires a buffer zone, a structured refuge of non-Bt crops, that is planted in close proximity to the Bt crops.
IRM is said to be the key to sustainable use of the insecticide in both transgenic crops and Bt microbial spray formulations.
Current Status of Bt Technology
As of 2001, an estimated 12 mha of land were planted with crops containing the Bt gene. Table 1 shows countries that have commercialized Bt cotton and/or Bt corn.
Table 1: Countries that have commercialized Bt cotton and/or Bt corn

Crop
Country
Cotton
ArgentinaAustraliaChinaIndiaIndonesiaMexicoSouth AfricaUnited States
Corn (Maize)
ArgentinaCanadaEuropean UnionSouth AfricaUnited States Conclusion
Bt crops are an addition to our arsenal against plant pests. With an increasing population and decreasing arable land, it is necessary to exploit all options with as little compromise, to produce more crops. Side by side with proper agricultural practices, Bt insect resistance technology can bring many benefits.
References
2001. Essential Biosafety. Agriculture and Biotechnology Strategies, Inc.
Donegan, K.K., C.J. Palm, V.J. Fieland, L.A. Porteous, L.M. Ganio, D.L. Schaller, L.Q. Bucao, and R.J. Seidler. 1995. Changes in levels, species and DNA fingerprints of soil microorganisms associated with cotton expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki endotoxin. Applied Soil Ecology 2:111-124.
Donegan, K.K., D.L. Schaller, J.K. Stone, L.M. Ganio, G. Reed, P.B. Hamm, and R.J. Seidler. 1996. Microbial populations, fungal species diversity and plant pathogen levels in field plots of potato plants expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis endotoxin. Transgenic Research 5:25-35.
The Council for Biotechnology Information. 2001. Bt Protein in Soil. http://www.whybiotech.com/pdf/Bt_Protein_in_Soil.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. EPA and USDA position paper on insect resistance management in Bt crops. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ biopesticides/otherdocs/bt_position_paper_618.htm
Extension Toxicology Network. 1996. Pesticide Information Profile, Bacillus thuringiensis.
James, C. 2001. Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000. ISAAA Briefs No. 23. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
Monarch butterfly studies. http://www.pnas.org/papbyrecent.shtml

GM Crops and the Environment

2007-05-06T02:25:00.000-07:00

The debate over the environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops is growing increasingly complex, intense, and extremely emotional. It is further complicated as new research is published. Are GM crops safe for the environment?
This Pocket K attempts to shed light on this issue by addressing basic questions regarding GM crops and the environment.
Assessing the environmental impact of GM crops is often difficult as many factors are considered. Some scientists focus on the potential risks of GM crops, while others emphasize their potential benefits. Just what are the issues and how can we address them?
What is the current environmental situation?
A growing population, global warming, and loss of biodiversity are having a tremendous impact on our environment.
By the year 2020, there will be 8 billion people living on this planet. This means that in the next 20 years, population is expected to increase by 2 billion. Feeding these people will mean massive changes in the production, distribution, and stability of food products.
Unfortunately, cropland and population are not uniformly distributed. For example, China has only 7% of the world’s productive land but 20-25% of the world’s population. This situation is aggravated by diminishing cropland due to erosion, fewer renewable resources, less water, and a reduced population working the land.
The destruction of wilderness and forests and continued use of coal and oil have led to a steady increase in carbon dioxide levels resulting in global warming. It is predicted that the average global temperature will rise by 2-3 ºC by the year 2100 with increasing fluctuations in weather conditions. Climate change can radically alter rainfall patterns and therefore require the migration of people and shifts in agricultural practices.
Further, an increasing human population is responsible for wilderness destruction, water quality problems, and diversion of water. The loss of habitat has resulted in many species being displaced.
Thus, to conserve forests, habitats, and biodiversity, it is necessary to ensure that future food requirements come only from cropland currently in use.
What are the environmental benefits of GM crops?
One of the significant environmental benefits of GM crops is the dramatic reduction in pesticide use, with the size of the reduction varying between crops and introduced trait.
In 2000, total global reduction in pesticide use was estimated at 22.3 million kg of formulated product as a result of using herbicide tolerant GM soybean, seed rape, cotton and corn varieties and insect protected GM cotton; the deployment of insect-resistant Bt varieties was estimated to have reduced the total world use of insecticides by 14%.1
In the USA, adoption of GM crops resulted in pesticide use reduction of 45.6 million pounds in 2001 (Gianessi et al. 2002).2
Use of Bt cotton in China has led to a 60-80% reduction in the use of foliar insecticides3 and an estimated 15,000 tons reduction in pesticide use.4
Herbicide tolerant soybean farmers in North America are able to spray less to control weeds and use no-till or conservation-till cultivation systems.5,6,7
Reduced use of pesticides can significantly decrease their effects on water quality through run-off and leaching of residues into surface and groundwater. For example, run-off water from US fields planted with Bt cotton was virtually free of insecticides during a four-year US Department of Agriculture study.
GM crops can significantly improve crop yields, so that more food can be grown on less land area. For example, in the US, 66 million bushels of corn were saved from the corn borer in 1999.6
How are GM crops assessed for environmental safety?
GM crops are thoroughly evaluated for environmental effects before entering the marketplace. They are assessed by many stakeholders in accordance with principles developed by environmental experts around the world.8,9,10 Among those who conduct risk assessment procedures are the developers of GM crops, regulatory bodies, and academic scientists.
Most countries use similar risk assessment procedures in considering the interactions between a GM crop and its environment. These include information about the role of the introduced gene, and the effect that it brings into the recipient plant. Also addressed are specific questions about unintentional effects such as:
impact on non-target organisms in the environment
whether the modified crop might persist in the environment longer than usual or invade new habitats
likelihood and consequences of a gene being transferred unintentionally from the modified crop to other species
What are the potential risks?
Potential of the introduced genes to outcross to weedy relatives as well as the potential to create weedy species
Outcrossing is the unintentional breeding of a domestic crop with a related plant. A major environmental concern associated with GM crops is their potential to create new weeds through outcrossing with wild relatives or simply by persisting in the wild themselves.
The potential for the above to happen can and is assessed prior to introduction and is monitored after the crop is planted as well. A ten-year study initiated in 1990 demonstrated that there is no increased risk of invasiveness or persistence in wild habitats for GM crops (oilseed rape, potatoes, corn, and sugarbeet) and traits (herbicide tolerance, insect protection) tested when compared to their unmodified counterparts.11 The researchers stated, however, that these results “do not mean that genetic modifications could not increase weediness or invasiveness of crop plants, but they do indicate that productive crops are unlikely to survive for long outside cultivation.” It is therefore important, as regulations require, to evaluate individual GM crops on a case-by-case basis.
Direct effects on non-target organisms
In May 1999, it was reported that pollen from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-insect resistant corn had a negative impact on Monarch butterfly larvae. This report raised concerns and questions about potential risks to Monarchs and perhaps other non-target organisms. Some scientists, however, urged caution over the interpretation of the study because it reflects a different situation than that in the environment. The author indicated “Our study was conducted in the lab and, while it raises an important issue, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions about the risk to Monarch populations in the field solely on these initial results.”
A report from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that the “data provide a weight of evidence indicating no unreasonable adverse effects of Bt proteins expressed in plants to non-target wildlife” Furthermore, a collaborative research effort by North American scientists has concluded that in most commercial hybrids, Bt expression in pollen is low, and laboratory and field studies show no acute toxic effects at any pollen density that would be encountered in the field..13
Development of insect resistance
Another concern over the use of Bt crops is that it will lead to the development of insect resistance to Bt. Insect resistance management plans have been developed by government, industry, and scientists to address this issue.
These plans include a requirement that every field of insect-resistant crops must have an associated refuge of non-GM crops in order for the insects to develop without selection to the insect resistant varieties.
Additional resistance management practices are also being developed by scientists all over the world.
Conclusion
The environmental and ecological concerns potentially associated with GM crops are evaluated prior to their release. In addition, monitoring and good agricultural systems are in place to detect and minimize potential risks. Comparisons among GM, conventional, and other agricultural practices, such as organic farming, will bring to light the relative risks and benefits of adopting GM crops.

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

2007-05-06T02:16:00.000-07:00

In 1994, the first genetically modified food crop, Calgene's Flavr-Savr tomato, was produced and consumed in an industrialized country. Since that time, genetically modified (GM) crops have been rapidly adopted worldwide reflecting the satisfaction of growers. While advances in biotechnology have great potential to improve human well-being, the technology must be developed with adequate safety measures. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a legally binding global protocol that seeks to contribute to ensuring the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) created through modern biotechnology.
What is the Protocol's objective?
Article 1 of the Protocol states that it aims to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements?. In short, it seeks to protect biodiversity from the potential risks of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology.
What does the Protocol cover?
The Protocol covers the ?transboundary movement, transit, handling and use of all living modified organisms that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account risks to human health?.
It does not cover: Products derived from LMOs (e.g. paper from GM trees)
LMOs, which are pharmaceuticals for humans that are addressed by other relevant international agreements or organizations
What is the Biosafety Protocol?
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a legally binding protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It was named in honor of Cartagena, Colombia, where negotiations were expected to conclude in February 1999. One year later, on January 29, 2000, the Protocol was finalized and adopted in Montreal, Canada by unanimous consent with 135 countries present.
What does the Biosafety Protocol do?
It assists developing countries in building their capacity for managing modern biotechnology
It creates an advanced informed agreement (AIA) procedure that requires exporters to seek consent from importing countries before the first shipment of LMOs meant to be introduced into the environment (e.g. seeds for planting, fish for release, and microorganisms for bioremediation)
It establishes an internet-based ?Biosafety Clearing-House? to help countries exchange scientific, technical, environmental and legal information about LMOs.
It requires bulk shipments of LMO commodities, such as corn or soybeans that are intended to be used as food, feed or for processing, to be accompanied by documentation stating that such shipments ?may contain? LMOs and are ?not intended for intentional introduction into the environment?.
The Protocol includes a clause that makes clear the Parties? intent that the agreement does not alter the rights and obligations of governments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) or other existing international agreements.
What does the Biosafety Protocol Not do?
The Protocol does not address food safety issues. This is addressed by experts in other international fora.
The Protocol does not require segregation of bulk shipments of commodities that may contain living modified organisms.
It does not require consumer product labeling.
It does not subject shipments of bulk commodities to the Protocol?s AIA procedure. The Protocol will enter into force 90 days after it is ratified by the 50th state or regional economic integration unit.
As of June 2002, 103 countries have signed but only 21 have ratified. When a country signs the Protocol, it signifies its general support for the principles in the Protocol and commits to take the steps necessary to consider and pursue its ratification. The Protocol only becomes legally binding when a country deposits an instrument of ratification with the United Nations.
Key Features of the Protocol
Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA)
The Protocol's main mechanism is its Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) requirement. It is a procedure that must be followed before the first intentional transboundary movement of an LMO into the environment of the importing country. The exporter must provide a notification to the importing country containing detailed information about the LMO, previous risk assessments of the LMO and its regulatory status in the exporting country. The importing country must acknowledge receiving the information within 90 days and whether the notifier should proceed under a domestic regulatory system or under the Protocol procedure. In either case, the importing country must decide whether to allow the import, with or without conditions or deny it within 270 days.
What is not subject to the AIA requirement?
Consecutive shipments. The Protocol?s AIA only covers first time shipments.
LMOs not intended for release into the environment such as commodities, LMOs in transit, and LMOs destined for contained use.
Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)
The BCH is a website administered by the Secretariat to the Convention (http://bch.biodiv.org). It was established to: 1) facilitate the exchange of scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on, and experience with LMOs; and 2) assist Parties to implement the Protocol. Examples of information contained in the BCH include: any existing laws, regulations, or guidelines for implementation of the Protocol, summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs, and final decisions regarding the importation or release of LMOs.
Risk Assessment
The Protocol requires that decisions on proposed imports be based on risk assessments.
Risk assessments must be undertaken in a scientific manner based on recognized risk assessment techniques, taking into account advice and guidelines developed by relevant international organizations.
Lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus must not necessarily be interpreted as indicating a particular level or risk, an absence or risk, or an acceptable risk.
Risks associated with LMOs or products thereof should be considered in the context of risks posed by the non-modified recipients or parental organisms in the likely potential receiving environment.
Risk assessment should be carried out on a case by case basis.
Capacity Building
The Protocol promotes international cooperation to help developing countries acquire resources and capacity to use biotechnology safely and regulate it efficiently. It does this by encouraging member governments to assist with scientific and technical training to promote the transfer of technology, knowledge and financial resources. Governments are also expected to facilitate greater involvement of the private sector.
Public Awareness
Member governments must commit themselves to promoting public awareness, insuring public access to information, and public consultation. The Protocol recognizes that national measures are important to make its procedures effective. Nations must also take measures to prevent illegal shipments or accidental releases of LMOs.
Use of Terms
Living modified organism (LMO): Any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology
Modern biotechnology: The application of: In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles or Fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. (http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/protocol.asp)

Vietnam expects to produce cloned cattle by 2015

2007-05-06T02:03:00.000-07:00

Biotechnology program, a 2006 - 2010 top priority, will produce 3-5 heads of cattle by cloning by 2015, according to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD).
The biotechnology program also aims to generate functional biological products including tree-specialized microbiological fertilizers, cellulose products, high speed garbage, biological pesticides, anti poultry flu and human communication diseases vaccine "The agricultural sector is also striving to examine the gene structures of native trees and their related species. Through biotechnology, at least 10 new species will be produced from these native breeds", said MoARD.
Biotechnology development has been confirmed by Deputy Prime Minister Pham Gia Khiem at a recent scientific conference as a great breakthrough in Vietnam's agricultural development in the 21st century.
Therefore, biotechnology will be high on the agenda at the government's regular meeting in July. MoARD must report to the government on incoming biotechnology programs.
(Source: VNA 25/07/05)