April headlines

Return to April article index

'GM crops are no better than conventional ones'

April 9
Times of India

Mumbal: In a 10-year research study financed by a consortium of biotechnology companies, genetically modified crops are found to have survived no better than their conventional cousins, easing fears, somewhat, that superplants could stray from farm fields and crowd out natural species.

The study, sponsored by Monsanto and Zeneca Ag Products Inc. was conducted at Imperial College in England, and looked at soybeans, oilseed rape, potatoes, corn and sugar beets. All the plants were engineered in the laboratory to resist insects and were planted from seed in 12 habitats around Britain, ranging from woodlands to coastal areas.

The study has a significant impact in India, what with environmentalists warning against genetically engineered crops, arguing that they may crowd out natural species, cause health risks in humans, pass on traits such as herbicide resistance to weeds and kill beneficial insects.

Moreover, three of India's highest yielding wheat varieties have recently been genetically modified using a gene brought from Australia to make them tolerant to herbicide. The genetically altered wheat is growing under containment conditions at the Pantnagar Agricultural University. After BT cotton and golden rice, wheat is the next big story on the GM front here.

Skeptics have also alluded to the fact that transgenic crops are invasive weeds under disguise. The recent study denies that, claiming that neither the conventional nor the modified plants increased in numbers beyond their first plantings and the modified plants never lasted significantly longer than the conventional ones.

``In fact,'' the study notes, ``all of the genetically engineered corn, oilseed rape and sugar beet died out within four years. The modified potatoes eventually died out, too.''

The study looked only at whether the genetically engineered plants would have such a survival advantage that they would take over the habitats of conventional plants.

``For those members of the public who have feared that all transgenic crops are going to be terrible invasive weeds, this research shows that simply is not the case,'' claimed Norm Ellstrand, professor of genetics at the University of California. ``But for those of us who have been studying the risks of transgenic plants, it does not allay all our fears.''

He cautioned that more research was needed on other modifications, such as resistance to drought or pests, that might improve a plant's chances of survival. This fact was underscored by an official from Monsanto's ecological technology center.

A hot-button topic in Europe, genetically modified crops are widely used in the United States, accounting for almost three-quarters of the land planted in cotton, more than half the soybean acreage and one-fifth of the corn acreage, according to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. In India, GM seeds are being tested at various levels by multinational firms.

Biotech bears fruit for farmers, not consumers

Agriculture: Deterred by public resistance to genetically engineered foods, firms are concentrating on staple crops that make money

April 8
Los Angeles Times

    Biotechnology was supposed to feed the world. It was supposed to usher in an era of better-tasting fruits and vegetables engineered to be more nutritious--loaded with protein or pumped up with extra vitamins. The industry appears to be making good on that first promise, but seven years after the Flavr Savr tomato launched the agricultural biotechnology revolution in this country there's little in the produce aisle to show for it. No protein-packed potatoes or palate-pleasing tomatoes.
     Instead, the major biotechnology companies have rolled out a series of pest-repelling and herbicide-resistant crops that cater to Midwestern farmers rather than consumers.
     In a remarkable miscalculation, the industry counted on consumers to recognize biotechnology's rich potential and champion it. Instead it has found consumers to be the single biggest obstacle to advancement.
     Indeed, "natural" foods have gained unexpected consumer support in recent years as mistrust of bioengineered foods has grown.
     Industry leaders insist that consumers haven't embraced biotechnology because they don't understand it. But many scientists scoff at that notion.
     "Computers have been accepted in our lives, not because we understand how they work, but because they are useful," said Robert Goodman, a biologist at the University of Wisconsin and a former executive vice president at Calgene Inc. The biotechnology industry needs to tell consumers "what's in it for them," he said.
     Modern biotechnology is based on inserting a gene from one type of plant or animal into another, which is different from century-old methods of cross-breeding.
     Calgene invented the Flavr Savr tomato, using gene-splicing technology to create a slow-ripening tomato that promised to remain firm, flavorful and juicy weeks after it was shipped.
     When consumers bit into them, however, they decided the tomatoes more closely resembled the standard cardboard-tasting fruit from the supermarket. For their part, farmers were unimpressed by the tomatoes' quality and deterred by the expense.
     If the research pipeline of biotechnology companies is any indication, there's not much for consumers to look forward to--just more commodity crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat engineered with genetic traits to help farmers make money.
     "I think the pipeline is just down to dribs and drabs, and what's in there doesn't look too compelling," said Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.
     Biotechnology executives say it's too complex and costly to create innovative fruits and vegetables that farmers might not plant in large numbers and consumers might not be willing to pay more for, or even accept.
     However, by ignoring consumers completely, experts say, companies such as Monsanto Co. and Syngenta have helped fuel the growing uneasiness with genetically modified food.
     Groups in several states are pushing for bans on the planting of genetically modified crops. Public support also appears to be growing for labeling food that contains genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
     A new study by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that 75% of U.S. respondents said it was somewhat or very important to them to know whether their food has been genetically altered. And nearly 60% of respondents said they didn't want genetically engineered crops introduced into the food supply. Many of these people, however, weren't aware that GMOs already are in more than half the products on supermarket shelves.

     Holding Back on New Products
     Until consumer acceptance of biotechnology grows, many companies are cutting their investment in research and holding back on product introductions.
     Monsanto says its new-product pipeline this decade mainly will introduce plants designed to resist its popular Roundup weed killer, as well as more insect-, disease- and drought-resistant plants.
     Only in 2007 and 2008 is Monsanto likely to begin introducing soybeans with more protein, fewer calories and no saturated fat and corn with more protein--products that could be marketed to obese people or those with high cholesterol. And researchers say these products are the result of research done more than 15 years ago.
     Monsanto officials say they remain committed to developing products that appeal to consumers and deny they have narrowed the scope of their research to focus on only a couple of traits. "We spend a very significant portion of our [research] budget on breeding crops with improved nutrition," said Robert Fraley, Monsanto's chief technical officer. "The absolute truth is it's just more complicated and takes more time."
     Analysts, though, say U.S. biotechnology companies are just coasting, waiting out the protests against genetically altered food after last year's StarLink debacle, in which a potentially allergenic animal feed corn, developed by Aventis CropScience, made its way into the food supply, prompting the recall of hundreds of products.
     In 1994, when the Food and Drug Administration registered the nation's first genetically modified food, the Flavr Savr tomato, hopes were high that after a first wave of crops designed for farmers, great strides could be made in improving the quality and nutritional value of popular foods, said Peggy Lemaux, a molecular biologist at UC Berkeley.
     But several years later, it was clear that the nation's largest companies weren't going to advance the technology. They were content to focus on a few traits that appealed to farmers and that in some cases helped sell other products--Monsanto's Roundup being one example.
     And because there are fewer biotechnology companies now after a series of industry mergers and acquisitions, less research is being funded, scientists say.
     Many cite the demise of the Flavr Savr tomato as a turning point. After it flopped because of lackluster taste and quality, projects stalled. In the ensuing, often heated debate over the safety of bioengineered foods, decisions were made to shelve or delay projects.
     "Some of the cleverest stuff that was started back then never made it to market," the University of Wisconsin's Goodman said, including the corn with enhanced protein, which was developed in the mid-1980s but is not scheduled for release until 2007.
     And some plants, such as golden rice, designed to have increased levels of beta carotene and other carotenoids the body converts to vitamin A, will be distributed only in developing countries such as India and the Philippines, where the rice is being tested.
     Syngenta has the commercial rights to the product for North America and Japan, but company executives say they have no plans to bring it to the U.S.
     Getting a bioengineered product to market is a difficult proposition, taking about seven years from field trials to application for FDA approval and costing tens of millions of dollars, industry officials say.
     Even after years of field trials, companies must ensure that products won't harm the environment, don't contain high levels of natural plant toxins and won't cause allergic reactions. An example of one product that failed to make it through this testing gantlet is a soybean that Pioneer Hi-Bred International was developing using a gene from a Brazil nut to boost its nutritional value. After a series of skin-prick tests yielded allergic reactions in humans, the product was killed before it made it to market.
     And seed companies say the task of proving a product fit for human consumption is getting harder and more expensive.
     "Certain regulatory requirements have become even more stringent," said Peter Matlock, a marketing director for Seminis Inc. of Oxnard, the nation's largest vegetable seed company. "What this means is it will take more money, resources and time to develop products."
     Most of those new products won't be found in the produce aisle until late in this decade. Biotechnology companies have chosen to focus on staple crops such as corn and soybeans because they are planted in such large quantities and used as an ingredient in so many processed foods, scientists say.
     The fresh fruit and vegetable business is smaller and more fragmented and therefore less lucrative. "The people doing the engineering are companies looking after a huge market," Goodman said. "You've got 80 million acres of corn. The acreage of tomatoes can be measured in the hundreds of thousands."

     Consumers Willing to Pay for Flavor
     Still, a few studies show that consumers are willing to pay more for a tomato that tastes better, said Ken Gross, a researcher at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Center in Maryland. Many already are paying higher prices for more flavorful traditional versions such as vine-ripened hothouse tomatoes or small grape tomatoes.
     Less than 1% of Seminis' revenue comes from bioengineered products. Matlock said Seminis is still committed to creating new plants but the company is using its knowledge of plant genomics mainly to assist in traditional cross-breeding.
     Syngenta, formed late last year from the spin-off and merger of the agricultural chemical units of pharmaceutical companies Novartis and AstraZeneca, is using tiny genetic markers to identify desirable genes, such as ones that produce higher yields or bigger fruit.
     This speeds up plant breeding and makes cross-breeding more precise, said Jeff Rosihan, Syngenta's global coordinator for technology scouting.
     And it could prove more palatable to consumers.
     The recent mapping of the rice and wild mustard genomes is expected to advance the centuries-old process of selective breeding by providing a framework for decoding the genetic instructions in many other grains and vegetables. With this knowledge, scientists can work on several groups of genes at once that affect different plant functions, such as ripening and size.
     But UC Berkeley's Lemaux warned that progress will continue only if universities and private companies work together and share information rather than try to own it.
     "When you wind up patenting all the tools you need to get to a [new] end product, you hamstring the whole process" of innovation, she said. "We need a basket filled with all the technologies and [to] let companies focus on patenting the end product."
     Eventually, researchers at the Salk Institute in La Jolla are hoping to load all this information on plant genes and their functions into a computer database so researchers can create plants that adjust to any growing condition.
     Agricultural biotechnology may seem a disappointment, experts say. But it's just too early to tell how influential it will be in shaping the nation's food supply.
     "Ag biotech's promise was just made prematurely," Goodman said. It "involves a lot of science that hasn't been done yet."

FDA proposes biotechnology rules and GMO labeling

GNC offers non-GMO labeled soy products in 4,500+ stores 

April 6
General Nutrition Centers press release

The Food and Drug Administration recently proposed a rule to require food developers to notify the FDA at least 120 days in advance of their intent to market a food or animal feed developed through biotechnology. Food developers would also be required to provide information to demonstrate that the product is as safe as its conventional counterpart. This process is now voluntary.

In related news, a recent survey, conducted by the International Food Information Council, found that 58% of the 1,000 Americans surveyed on whether or not they supported the labeling of foods developed using biotechnology, felt foods should be identified as such.

``General Nutrition Centers voluntarily labels its products that are non-GMO derived because we believe in 'truth in labeling,' and GNC will continue to provide its consumers with the essential information so they can make the right decisions for their health needs,'' said Roberta Gaffga, GNC's Vice President of Public Relations and Communications.

GNC offers soy products that are labeled to reflect non GMO-derived ingredients, including the Natural Brand Non-GMO Soy Isoflavones in tablet form and Non-GMO Soy Protein Powder.

``GNC considers soy an important source of protein, and we are committed to bringing a variety of natural soy products to our customers to make it easy for people to realize its many benefits,'' Gaffga said. ``The FDA has also determined that 25 grams of soy protein per day, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may help reduce the risk of heart disease,'' she added.

``More and more supermarkets and drug stores are carrying more soy-based products, but GNC devotes an entire section of each store to high-protein soy products and supplements,'' Gaffga said. ``Our Soy Expert Centers feature products, including ready-to-mix powders, beverages, flour, nuts, bars and dietary supplements, that are easy to work into a daily routine.''

General Nutrition Companies, Inc. (GNC), based in Pittsburgh, PA is the largest nationwide specialty retailer of vitamin, mineral and herbal supplements, sports nutrition as well as many personal care and related products. GNC operates more than 4,500 retail outlets throughout the United States and 26 foreign markets including Puerto Rico, Canada and Mexico. GNC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Numico N.V., a worldwide market leader in specialized nutrition that includes infant and clinical nutrition and nutritional supplements. Headquartered in Zoetermeer, The Netherlands, Royal Numico's operations include manufacturing facilities in more than 50 countries and research facilities in The Netherlands, Germany, the U.K. and Australia. In addition to GNC, Royal Numico's family of companies includes Rexall Sundown, Inc., a major supplier to the mass market based in Boca Raton, FL., sports nutrition leaders Met-Rx and Worldwide Nutrition and the multi-level marketing operation of Enrich International.

Americans wary of cloning, unaware of genomics

April 5
Reuters

While scientists may still debate the ethics of human and animal cloning, the vast majority of Americans are decidedly against it, results of a recent nationwide survey suggest.

Ninety-two percent of respondents said they would not support the cloning of even a favorite person and 86% said they would not agree to the cloning of a favorite pet.

However, many also said they would support cloning that is done for purely scientific reasons, findings show. Half of the 1,000 individuals surveyed said they would support reproducing human cells in the interest of science and slightly more--55%--said they would support the cloning of animal cells for the same reason.

The survey, Public Awareness in the Age of Genomics, was performed by Harris Interactive on behalf of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

``At the core of the Museum's mission is a deep commitment to improving science literacy on the broadest possible scale,'' museum president Ellen V. Futter said in a statement.

``We have just entered what many scientists are calling 'the century of biology,' characterized by powerful new understandings of genetic identity and biological possibility,'' she added.

Yet these new understandings do not seem to extend to the lay public, many of whom are ignorant of recent advances in genetics and genomics research, the survey findings show.

Less than 30% of respondents said they had ever heard of the Human Genome Project while only 36% said they had been exposed to information about genomics research in the past 3 months.

Upon subsequent questioning, however, and after being given an explanation of the project, 84% of respondents said they believed such work would have a positive impact. Eighty percent further agreed that genomics should receive at least as much funding as space or technology research, but 92% said such research should be ``at least somewhat'' regulated.

This need for regulation seemed to be reinforced by other survey findings.

For example, although nearly 8 in every 10 individuals surveyed approved of using gene replacement therapy to improve an individual's health, more than half said it should be used if it is the best treatment, while nearly 40% disagreed, saying it should be used only as a last resort, in the absence of alternative treatment.

On the question of genetically modified food, 40% of respondents said they had never heard of the concept and 70% said they were unaware of ever having eaten genetically altered food. Nearly half of the survey participants said they were uncomfortable about the idea.

However, genetically altered ingredients, though unlisted on product labels--can be found in hundreds of products in the US. Consequently, nearly 80% of respondents said that it would be impossible to avoid eating genetically modified food.

Survey results were released in April to coincide with the anniversary of James Watson and Francis Crick's discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.  

Greenpeace urges strict organic policy

April 5
Bangkok Post

Thailand will lose out in the world market if it embraces a pro-genetically modified organisms policy, Greenpeace campaigners said yesterday.

``More than 30 countries strongly oppose GM products. Some have already issued a law on labeling imported materials,`` said Jim Thomas, campaigner from the Greenpeace British office.

``Among these are Thailand's big markets for food product exports.`` He said GM food not only is bad for the environment and public health, but would also cause Thailand to lose its share of exports.

He cited the case of Thai canned tuna, which was rejected and embargoed by Saudi Arabia last year, fearing the tuna was packed in GM soya oil.

Thai tuna has been turned back by Egypt, Greece and the Netherlands because of similar concerns.

Greenpeace yesterday released its report ``The Lost Markets of Genetic Engineering`` while pointing out that the US has lost its entire soya export market to Norway due to public opposition to GM products.

Japan, the world leading corn importer, has also refused to buy US corn because of doubts about possible GM contamination.

Mr Thomas added that GM-free countries stand to benefit more in the world food market.

``For example, Carrefour and a number of big supermarkets in Europe are now paying premium prices to GM-free food producers. ``However, Mr Thomas said government policy on GM products is not as important as consumer demand.

``It doesn't matter what the government says. If the consumers reject it, the country could become GM-free. ``Auaiporn Suthonthanyakorn, of Greenpeace Southeast Asia, expressed support for the Agriculture Ministry's plan on organic farming.

She said the policy could lead Thailand to become GM-free.

Ms Auaiporn also revealed that, at the end of last year, Greenpeace had sent 30 food products, selling in Thai supermarkets, to test for GM contamination at an independent laboratory in Hong Kong. The organization will announce the results next week.

GM presence in seeds inevitable, EU groups says

April 5
Reuters

Rome - The presence of unauthorized genetically modified (GM) material in seeds is inevitable, an EU scientific committee has said.

The Scientific Committee on Plants (SCP) also said the EU may have to revise its threshold for the compulsory labeling of food that may unintentionally contain GM material.

Any such a revision would appear be upwards, according to sources familiar with the report.

"The Committee is of the opinion that a zero level of unauthorized GM seed is unobtainable in practice," it said in a report dated March 13.

"The SCP is of the opinion that with the scientific knowledge currently available the thresholds of 0.3 percent for cross-pollinated crops and 0.5 percent for self-pollinated ...crops (being considered by the Commission)...will only be achieved under ideal seed production conditions," the SCP said.

"Achieving the 0.3 percent and 0.5 percent thresholds will become increasingly difficult as GM crop production increases in Europe," it added.

In October 1999 the European Commission ruled that all food products sold in the EU must be labeled as containing GM material if at least one of their ingredients contained at least one percent GM DNA or protein.

Below that threshold, there is no labeling requirement.

"In due course the one percent threshold set by the (European) Commission may have to be revised," the SCP said.

The European Commission is reviewing the opinions of the committee and has not yet reacted to the report, entitled "Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants concerning the adventitious presence of GM seeds in conventional seeds."

"ZERO TOLERANCE" CHALLENGE

The opinion of the committee would clash with the "zero tolerance" policy of Italian authorities, for example, who last week seized seeds suspected of containing unauthorized GM material from U.S. biotech group Monsanto.

Following the seizures, Italian Farm Minister Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, warning of possible "genetic pollution" of agriculture due to the risk of spread of GM material by cross-pollination, ordered checks of 21 seed companies.

Pecoraro Scanio, a member of the Greens party and a staunch opponent of GM foods, has asked Milan authorities to suspend Monsanto's seed import license because he said the company had imported seeds containing GM material.

The use of GM seeds in open fields is forbidden by law in Italy due to worries over their possible health and environmental impact.

Monsanto has insisted it conformed to regulations, and said it is usual for minimal traces of genetic material to contaminate seeds in the production process.

The Bologna-based Italian Seed Association sent a letter to Pecoraro Scanio in October saying it was not possible to guarantee seeds wholly free of genetic material.

British Columbia proposes mandatory GM food labels

April 5
Reuters

Victoria - British Columbia has proposed to become the first jurisdiction in North America to require warning labels on thousands of food products that include genetically modified ingredients.

"People have a fundamental right to know what they are eating," Attorney General Graeme Bowbrick said of the Canadian province's planned law, which threatens violators with fines and prison sentences.

Canadian federal regulations require labeling only if the genetic modifications substantially change the nature of a food product or introduce allergens.

Bowbrick said the British Columbia law, introduced this week, will not receive final passage until consumers and the food industry have had a chance to comment, but an industry executive quickly cast doubt on its effectiveness.

"Because there is no health and safety issue, the crops are not always segregated. That only leaves the option to put things that are not really useful to consumers like 'May contain'," Cruikshank said.

The law provides for the appointment of an advisory panel to develop the labeling program. Farmers have turned to genetically modified plants -- derided as "frankenfoods" by critics -- in order to use fewer pesticides or herbicides, and to reduce costs.

Cruikshank said a task force that includes industry and environmental groups is already working on the issue of voluntary labeling for GM foods and is expected to have proposals ready by the fall.

Canada has had national standards for organic foods since 1999 and it would be "next to impossible" for British Columbia as a province to implement a policy, said Myles Frosst, head of the Canadian Agri-Food Marketing Council.

Frosst said producers and grocers are working seriously on the voluntary labeling program because they know there are consumers who will pay a premium for unmodified foods.

"There isn't a farmer or a retailer or a processor in the country who is not trying to meet that demand," Frosst said.

The labeling measure comes as British Columbia's New Democratic Party (NDP) government faces an election, which it is widely expected to lose to the opposition Liberals. The left-leaning NDP has been actively courting the environmental vote.

Liberal leader Gordon Campbell said his party would consider the public response to the measure if it forms the next government. The provincial election must be called by June 28.