April headlines

Return to April article index

Splicing the sting out of bugs

Health: Genetic altering of insects and bacteria could prevent them from transmitting diseases such as malaria. But ultimate effects are unpredictable

April 9
Los Angeles Times

ATLANTA -- Charles Beard's recipe for stopping the kissing bug, a tropical pest that kills 50,000 people each year, calls for ammonia, ink and guar gum. The result is an odorous goop that resembles the bug dung that, unpleasant as it may seem, happens to be a vital meal for young kissing bugs.
     But Beard adds something else to his faux feces that could prove to be even more noxious. It is genetically engineered bacteria that, once ingested, render the kissing bug unable to pass along its deadly disease.
     Now, a world that is already debating the safety of gene-spliced foods is about to meet a new class of genetically engineered organisms: modified bugs. Beard's creation is just one in a series of plans to turn insects and bacteria into warriors against disease and crop pests.
     This summer, scientists hope to start the first U.S. field tests on a gene-spliced insect--a version of a moth that chews through $24 million worth of U.S. cotton plants each year. Researchers are also trying to create mosquitoes that cannot carry malaria, which still kills 1 million a year, or West Nile fever, which is spreading across the United States. On the drawing board are ticks that cannot carry Lyme disease or Rocky Mountain spotted fever. Although the work is advancing quickly, questions remain about which U.S. agencies would monitor the new organisms.
     If released in the wild, scientists say, a properly engineered bug would spread its disease-defusing trait to its wild cousins, protecting a whole community or region. Public health officials say the bugs could be a crucial new weapon against often-deadly diseases such as malaria, which has built resistance to drugs and pesticides and has reemerged in places where it was once defeated.
     "The situation is awfully bleak out there," said Barry Beaty, an insect specialist at Colorado State University. "A lot of people are dying. We need new ways to respond to the problem."
     But if much of the world is anxious about genetically engineered foods, then modified bugs are sure to set off alarms as well. "Once you release an insect, it flies, and you can't control its distribution in the environment," cautioned Svata Louda, a University of Nebraska plant ecologist. "That's just one of the things that makes ecologists apprehensive about new versions of an insect."
     Critics also ask whether an engineered bug gene might mutate over time into something dangerous, or whether it would jump to an unintended insect species. Another question: Given that bugs travel freely, how many people in an area would have to give consent before gene-spliced bugs were released?
     Scientists say they have kept these questions well in mind over the last decade. But it is only now, thanks to funding from such heavyweights as the U.S. government and the World Health Organization, that they have accomplished enough in the lab to start thinking about conducting field tests that would produce some answers.
     In London this June, researchers from around the world will hash out basic scientific questions about field trials--where they might be conducted, what data should be collected and how they should be monitored. The meeting is sponsored by the WHO, the National Institutes of Health and London's Imperial College.
     At the same time, U.S. officials say they are taking some early, tentative steps to sort out which agency should make sure that the new bugs pose no harm to people or the environment.
     In some cases, jurisdiction seems clear. In July, for example, scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and UC Riverside hope to start the first field test of a gene-spliced insect, the pink bollworm moth, a bane to cotton growers. Because the Agriculture Department itself has authority over plant pests, it has claimed jurisdiction over the field trial.
     The scientists want to place 2,350 gene-altered moths in a large mesh cage in an Arizona cotton field. Their long-term plan is to insert a lethal gene into the moth that would be passed to their offspring, wiping out the next generation of insects. But in their first field trial, the scientists will use only a marker gene and watch how it affects moth behavior.
     Robert Rose, a USDA official charged with assessing the scientists' plan, said he is considering the stability of the mesh cage and the fitness of altered moths to survive in the wild. Only sterile moths would be put into the cage, he said, a step that aims to diminish their effect on the environment if they escape.
     Federal jurisdiction is less clear over other bugs now being developed. A "talking points" document by the NIH says "there are gaps" in the existing law covering field tests.
     An antimalaria mosquito, for example, would not be considered a plant pest and therefore would probably not fall under USDA jurisdiction, Rose said. But officials at the Environmental Protection Agency say it is not clear that they would oversee the mosquitoes, either.
     Beard, a parasitic-disease specialist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says he consulted the CDC's own biosafety committee about his plans for the kissing bug. The bug has infected 14 million people in Central and South America with Chagas disease, which causes heart and digestive problems that kill 50,000 a year.
     Kissing bugs hide in the thatch huts common in the developing world, and they feed on the blood of people and animals. But the bugs cannot live on blood alone. They must also consume bacteria, Rhodococcus rhodnii, which they pick up from the dung of their parents.
     Beard has produced a gene-altered version of the bacteria and loaded it into his fake dung. Once the bug eats the dung, the bacteria attack and kill any Chagas disease agent that the bug is also carrying.
     "We've tested this concept in jars. Now we want to test it in a place that's more like the field," Beard said recently near his CDC office outside Atlanta.
     He swept open the door to a greenhouse to show his plan. Inside, he had built a protective mesh tent, and then a second mesh tent inside the first. Within that, he had built a small thatch hut, the kind that might be found in Honduras or Guatemala.
     Within weeks, Beard and his research partner, Dr. Ravi Durvasula of Yale University, plan to seed the hut with the fake dung, then release a handful of kissing bugs. They want to study how the altered bacteria flow through the kissing bug population. Like the moth researchers, Beard is using bacteria that carry only a marker gene, not the gene designed to attack Chagas disease. The tents are meant to stop the kissing bugs from escaping.
     Agriculture officials in California also have high hopes for gene-altered insects, as they continue the battle against the Mediterranean fruit fly.
     State and federal officials control the crop-eating pest by flooding the environment with sterile males, which crowd out wild males in the competition for females and yet produce no offspring. Officials release about 500 million sterile flies each week in Southern California, at an annual cost of $15.8 million. A similar program in Florida costs nearly $3 million.
     To sterilize the flies, officials use radiation, which also leaves the insects weak and diminishes their ability to mate in the wild. Researchers think they would have a more robust fly if they accomplished the sterilization through a genetic flaw. "If we could release, say, 75,000 flies per square mile instead of 250,000, that would save money," said Patrick Minyard, an official with the state Agriculture Department.
     Several researchers said bug scientists should take heed of the past problems with introducing new insects to the environment.
     A fly released in 1906 and for decades afterward to control the gypsy moth has also caused damage to 200 other butterflies and moths in the Northeast, said Jeff Boettner, an insect specialist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. The fly's wide appetite was known at the time, but researchers believed that was a good trait.
     Now, they want to preserve many of the targeted butterflies. "We change our views over time about what risk is and what is proper," Boettner said.
     Louda, the Nebraska researcher, said weevils released in the state to control an invasive, foreign thistle plant have also attacked a native thistle more than expected. This suggests that the present tools are "not sufficient" for evaluating what effect a new insect species will have on plants, she said.
     But Rebecca Goldburg of Environmental Defense, which questions the safety of bioengineered foods, suggested that people might find a certain amount of risk acceptable if it helped stop disease.
     "People have been more reluctant to take on environmental risk when we see the benefit of a product going to big biotech and chemical companies," she said. "Consumers in general are less concerned if sick people are getting the benefit."

Food fight a recipe for confusion

April 9
Edmonton Journal

One of the hottest topics lately has been the debate over genetically modified foods: whether or not they are safe; should they or should they not be labeled as such; etc.

What most people don't know, however, is that there is a difference between Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) food, and Genetically Engineered food.

GMO food is the now popular but inaccurate catch phrase used to describe foods which are actually genetically engineered.

Genetic engineering is the process by which foreign DNA is introduced into the DNA of a host organism to acquire certain traits, such as insulin-producing bacteria.

Genetic modification, however, is the grandfather of all agriculture, as plants and animals were selected and bred for specific traits (such as the corn and wheat we know today, which is much higher in terms of nutritional quality and quantity than the native species).

We also take advantage of natural genetic modification, as we enjoy seedless fruits such as bananas; where the two fertile types of banana cross breed (which happens in nature as well as with human assistance) and produce a sterile and virtually seedless fruit. We then grow more seedless producing plants with clippings from the one plant.

By attempting to regulate GMO foods we are asking for our organically grown broccoli or cauliflower to be labeled as "GMO," as they have been bred from the common ancestor, cabbage, for specific traits.

Broccoli and cauliflower did not exist in nature before we created them through selective breeding.

There are valid concerns with genetic engineering, but if we are to address them, we must first educate ourselves about genetic modification, genetic engineering, and what we want in terms of regulations regarding foods.

Genetically modified wheat coming, but will we eat it?

April 8
Calgary Herald

Blown profits

Genetic drift affects more than biology - US farmers stand to lose millions

April 8
Boston Globe

Susan and Mark Fitzgerald have farmed for 17 years on the black soil of the Minnesota prairie, a place ''where the wind likes to blow.'' They took all of the precautions they thought necessary to make sure their 100 acres of corn was organic, a tag that can double the earnings on their yield.

The husband-and-wife team set up barriers of bushes, shrubs, and trees, planted the right crops in the right places, and bought corn seed guaranteed to be free of genetic engineering.

No matter. The Fitzgeralds found themselves victims of ''genetic drift,'' a relatively new and disturbing phenomenon.

When the harvest came, they tested their corn. To their surprise and dismay, genetically engineered kernels showed up in the hopper: a pesticide-producing seed known as Bt whose pollen apparently made its way from a neighbor's field, swept by wind or carried by birds or insects. They had to pull 800 bushels from the organic market, a loss they put at nearly $2,000.

''Everyone's wondering what you do,'' Susan Fitzgerald said. ''One can't speak alone; you're barking in the wind. It's you against Goliath.''

The Fitzgeralds' story highlights a problem most recently brought to light by the lingering trouble caused by contamination from StarLink corn. Across the nation, the planting of genetically engineered seeds has surged since their introduction in 1996, and now accounts for as much as a quarter of all corn grown in the United States, including Massachusetts.

One effect - whose scope was unanticipated by regulators, companies, or farmers as recently as just a few years ago - is that insects, birds, and the wind are spreading biotech pollen to fields planted with conventional or organic crops miles away.

As losses mount, the question is being asked: Who pays?

Some farmers say it's the problem of their neighbors, while others accuse the seed companies. The seed companies look for help from the government in setting more flexible standards. And the government points back at the farmers as well as state courts hearing a growing number of lawsuits.

''We never really thought all this through,'' said Charles Hurburgh, director of the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative and an Iowa State University professor. ''Who would have known 10 years ago that this would have been an issue? There was no reason for this to be on the radar screen at the time.''

The most common recourse for such losses - insurance - is one that's not yet available to the nation's nearly 2 million farms.

Insurance companies say their policies won't cover genetic drift, the term used to describe cross-pollination between biotech and nonbiotech fields. That reflects not only the novelty of the problem but also a sense that studies are still lacking on the scope of drift - how far pollen can travel, for instance, and how big farmers' losses might be.

On one level, those losses are already substantial. Since 1997, the European Union has effectively barred US corn imports over the possibility that genetically engineered varieties unapproved in the EU have mixed with sanctioned crops. That has cost American farmers access to a $200 million-a-year market. More losses are likely as other countries restrict new biotech crops approved in the United States.

On another level, questions remain over the biological implications of genetic drift for agriculture. Organic farmers fear that, given the unpredictability of pollination, they can never guarantee a biotech-free crop. Already, experts say virtually all commercial seeds in America have at least trace levels of genetically modified proteins, just five years after the introduction of the crops.

Federal regulations require buffer zones around genetically modified crops - usually 660 feet - but that has already proved too limited. Some contend pollen can drift miles before settling on another crop. Plus, there's the possibility that seed gets mixed in storage bins and even combines.

''How do you trace where it came from? How do you determine the liability? All of this is brand new and people don't know how to deal with it yet,'' said Joe Harrington, spokesman for the American Association of Insurance Services in Wheaton, Ill. ''It's a brand new world.''

While no figures exist, anecdotal evidence suggests that cases such as that of the Fitzgeralds are becoming far more common.

A judge last month ruled in favor of Monsanto Co., the St. Louis-based producer of biotech seeds, in its demand that a Canadian farmer pay for the company's genetically engineered canola plants found growing on his field. He claims his crop was contaminated after pollen blew onto his property from nearby farms. Similar lawsuits have been filed against domestic farmers, but the Canadian case was the first to go to trial.

In 1998, cross-pollination was suspected of carrying a genetically engineered variety of corn to an organic farm in Texas. The contamination was not discovered until the corn had been processed and shipped to Europe as organic tortilla chips under the brand name Apache. When testing revealed traces of biotech corn, the shipment of 87,000 bags was recalled, costing the company more than $150,000. The manufacturer, Terra Prima of Wisconsin, chose not to sue the farmer.

Aventis CropScience, meanwhile, is the target of several lawsuits over the mingling of its StarLink corn with other varieties, in the most publicized case thus far.

StarLink, engineered to produce a protein toxic to insect larvae, was approved in 1998 only for animal use out of concern it could cause allergic reactions in people. It was later detected in taco shells, forcing a recall of more than 300 corn-based products and an ongoing and costly attempt to contain StarLink still in the market.

Among the tangled legal issues prompted by its discovery was a class-action federal lawsuit filed in Iowa last year. The suit argues that cross-pollination by StarLink has hurt farmers' ability to export corn and to sell it to American food processors. A similar lawsuit was filed earlier in Illinois.

Aventis has declined to comment, except to say that it remains committed to diverting StarLink and corn mingled with StarLink to approved uses. But its ordeal in trying to contain the damage hints at the breadth of the problem genetic drift poses and the potential liability involved.

Different nations have set different standards for how much genetically engineered material they will permit without requiring a label on food.

The European Union put the limit last year at 1 percent, one of the world's strictest. Japan, whose labeling requirement takes effect next month, decreed a 5 percent tolerance for products such as soybean tofu and corn flour.

No tolerance is set for organic food in the United States, although levels like those found in the Fitzgeralds' corn have led to rejection by organic food processors worried what consumers might think. (Keith Jones, a USDA organic official, said the amount of biotech material allowed in organic food from genetic drift is on ''completely a case-by-case basis.'')

StarLink, though, receives no tolerance since it was not approved for human use. Any contamination - one kernel in 2,400, for instance - is banned. With cross-pollination possible and even likely, Aventis itself has acknowledged the StarLink problem could persist for years, even though the seed was planted on less than .02 percent of cropland in 2000.

''I know you are wondering, `Will there ever be an end to this?''' the company's general manager, John A. Wichtrich, told the North American Millers Association last month. ''Unfortunately, as of right now, the answer is no. There will never be an `end' as long as there is a zero tolerance.''

Even with some tolerance, farmers and others insist the problem will only mount in coming years with the growing use of biotech crops, whose planting is expected to jump 10 percent this spring. Still undecided is how much is too much and where consumers will draw the line.

Organic farmers, whose numbers have more than doubled since 1996, are particularly vulnerable. Aware of the threat or not, consumers buy their products with the understanding that they are free of biotech foods. Conventional farmers face similar problems: For export markets, they must worry about exceeding tolerances, like those in Europe and Japan.

''Once you introduce these seeds, they're hard to keep in one place,'' said Brian Leahy, executive director of California Certified Organic Farmers. ''This technology does not respect property rights.''

The US Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulate biotechnology along with the Food and Drug Administration, say liability for damages is not a federal issue. Rather, the two agencies argue, it should be decided by state courts.

The National Corn Growers Association says it has no policy. Traditionally, farmers growing a crop for added value - organic, for instance - are responsible for protecting that crop, said Susan Keith, a lobbyist for the association.

But, she added, biotech crops raise ''interesting questions.''

She said there might be a scenario in which genetic drift is treated like pesticide drift, a longstanding problem in agriculture and one in which courts have ruled against the farmer or company spraying the pesticides.

Monsanto and Aventis, among the biggest players in agricultural biotechnology, refused to comment on liability issues.

Loren Wassell, a Monsanto spokesman, would only say: ''We try to act responsibly and we encourage growers to be responsible and to communicate with their neighbors.''

But some farmers and activists say acting responsibly is not enough, and they expect a US court decision soon to back up their contention.

''What we have struck out as a position is: You patent it, you license it, you're liable for any contamination you deliver from it,'' said Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation.

A court case might look at issues of trespass, nuisance, or negligence, all of which have applied in similar cases.

Because the area remains so gray, though, legal experts say it is far from clear which way a court might rule - and the Canadian case suggests a judge could rule for the companies.

Until then, farmers in Iowa and elsewhere are being told to take precautions in the event of legal action down the road.

One set of guidelines urged farmers to avoid claims that their crop has not suffered from genetic drift, that it's free of biotech material, or that contamination didn't occur in the handling of the crop, all claims that might be used against them if any of those statements prove wrong.

For Susan Fitzgerald, the Minnesota farmer, that may not be enough.

Next year, she and her husband are planting organic soybeans, which don't cross-pollinate.

They're talking to neighbors, too, about a lawsuit. Still, they worry there's only so much they can do to guard against drift.

''You can't tell the wind how hard to blow,'' said the 45-year-old Fitzgerald. ''You're at the mercy of the weather.''

Thailand institutes ban for genetically engineered crops

April 8
Earth Times News Service

Taking the lead in Asia to protect its environment, biodiversity and farmers from genetic pollution, the Thai government recently decided to stop the release of all genetically engineered (GE) crops into the environment and to no longer allow any field trials of these crops.

The cabinet of the Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra decided to instruct the ministry of agriculture and cooperatives to halt all approvals for the GE field. The decision should also mark the end of ongoing field trials on GE cotton and GE corn, conducted by agribusiness giant Monsanto, the second largest seed provider in Thailand (Thailand has already banned all commercial growing of GE crops on its territory).

“Thailand’s biodiversity is unique and precious. It is our culture, our food and our future,” said ecologist Jiragorn Gajaseni, executive director of Greenpeace South East Asia. “We demand that Monsanto respects this decision and terminates their existing field trials.”

The decision to ban trials of GE crops in its soil will not just protect Thailand’s environment. It will also help this country avoid the environmental and economic problems already being experienced by those countries that have adopted GE crops. In Canada, for instance, GE canola is developing into a major weed problem, which requires the use of conventional toxic herbicides for removal.

In order to truly assure Thailand’s GE free status, the government should now check and control remaining imports of genetically engineered food and commodities, such as corn and soybeans from the US, said Greenpeace.

“Thailand has taken the first step to protect Asia from the threat of genetic engineering,” said Auaiporn Suthonthanyakorn, Greenpeace GE campaigner for South East Asia. “The message is clear: the only way to prevent genetic pollution from GE crops is never to plant them in the first place.”

GM crop breach blasted

April 7
The Age (Australia)

Two multinational companies trading in genetically modified crops have been severely criticized by the Federal Government for what it says is the worst breach of crop controls Australia has ever seen.

Aventis and Monsanto were condemned by federal Health Minister Michael Wooldridge yesterday for letting 21 old canola crop sites in Tasmania re-sprout this year. Voluntary controls were "flagrantly flouted", he said.

The extent of the breaches in what is now supposedly the GM-free island state was almost double that previously known.

Details of the crops' locations are still secret. Business opinion in the state is hardening in favor of a permanent ban on all GM primary production.