April headlines

Return to April article index

Italian government split over biotech before poll

April 9
Reuters

ROME - Verbal sparring between Italy's farm and health ministers has underlined a government split over biotechnology, in a row unhelpful to the center left ahead of a general election on May 13.

Health Minister Umberto Veronesi, a leftist, insists that health and environmental risks from GM technology are not proven. He accused arsonists behind an attack on a seed store of U.S. biotech group Monsanto this week of being anti-progress.

"They oppose scientific reasoning with obstacles tinged with narrow-mindedness," Veronesi said on Tuesday.

In an interview with La Stampa newspaper later, Pecoraro Scanio launched a broadside against Veronesi: "Veronesi would do well to think of medicine, which he knows about and presides over. He has no competence in agriculture."

Pecoraro Scanio picked on Veronesi's use of the word "narrow-mindedness": "The real narrow-mindedness belongs to those fanatics who treat Science as an idol to be adored," he said. "It is the same ideological approach which brought us mad cow disease."

The war of words followed an attack by unknown arsonists against Monsanto's grain depot in Lodi, north Italy this week.

Italian news agency ANSA received an anonymous letter claiming responsibility for setting Monsanto's maize and soybean seeds ablaze. The letter accused Monsanto of using biotech to "poison the planet".

OVERLAPPING INTERESTS

The interests of the Health and Farm Ministries are closely intertwined.

The Health Ministry is engaged in testing cattle for mad cow disease, enforcing preventive measures against the risk of foot-and-mouth disease entering Italy, and supervising biotech.

The Farm Ministry deals with complaints from farmers whose livestock are threatened by cross-border food scares and whose crops are at risk from cross-pollination with genetic material.

With little more than five weeks before the general election, opinion polls show the center right led by Silvio Berlusconi ahead of the ruling center left.

Over the past two years the center-left government has been wracked by infighting and the latest spat will do little to help the eight-party coalition.

Pecoraro Scanio has set off a barrage of verbal fireworks in his final weeks in office, and Monsanto, a global symbol of biotech, has borne the brunt.

Pecoraro Scanio has asked Milan authorities to suspend Monsanto's seed import license because he said the company had imported seeds containing GM material.

Italy has "zero tolerance" towards GM seeds, even though the EU Scientific Committee on Plants and other groups says the presence of GM material in seeds is inevitable because of unintentional contamination in the production process.

Monsanto has insisted it conforms to regulations.

Feature: Harvest of Fear

Frontline and Nova investigate the growing controversy over genetically modified foods

PBS Airdate: Tuesday, April 24, 9pm ET, 120 minutes

April 9
Press release

Boston - A gene from a jellyfish is placed in a potato plant, making it light up whenever it needs watering. Rice plants are genetically transformed to produce vitamin A, preventing millions of African children from going blind. Crops are engineered so that they can grow in aluminum contaminated soil. Plants are modified to produce plastic or pharmaceuticals.

These are just a few of the touted benefits of genetically modified agriculture--the use of genetic engineering to alter crops for the benefit of mankind. But while proponents say this new technology has the potential to end world hunger and dramatically improve the quality of life for billions of people, others argue it may constitute the biggest threat to humanity since nuclear energy. Dubbing such genetically altered products ``Frankenfoods,'' critics argue that the technology has been rushed to market and that scientists are tampering with nature, risking potentially catastrophic ecological disaster.

In ``Harvest of Fear,'' airing Tuesday, April 24, at 9pm ET on PBS (check local listings), FRONTLINE and NOVA join forces to explore the growing controversy over genetically modified agriculture. Through interviews with scientists, farmers, biotech industry representatives, government regulators, and ``anti-GM'' activists, the special two-hour documentary presents both sides of the debate, exploring the potential benefits and hazards of this new technology.

``Basically, this is a story about the increasing power of science to alter our world and the fear this power generates,'' says producer Jon Palfreman. ``The fact that the story is about food--a subject about which people have entrenched opinions, tastes, and beliefs--makes it that much more controversial.''

FRONTLINE and NOVA speak with representatives of large biotechnology companies as well as farmers, who tout the advantages of genetically modified crops. Far from being the environmental disaster that opponents claim, they say, these improved crops can actually help preserve the environment. For example, by inserting a gene from the organic pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) into crops such as cotton, corn, and apples, proponents say, farmers can grow these crops using very little pesticide. And for a crop like cotton--which accounts for twenty-five percent of the world's pesticide use--the positive impact on the environment could be significant.

In some cases, supporters note, genetically modified crops have prevented the destruction of whole plant species--and the economies based upon them. Take the papaya. Hawaii's second largest crop behind the mighty pineapple, Hawaii's papaya crop, was found several years ago to be infected with Ring Spot virus. Despite numerous efforts to stem the spread of the virus, nothing worked, and it was predicted that Hawaii's papaya industry would be wiped out within a decade.

Then, Cornell University scientist Dennis Gonsalves hit upon the idea of using biotechnology to make the papaya immune to the Ring Spot virus.

``You put a gene from the virus into the chromosome of the plant,'' Gonsalves says. ``You make the plant resistant, because it has the gene from that virus that's attacking it. So it's like a vaccination.''

Gonsalves's idea worked and Hawaii's papaya crop was saved--along with the livelihood of the state's papaya growers.

Perhaps even more promising is the possibility that genetically modified crops could play a pivotal role in alleviating--or even eliminating--world hunger. Proponents argue that by developing fertilizers designed specifically to work in some of the world's poorest soils--and by allowing farmers in developing countries to grow crops without the use of expensive pesticides or herbicides--genetically modified agriculture may hold the answer to feeding a world population that's expected to reach twelve billion or more by 2100.

But others aren't so sure. Concerned about the unknown hazards genetically altered foods may present, many of the world's so-called ``green movements''--including such groups as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the Union of Concerned Scientists--have mounted a vocal opposition campaign that has effectively stopped the development and use of genetically modified foods in Europe. Critics say modern scientists are playing with fire, creating new organisms with little thought to how these new hybrid plants will affect the environment or mankind.

``We feel that this is a mass genetic experiment that's going on in our environment and in our diets,'' says Charles Margoulis, who heads Greenpeace's anti-GM campaign. ``These genetically engineered foods have never been subject to long-term testing and yet there are millions of acres of them growing in the United States and pervading the food system here.''

By putting new genes into plants, opponents say, mankind runs the risk of these genes migrating to other plants not intended to receive them. New, potentially lethal toxins, allergens, and resistant organisms could be created, they argue, while the safety of the world's food supply could be dangerously compromised.

Critics also fear that genetically modified crops grown outside in uncontrolled environments could prove harmful to ``non-target organisms''--animals, insects, or other wildlife that may come in contact with these experimental plants. Moreover, by favoring mass production of a few lucrative cash crops, they say, genetically altering foods could result in reducing the world's biodiversity.

What's more, opponents say, genetically modified food is only the beginning. ``In the next few years, they want to introduce not just genetically engineered foods, but genetically engineered grasses, ornamental plants, trees,'' warns environmental activist Jeremy Rifkin. ``They want to re-seed the planet with a second Genesis.''

In ``Harvest of Fear,'' farmers and scientists say such alarm is unfounded. Noting that genetically modified crops and food are the most regulated on the market--coming under the control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration--supporters say the world's food supply has contained genetically modified ingredients for years. Virtually all breads, cheeses, sodas, and beer, for example, are made with genetically engineered enzymes.

``Food companies have learned that the [anti-GM] groups are not intent on having a reasoned debate about biotech or helping consumers find out about biotech,'' says Gene Grabowski of the Grocery Manufacturers of America. ``It seems that their motive is to scare people.''

``Harvest of Fear'' contains footage of anti-GM demonstrations, including one at Kellogg's ``Cereal City,'' where a demonstrator--dressed as a mutated Tony the Tiger--bemoans what genetic engineering has done to him. (A security guard arrives swiftly and blocks the camera.) But not all protests are so amusing: Some farmers have had their genetically modified crops hacked away during the night by ``eco-terrorists.'' Members of the Earth Liberation Front, meanwhile, claimed responsibility for a fire at Michigan State University that destroyed a building being used for work related to agricultural biotechnology.

``Companies are not going to listen to morals,'' says Earth Liberation Front spokesperson Craig Rosebraugh. ``If you cause them enough economic damage or economic sabotage to their industry, hopefully they'll see that it's in their best interest to stop their unjust acts.''

Such demonstrations and protests have yet to deter the technology's most fervent supporters. Pandora's box has been opened, they say, and no amount of protests or alleged scare tactics will be able to put the lid back on.

``We will not be able to stop this technology,'' says USDA Secretary Dan Glickman. ``Science will march forward.''

``Harvest of Fear'' is written, produced, and directed by Jon Palfreman. The senior executive producer for FRONTLINE is David Fanning. The executive producer for NOVA is Paula S. Apsell. 

MPs demand truth about why £3m was spent on GM fish

April 9
Independent (UK)

Senior politicians have demanded an investigation into the disclosure that up to £3m of public money was spent on developing genetically modified fish for human consumption in Britain.

The Independent on Sunday revealed last week that three government ministries have commissioned research into creating fast growing, sterile and disease resistant fish using genetic modification.

Now dozens of questions on the purpose of the research have been submitted by the Labor Party and Green Party to Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, and the European Commissioners.

Alan Simpson, secretary of the Campaign group of Labor MPs, said: "Parliament should be calling this show in, and subjecting it to the sort of risk assessments that we said we should do on GM crops. What is the commercial pressure behind this investment?"

Robin Harper, a Green Party MSP on the Scottish Parliament's environment committee, will urge ministers on the executive to broaden the formal inquiry set up this year into fish farming to include the risks of GM fish production. "We've enormous problems with over-fishing of the North Sea, we should be concentrating on saving those stocks," he said.

Franz Fischler, the European Commissioner for fisheries, will face questions about the EU's extensive GM fish program when he appears before the European Parliament next month. Christine Lucas, Green MEP for South-east England, and Patricia McKenna, the MEP for Dublin, are also asking questions about the research objectives.

The UK conservation agencies English Nature, and Scottish Natural Heritage, are opposed to any release of GM fish into rivers because of the risk to wild fish species and the environment as a whole.

The ministries' research, which involved an outlay of £1.1m from the Department for International Development (DFID) ­ for Southampton University and the University of Wales ­ focused on producing transgenic tilapia, rainbow trout, salmon, and zebra fish.

The EC has spent more than £500,000 on similar UK projects.

The Biotechnology Research Council, run by the Department of Trade and Industry, spent £330,000 on transgenic research at universities in Southampton, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and the ministry of agriculture spent £47,723 on enhancing fish disease resistance through genetics.

DFID insisted, however, that two of its projects to "genetically improve" carp in Asia and tilapia in southern Africa, costing a total of £1.3m, did not involve genetic modification. They projects focused on selective breeding using genetic research, a spokesman said.

Further investigations by the IoS have disclosed other GM fish research projects in Britain funded by the EC as part of a multi-million pound research program on fish genetics and transgenic fish.

Report highlights extent of GM breaches

April 6
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

A Federal Government report has revealed there have been 21 escapes of genetically modified crops in Tasmania, almost twice the number previously announced.

A report by the Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator has found crop multinational, Aventis, breached guidelines at 18 sites where GM canola was grown over the past three years.

Crop company, Monsanto breached guidelines at three sites.

Only 11 breaches have previously been revealed.

The report found Aventis continued to breach guidelines after the escapes were first discovered.

The Office has found there was negligible risk of contamination of other plant species.

However, it recommends increased monitoring of sites.

It has also asked the federal body which approves trials to consider the breaches when assessing trial applications.

The Tasmanian Environment Minister says the report is inadequate.

David Llewellyn says it does not provide the exact locations where the breaches occurred.

Mr Llewellyn says he will make a more detailed response after considering the report.

Canada to sign international biosafety protocol

April 6
Environment News Service

Ottawa - An agreement to regulate the movement of genetically modified organisms across international borders is a step closer to fruition after Canada announced yesterday it would sign the international protocol.

Canada is one of the world's leading producers, exporters and importers of living modified organisms, such as corn, canola, potatoes and soybeans. Yesterday, Environment Minister David Anderson announced Canada would sign the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Biodiversity is defined under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity as the "variability among living organisms from all sources."

Recognizing public concerns over genetically modified organisms, some 177 member governments of the UN Biological Diversity convention have spent years discussing practical steps for minimizing the potential risks of biotechnology.

Genetically modified (GM) organisms have had their genetic material altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination. By genetically engineering an organism, individual genes can be selected and transferred from organism into another, sometimes between non-related species.

Their concerns that GM crops and GM food could create allergies, harm biodiversity and eliminate indigenous species have raised awareness among consumers who are increasingly demanding tougher laws regarding labeling and international trade.

The protocol signed in the Columbian city of Cartagena in 1999 and adopted in Montreal, Canada, in 2000 attempts to ensure that GM organisms are handled and transferred safely across borders.

Eighty six countries have signed the protocol and two have ratified it - Bulgaria and Trinidad and Tobago. The protocol will come into force 90 days after 50 countries ratify it, which is likely within two or three years according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which administers the Secretariat for the 1992 Biodiversity Convention, under which the protocol was negotiated.

"Canada already has a domestic regulatory framework for biotechnology products," said Anderson. "Our signature to the protocol demonstrates our continued commitment to international cooperation and builds on our domestic and international actions to protect the environment and human health."

Since the late 1980s, a domestic science based regulatory system has overseen and approved the release of more than 100 genetically modified organisms into the Canadian environment.

According to Greenpeace, GM canola in Canada is developing into a major weed problem, which requires the use of conventional toxic herbicides for removal. The group claims that the U.S. has spent more than a billion dollars trying to recall potentially allergenic GM Starlink corn, which has contaminated 430 million bushels of harvest.

Canada will sign the international protocol on April 19 at a meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development at the United Nations in New York. Anderson said the government would consider ratification of the protocol based on progress achieved in international discussions.

Developing countries will be helped to implement the protocol through the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which is funded by donor countries including Canada. For example, UNEP will implement a $39 million GEF project that will help 100 countries prepare National Biosafety Frameworks.

The three and half year project will cultivate information exchanges and best practices among developing countries and countries with economies in transition, through a series of global and regional workshops.

Canada acknowledged that several issues must be clarified before it and most other countries ratify the protocol. These issues include:

• a system for information sharing, including the Biosafety Clearing House
• a review of international rules and standards relating to the handling, transport, packaging and identification of genetically modified organisms
• options for establishing a compliance regime
• facilitating decision making by countries that may wish to import GM organisms

Because the protocol is based on the precautionary approach, importers can decide not to accept imports of GM organisms "if there is a lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient scientific information and knowledge on whether or not the organism poses a risk to the environment or human health," said UNEP.

India firms embrace biotechnology

April 6
BBC

After India's software revolution, biotechnology is being described as the next big thing to hit the country.

Multinational and Indian research companies are investing heavily in the industry, encouraged by biotechnology-friendly policies.

Politicians and policy makers believe that as well as creating wealth, the growth in biotechnology may bring medical and ecological breakthroughs.

Biotechnology, like IT, is knowledge intensive. This gives India's highly qualified, English speaking but relatively cheap work force a real commercial advantage.

Biotech strategies

Realizing the potential economic benefits, a number of forward-thinking ministers have launched biotechnology strategies. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, one of the world's leading agricultural scientists, Professor M S Swaminathan, helped draw up the local policy.

Mr Swaminathan was the creator of India's "green revolution", a scheme that massively increased crop yields in the late 1960s. He believes that by improving infrastructure and encouraging investment "socially beneficial" biotechnology can flourish.

"We will invite entrepreneurs, non-resident Indians, or even outsiders," he said. "We welcome anyone who shares our vision of reaching the unreached, or including the excluded in terms of technological benefit."

Facilities being built to attract businesses include a biotechnology park near Madras, medicinal plants laboratories near the temple-town Madurai, and a marine center in the south of the state.

An existing women's biotechnology park, on the outskirts of Madras, will continue to be supported by the government, and a Bioinformatics and Genomics Center will be opened at the state's main IT industrial park.

Natural resources

As well as this new infrastructure, overseas investors are being drawn by India's enormous natural resources. Tamil Nadu alone has 5,000 species of flowering plants and 22,500 square kilometers of forests.

The area also has a sizeable section of India's 7,500 km coastline. It is part of the ecological treasure trove that is the basis of much of the local biotechnology.

An estimated 60% of the world's population live within 60 km of the sea. For them, global warming is a real threat to food security.

Topsoil will be washed away leaving marshy saline soil, an environment in which conventional crops won't grow. It's a problem researchers at the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation are trying to resolve.

"Our scientists have mapped mangrove trees. They grow in the estuaries, between seawater and fresh water and they have genes for seawater tolerance. We have identified those genes and transferred them to a number of crops, including mustard, tobacco, pulses and rice," says Professor Swaminathan.

In medicine as well as agriculture, India's ecosystem has much to offer. Many Indian tribes turn to traditional healers who use locally found plants to treat diseases.

Biopiracy

Multinational companies have realized the potential of these remedies in drug development. In the recent years, overseas firms have rushed to patent chemicals from natural sources that have been used locally for hundreds of years. These include turmeric, neem, and ginger.

This "biopiracy", which for many people is nothing less than the theft of indigenous resources and know-how, is being combated to some extent in the courts. But there is real concern about the motives of the multinational companies who are investing in India.

In a recent report, the Confederation of Indian Industry said the national market in biotechnology was now valued at $2.5 billion, a fivefold increase since 1997. By 2010, the Indian industry could be worth $4.5 billion.

It may be small fry compared to the United States, which has an annual biotechnology turnover of $20 billion, but India is now a major player in the global industry.

Resisting change

But some industrialists choose to ignore the option of biotechnology.

MV Subbiah is the chairman of a large family-owned industrial firm, the Murugappa Group.

Over the past 10 years, his company has been using tissue culture to maximize yields, and increase disease resistance in sugar cane.

But he says that after much consideration, his family have decided not to invest in biotechnology.

"The modification of a gene and what it will lead to is one of the biggest ethical questions we have, and nobody has the answer to it," he said.

"The second reason is that wherever anything has gone into a monoclonal approach, even without biotechnology, diversity has been reduced quite substantially.

"Therefore we believe the same thing will happen here, and the extraordinary biodiversity that we have will be lost to this country."

Domestically produced GM crops haven't yet hit the Indian market place, and in theory it is illegal to import transgenic foods.

But in practice, GM crops are finding their way into the country thanks to inadequate testing facilities at some Indian ports. There is very real public concern about both the GM crops arriving in India and local research.

With the development of a large and powerful domestic biotechnology industry, these concerns will only increase.

Activists calling for tighter regulation already frequently clash with the biotechnologists who feel that the government has to adapt if there is going to be a "revolution" that parallels the software boom.