April headlines

Return to April article index

Scientists investigate 'contamination' of oilseed rape crops by GM material

April 13
Independent (UK)

Government scientists are investigating possible contamination of two conventional varieties of oilseed rape by modified genes. Both varieties were undergoing field trials at research sites when scientists discovered that they contained DNA commonly used in GM plants.

Scientists from the Central Science Laboratory, the official GM inspectorate, are carrying out further tests to try to determine how the contamination occurred.

One of the plants, a spring-sown variety called Dorothy, had been imported from Germany and had been planted on a small trial plot, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday. "These plants will be killed by spraying with herbicide as soon as they germinate," Maff said.

The second plant, a hybrid winter variety which is too new to have been given a name, was undergoing trials for being included on the national list of approved crops. It was sown last autumn in test and trial plots, Maff said.

"Trial managers have been instructed to mow affected plots immediately to avoid cross pollination with adjacent fields," said Maff.

The Dorothy variety tested positive for the presence of a genetic promoter called P-Nos, which is commonly used to transfer genes into GM plants. The promoter also occurs naturally in soil bacteria that are also used to produce GM crops, a spokeswoman for Maff said.

Adrian Bebb, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth, described the discovery as worrying. "The big question is, how did it get there? It just highlights that we can't control GM crops.

"We are not going to stop the wind blowing pollen and the bees carrying it," he said. "If we are going to grow GM crops then they will contaminate seed."

The more GM crops that the Government allowed to be grown, the higher the risk, he said. "Cross-contamination is going to go on and on. The two means of farming just don't go together.

"Consumers are going to have no choice eventually. It is extremely new technology and we don't know enough yet about all the safety implications. If it is out there and already getting into the food chain, then that is really worrying," he said.

Consumers in the dark on GM

Call for labeling, product guarantees

April 13
Bangkok Post

Some consumers do not know what genetically modified food is, but say they would not risk eating it.

"I don't know what it is, but I won't eat it," said Prapas Mekmeungtong, a Chanasongkram policeman.

"I'm afraid of its negative impact on my genes, like I would have three legs or an extra ear." Though there is no evidence that food containing genetically modified organisms carries any health risk, opponents argue that it may take decades before side-effects show up.

In the US, GMO food is widely available. It is also available in Europe and Japan. However, because of growing opposition the European Union and Japan have effectively banned the import of new GM products.

Mr Prapas said government agencies should make sure food is GMO-free until scientists guarantee it is safeto eat.

Sunee Acharakul, 45, a bird-food seller at Sanam Luang, thought that GMO food was a kind of "low quality food" which was rejected by developed countries.

"People in rich countries refused to eat it, so it is thrown away to the developing countries like us," shesaid.

Ms Sunee said she used to feed her 6 year-old daughter with Nestlé's Cerelac, so she was worried about the girl.

Nestlé's Cerelac is one of seven products named by Greenpeace as containing GMO.

The firms rejected allegations that their products were dangerous. Ms Sunee also urged the Food and Drug Administration to label GM products. "It's not fair to the consumers if we have no chance to avoid buying food that might be harmful." Arthit Kijcheun, an electrician, said he didn't care about the presence of GMOs in food sold locally.

"I never eat potato chips, instant soup or instant cereals. I prefer rice and paste sauce (nam prik), so I believe GMO is unlikely to hurt me." However, Mr Arthit said he would be worried if GMOs were contained in products such as cooking oil, soy sauce or monosodium glutamate, because Thai people couldn't avoid using them.

Maryland bans genetically modified fish

April 12
AP

BALTIMORE - The governor signed a law banning the raising of genetically modified fish unless they are in ponds or lakes that do not connect to other state waterways.

Growers also must ensure that the fish cannot escape by any other means, such as by birds dropping them after plucking them from the water.

The law signed by Gov. Parris Glendening on Tuesday is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, said its sponsor, Democratic Delegate Dan Morhaim.

Morhaim said Thursday that he believed it was important to pass a law specifically applying to transgenic species - those whose genes have been modified. State law already regulates raising of hybrids of native species, such as rockfish.

``All the laws that have been written have not included the recent ability we've acquired to manipulate species genetically,'' Morhaim said. ``So, I felt it was necessary to be explicit about that part.''

Genetically modified salmon raised in the Pacific Northwest have been released into the wild and are destroying the native species, he said.

``I thought it was time to act to prevent something like this'' from happening here, he said.

The state currently has about 175 active permits for fish farming, according to a state summary of the bill provided to lawmakers.

Genetic engineering in agriculture involves splicing a gene from one organism, such as a bacterium, into a plant or animal to confer certain traits, such as drought tolerance or insect resistance in plants.

Genetically engineered varieties of soybeans and corn became popular with farmers in the late 1990s and are found in products throughout supermarkets. The Food and Drug Administration is considering whether to allow sales of genetically engineered fish.

Supporters of genetic engineering say the technology is necessary to feed the world's rapidly growing population.

Monsanto seeds pass lab check

April 12
AP

ROME - Monsanto, the U.S. biotechnology company, will be able to distribute to Italian customers 40 tons of soy seed and 6 tons of corn seed after laboratory analyses found no trace of genetically modified seed in the supplies, the company said Thursday.

Italian police last month had sequestered the seed at a northern Italian depot in Lodi because of suspicion that genetically modified seed was in the shipment.

The laboratory in Brescia, northern Italy, that analyzed the seed confirmed the lab results but declined to give any details.

Earlier this month an arson attack on the Lodi depot followed accusations by Italian government officials that Monsanto had illegally imported genetically modified seed.

The European Union three years ago banned genetically altered foods, saying they could pose a risk to health and the environment.

Italian Agriculture Minister Alfonso Pecorino Scanio said he was satisfied to learn that the sequestered batch contained only traditional seed but indicated Italy would continue to be vigilant so that genetically modified agriculture products don't enter the country.

Third GE raid takes 88 tons of seed

April 12
New Zealand Herald

ROME - In the third raid in less than three weeks, Italian police seized 88 tons of soy seed yesterday from United States biotech group Monsanto.

The seeds are expected to be tested for their genetic makeup.

Monsanto said it had received no warning from the authorities, and that all the seeds were conventional. None of the seeds had been distributed to retailers or farmers.

``We assume the authorities will test the seeds for possible genetically engineered content,`` a spokesman said.

The use of genetically engineered (GE) seeds in open fields is forbidden by law in Italy, a net importer of maize and soybeans.

Police have cracked down on Monsanto in Italy twice before. Between March 23 and 26, they impounded 112 tons of maize, and a couple of days later started to seize 300 tons of soy seeds that had already been distributed to retailers. The soy seeds seized yesterday have been sealed off at Monsanto's warehouse in Lodi, near Milan, in northern Italy, as were the previous consignments.

Monsanto insisted yesterday that it conformed to regulations.

``We must reaffirm that our seeds are conventional,`` the company said in a statement.

It said the soy seeds had arrived at Genoa port on March 5 and had received necessary authorizations.

Last week, arsonists attacked Monsanto's grain depot in Lodi, setting maize and soybean seeds ablaze. The raiders painted slogans on walls saying ``Monsanto killers.``

After the previous seizures, Farm Minister Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio asked Milan authorities to suspend Monsanto's seed import license because he said it had imported seeds containing GE material.

UK farm ministry finds gene- modified rape seed

April 12
Reuters

Britain's Agriculture Ministry said on Thursday it had discovered genetically modified (GM) material in two trial rapeseed crops, which would be swiftly destroyed.

A small quantity of imported spring rapeseed had tested positive for a promoter that could indicate genetic modification, and tests on a hybrid winter rapeseed variety had shown levels of GM presence, the ministry said in a statement.

``Neither of these varieties are being grown commercially in the UK,'' it said, adding that the first crop would be destroyed by spraying and the other would be cut down.

Public opinion in Britain has turned against GM foods after a string of high-profile food scares. Many restaurants and shops advertise that they do not sell GM foods.

The government's GM crop trials have been criticized by environmentalists, who say Britain is risking contaminating the rest of its countryside.

New perspectives: weighing the GE food debate

April 11
Environmental News Network opinion by Jim Wyerman

When the debate rages from so-called “Frankenfood” to “feeding the world,” it’s not surprising that the typical consumer is a bit confused about genetically-engineered, or “GE” foods.

Big agricultural and chemical companies would have us believe that GE foods are the key to increasing crop yields and solving world hunger. Pure food activists, some parading around as butterflies and corn stalks, insist that these products open the door to horrific genetic experimentation.

As with most things in life, truth is a matter of one’s own experience and perspective and lies somewhere between the two poles.

The environmental community does itself a disservice when it overstates the risks of genetically-engineered foods, precisely because there are very real risks and unknowns. Risks include the loss of biodiversity, the escape of GE products into nature and increased use of pesticides to enhance GE crop yields.

The health risks of GE foods, while not yet exhaustively documented, are equally real. Research points to increased risks of allergic reactions, increased risk of cancer and the possible suppression of immune system functions.

Not all GE products may involve such risks, but scientists aren’t sure. No significant pre-testing is being done on new products because it’s not currently required. Even as the full degree of risk is being debated, the big agriculture companies are plowing tons of such products into our food supply.

In response to this uncertainty, some suggest a total ban on GE foods. Others are content with the current “hands-off” approach of the federal government. A more moderate viewpoint is calls for labeling of GE foods already on the market and 2 a moratorium on the introduction of any new genetically engineered products until they are proven to be safe. This policy is supported by a wide coalition of small farmers, food groups and environmental interests, and it strikes a sensible balance.

This approach echoes what’s been called “the precautionary principle,” a scientific concept that helps balance unknown benefits and risks. The idea is that we should not take any action that may harm people or the environment until or unless it is first proven to be safe, and that the proponent of the action must bear the cost of proving its safety.

As the recent recall of many cold products reminds us, the U.S. government hasn’t always followed the precautionary principle. Instead, agencies that are set up to regulate a particular industry inevitably fall under the influence of that industry and soften their original mission.

This seems to be the case with the Food and Drug Administration on GE foods. They’ve concluded, against the recommendations of many of their own scientists (according to a pending lawsuit), that GE foods are not so different from traditional foods as to require regulation.

That leaves consumers on their own to decide whether or not to worry. Meanwhile, an estimated 70 percent of processed foods lining our supermarket shelves may contain genetically-engineered ingredients.

As I see it, we consumers have three choices. We can buy organic and avoid the whole mess. We can trust that the current system will protect us from any real risks. Or we can hold corporations and the government accountable until they provide us with some reasonable assurance that the public health and the environment will not be harmed.

Ultimately, consumers will decide the future of our food supply, either by weighing in on this important issue or by ignoring it.

Jim Wyerman is executive director of 20/20 Vision, a national environmental group.

Safe-food issue put on the table

Labels for genetically modified products debated as committee hearings wrap up

April 11
Montreal Gazette

Should genetically modified food be labeled as such?

That was the question yesterday when the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee ended its cross-country tour with a hearing in Montreal to consider labeling, among other issues. The committee is to submit its recommendations to Prime Minister Jean Chretien in June.

Consumer-rights groups and environmentalists are calling for mandatory labeling, arguing that the long-term health effects of genetically modified products are not known.

The food and agriculture industry, however, are generally opposed to labeling and will only agree to voluntary measures.

The committee heard presentations from more than a dozen people representing a cross-section of interests on the subject. The consultation was held behind closed doors at the Sheraton Hotel on Rene Levesque Blvd. but the committee allowed those who participated to speak to reporters.

Peter Phillips, professor of agricultural economics at the University of Saskatchewan, who is serving as committee co-chairman, said people on both sides of the debate share similar goals.

"Although there is a wide range of stakeholders in the room, there's a fairly common agreement on what the end goals should be, which are safe food and sustainable production," Phillips said.

"The question is how do you get there, and that's where the debate is."

Genetically modified foods are produced using recent advances in gene technology, including cloning, gene splicing and plant transformation. This is usually done to make a food like a tomato resistant to insects or herbicides or to improve ripening.

There's also a new trend: "nutriceuticals." These are foods that have been genetically modified to improve their nutritional value. For example, scientists in Switzerland are working on a type of rice that would be enhanced with Vitamin A to fight malnutrition in developing nations.

Claude Lapointe, Quebec sales representative for Syngenta Seeds, told the committee that the current regulations on food labeling work just fine. Syngenta produces corn seed that is modified with a transgene that makes the cornstalks resistant to insects.

"I think biotechnology can bring benefits to consumers, and the regulatory system we have in place now is adequate to provide safe food," he said.

Under the current system, labels are required to list the contents of a product. Nutritional labels are voluntary, Phillips said.

The United Kingdom and Japan have adopted mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods and a dozen other countries are considering following suit. In Canada, Liberal MP Charles Caccia has tabled a private member's bill calling for such labeling.

Phillips, however, said he's not convinced mandatory labeling works.

"The effect of those systems - the way they're structured in those countries - has been, for the most part, to drive out products that would provide some choice," he said, offering his personal opinion and not that of the committee.

"Some people are indifferent to what they eat. Some people have very specific concerns."

Joseph Caron, an analyst with the consumer-rights group Action Reseau Consommateur, argued that voluntary labels would not give people a clear choice.

"Voluntary labeling simply does not guarantee the choice I think should be given to consumers," he said.

He estimated that up to 70 per cent of food products contain ingredients that at some point in processing were genetically modified.

"As our government has accepted these products to be put on the market at this time, I think it's reasonable that the persons who don't want to consume them have the choice," Caron said. "The only way to do that is with obligatory labeling."

Italy police seize more soy seed from Monsanto

April 10
Reuters

"We assume the authorities will test the seeds for possible GM content," the spokesman told Reuters, referring to the possible presence of genetically modified (GM) material.

Last month Italian police seized 112 tons of Monsanto maize which authorities suspected of containing GM material at the same warehouse in Lodi, near Milan.

fused an apology, saying its spy plane did not cause the accident.

Genetically modified corn, soybeans offer little advantage to Indiana farmers, say Purdue University

April 9
AScribe News

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Corn growers who pass up genetically modified hybrids to plant conventional varieties this spring may be better off in the long run, say two Purdue University experts.

"None of the currently available insect-resistant or herbicide-tolerant corn or soybean varieties is critical for the success of Indiana farmers," says Bob Nielsen, Purdue Cooperative Extension Service corn specialist.

"Because these transgenic crop traits are not critical for Indiana farmers, the choice of whether to grow them or not depends primarily on the farmer's assessment of the uncertainty of market acceptance for such products and/or the available seed supply of alternative nontransgenic varieties."

The primary pest targeted by genetically modified corn is the European corn borer. Because corn borer infestations are historically infrequent across Indiana, transgenic hybrids offer little economic advantage to most farmers, Nielsen says. Such biotech (Bt) varieties are most effective in controlling corn borer if planted very early or late in the season, he says.

Selling transgenic corn could pose a greater challenge. Grain elevator operators are increasingly reluctant to accept Bt corn that does not have full approval for use in the global market, says Dirk Maier, Purdue Extension agricultural engineer.

Public debate over transgenic crops intensified last fall, when the Bt hybrid StarLink corn showed up in brand name taco shells. StarLink contains Cry9C, a Bt protein unapproved - but believed safe - for human consumption. The taco shells were recalled.

U.S. farmers planted 340,908 acres of StarLink corn in 2000. Only 3,564 of those acres were in Indiana, the largest concentration being in the northwestern counties of LaPorte, Starke and Marshall.

Responding to the StarLink controversy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture in December strongly recommended seed companies sample and test their 2001 seed corn lots and seed parent lines for the Cry9C transgene. Any seed lot testing positive for Cry9C will be diverted to livestock feed and nonfood industrial uses.

"Unfortunately, seed companies cannot guarantee zero presence of Cry9C in any seed lot," Nielsen says. "The currently available quantitative tests, when used with appropriate sampling intensities, are capable of detecting the presence of the Cry9C protein at the minimum detectable level of no less than about 0.2 percent, with a 99 percent probability."

Farmers should get written verification from seed dealers that conventional varieties they're buying have been verified to be free of the Cry9C protein, Nielsen says. "Additionally, consider saving a sample of seed from each lot of supposed nontransgenic hybrid or variety for purity retesting in the event you have to reverify," he says.

Farmers who planted Bt corn in 2000 are advised to plant another crop in their fields this year, Maier says. Similarly, producers should prevent transgenic "volunteer" corn from sprouting in soybean fields.

Another concern is the seed mixing of conventional varieties with Bt hybrids. Growers planning to use both conventional and Bt seed should plant nontransgenic lots first, Maier says. "In this way, any seed carrying over from one seed lot to another in the planter will be from nontransgenic to transgenic and not the other direction," he says.

Cross-pollination of conventional varieties by genetically modified hybrids can occur when wind carries pollen into surrounding fields. Pollen can travel a quarter mile or farther, Nielsen says.

"Communication with neighbors is an important aspect of pollen drift awareness," Nielsen says. "Farmers should find out what corn hybrids will be planted adjacent to their fields of nontransgenic corn, and document the hybrid seed lot information and planting dates."

Nielsen and Maier advise farmers against planting corn tolerant to glyphosate herbicides. Such hybrids are approved only in the United States and Japan.

"No quick test kits currently exist for this transgene, and no tolerance levels have been established," Maier says. "Even though some grain buyers are assuring farmers that they will purchase grain from these hybrids, farmers bear the sole risk for rejection at the first point of sale should buying policies change any time in the future."

Conversely, grain buyers and processors will be buying glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, Maier says.

More information on transgenic crops is available in the Nielsen-Maier paper, "GMO Issues Facing Indiana Farmers in 2001." The paper is available online at http://www.kingcorn.org/news/articles.01/
GMO_Issues-0312.html 

Related Web site: Bob Nielsen's Chat 'n Chew Cafe: http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/cafe/index.html 

Philippines president urged to reconsider anti-GMO stance

April 9
just-food.com

The Crop Protection Association of the Philippines (CPAP) and members of the National Academy of Science and Technology of the Philippines (NAST) have both released statements urging President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to reconsider her position and allow the continued experimentation with GMOs in field trials.

The statements are a reaction to a presidential statement in March in which Macapagal-Arroyo argued that GMOs have potential hazards to human health and the environment. The groups pointed out that a stringent set of guidelines were established by the National Committee on Bio safety of the Philippines (NCBP) to ensure GMO experiments are safe.

So far, NCBP has only allowed two companies, Pioneer Hi-Bred Philippines and Agroseed Corp , subsidiary of agribusiness giant Monsanto , to experiment with field trials of Bt corn, a genetically modified product that contains the Bacillus thuringiensis gene, which is deadly to the Philippines' greatest agricultural pest, the Asiatic corn borer.

"[Continuing the field tests] is the best way to determine if the technology is applicable to the Philippines and prove that genetically modified products are safe. This process is being undertaken by other countries as well, particularly our neighbors Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia," commented CPAP, pointing out that once approved, Bt corn will reduce production costs for farmers, who will no longer need traditional pesticides.

Members of NAST pointed out meanwhile: "Biotechnology products can even provide greater benefits to consumers, who have always been the ultimate beneficiaries of product innovations. For instance, modern biotechnology can be a useful tool to attain greater nutritional security through enhanced products' vitamin content and prolonged shelf life. Modern biotechnology can also produce healthier oils and develop vaccines to fight dreadful diseases like cholera and malaria."

"Scientists recognize that no technology is without risk. However, they have great confidence in the NCBP, the inter-department agency tasked to regulate R&D in modern biotechnology.... (The NCBP) has been cautious and stringent in the implementation of its regulations," the statement continued.

Government guidelines are currently being drawn up by the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Product Standards (BAFPS) and the Health Department's Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), in order to govern the commercialization of food and animal feed products that are developed with biotechnology.