The Campaign: News Updates

Vandals lopped off a 50-square foot section of corn plants in a farm field in an act that police believe was a political statement. Three large, brightly colored cutouts of monarch butterflies were placed in the field and the vandals left a sign with a message opposing the use of Bt corn, a genetically altered strain of the crop that is resistant to the European corn borer, a common and costly pest.

Some recent studies have suggested that pollen from Bt corn is also toxic to monarch caterpillars.

Vermont State Police Trooper Greg Campbell said no one has been charged in the crime, though police have leads and are focusing on someone in the area.

The crime occurred Tuesday night. The most likely charges are unlawful mischief or theft, both misdemeanors, Campbell said.

"I've never had a case like this," he said. Chris Hill, the herdsman at Knoxland dairy farm in Wells River, characterized the operation as "a very large, progressive farm. . . . We're a high profile target."

The farm has 250 dairy cows and about 250 acres of corn. Knoxland's three locations have a total of 1,000 cows and 540 acres of corn. Campbell said about half of Knox's crop is Bt corn and the remainder is not genetically altered.

Bt corn is engineered to contain a naturally occurring bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis that is deadly to the corn borer and other insect larvae.

Before the strain of corn was released in 1996, farmers used insecticides to control the corn borer population. Environmental activists became concerned about the genetically engineered Bt corn after results of a Cornell University study were published in May, said Rebecca Goldburg of the Environmental Defense Fund in New York.

The laboratory study found that half the monarch caterpillars in the study died after being exposed to pollen from Bt corn. Those that survived were stunted.

"We view vandalism as an inappropriate response, though we have concerns about Bt corn," said Goldburg, a senior scientist with the defense fund.

Modified foods are like drugs

August 28
Boston Globe op-ed, by Dr. Paul R. Billings

Tales of Terminator seeds, Frankenfood, and toxic baby pabulum are proliferating. An increasingly strident trade war over policies concerning genetically modified foods, alienating traditional political allies, is gaining momentum.

As our grocery store shelves become increasingly crowded with new kinds of food, a reassessment of the role of what we eat in health and disease seems wise. Shouldn't we be asking: Is food a drug?

One of the triumphs of 20th century biomedical science has been the demonstration of the role of food's constituents - its proteins, fats, sugars, vitamins and minerals - in our metabolism. Basic processes like movement, temperature regulation, and thinking depend on a consistent supply of key nutrients. The components of food are the basic prescription for all aspects of our normal life and health.

When ill, eating can be effective treatment. Fevers, faints, high blood pressure, even heart diseases can find remedy in diet. And the actions of prescribed medications are often modified by what we eat.

Antibiotics, ulcer treatments, and blood thinners are examples of prescription drugs whose effectiveness can be altered by food. Genetically manipulated food may not have the same medicinal properties:

Research on altered soybeans shows they are not equally beneficial in important properties. Interactions with medications could change as well. Some people get sick after taking a new medication. The same is true for food. Food allergies and intolerance are common. The altering of food by the insertion of new genes can create new immunological complications. Signs of nut allergy are produced by certain genetically manipulated foods that previously were harmless.

In rare cases, children can develop mental retardation and die by simply eating a normal American diet. Careful management of their intake is crucial to their well-being. The alteration of foods could interfere with these dietary treatments.

The safety of new or altered drugs is extensively documented prior to their public release. But genetically manipulated foods are not similarly scrutinized. Individuals whose health depends on a stable food supply may be particularly vulnerable to uncertain or unknown food content.

Like swallowed pills, food is broken down in our gastrointestinal systems and absorbed. New proteins or the genes that make them, eaten in altered foods, enter our bodies. Genes that confer antibiotic resistance are used to manufacture new food products. These genes could move from what we have eaten into us or into the bacteria that inhabit our intestines. Such transfers might alter our health directly or change the beneficial symbiosis between people and their bugs.

Finally, we depend on a stable food supply, just as we trust that the water we drink and the air we breathe are safe. For centuries we have purchased food from people we trusted. The reliable qualities and properties of food have allowed it to play a role in rituals and religious practices. Altering food may deprive believers of the assurance that food is pure or kosher.

Fear of food's content can alter one's sense of well-being. In extreme cases, malnutrition could occur.

The Food and Drug Administration has dealt with this issue with unscientific blinders. If altered foods look the same, they argue that their medicinal properties are substantially the same as well. If two different pills are the same color and taste similarly, are they equivalent? Is that safe?

Food is a drug, is part of medical treatments, and plays many roles in a healthy culture. That genetically engineered food will hurt some people is a reasonable presumption. Like all drugs, the medicinal qualities of food need to be known and reliable. Though it may be a bitter pill, acknowledging that food is a drug and assuring its quality is good medicine.

It's also a proper and hitherto neglected function of government.

Dr. Paul R. Billings is a director of the Council for Responsible Genetics.

U.S. consumer group calls for GMO labels

August 25
Reuters

A leading U.S. consumer group called Tuesday for the U.S. government to require labels on food products containing ingredients made from genetically modified crops.

Consumers Union said it was making the recommendation after a survey published in the September issue of its Consumer Reports magazine found that many common food products contain genetically modified ingredients.

Despite the group's recommendation, the article in Consumer Reports noted that ``there is no evidence that genetically engineered foods on market are not safe to eat.''

``The U.S. requires labeling orange juice 'from concentrate' and vegetables as 'frozen,''' said Jean Halloran, director of the Consumer Policy Institute, a division of Consumers Union. ''Ignoring 'genetically engineered' threatens to undermine public trust in a labeling system millions rely on every day.''

Genetically modified crops contain a gene borrowed from another organism to increase a plant's resistance to certain herbicides or pests.

The group said it wants the U.S. government to require labels on any domestic or imported food product that contains genetically modified ingredients.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not required special labeling of food made with genetically modified crops on the grounds that the the final food product has not been significantly changed.

Critics argue genetic engineering may increase natural toxins or decrease nutrients in some foods, and that additives in genetically modified foods could cause allergic reactions. The U.S. government has given assurances that the varieties of genetically modified foods it has approved pose no threat to consumers.

The European Union and Japan have proposed labeling requirements for food made from genetically modified crops.

That would create a headache for the U.S. grain industry, which normally does not separate genetically modified crops from traditional varieties.

One in three Americans aware of GMOs

August 25
Newsedge Corporation

Only a third of Americans surveyed recently were aware that US supermarkets now carry a wide range of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, according to the September issue of Consumer Reports magazine.

Unlike Europe, the United States does not require labeling for genetically engineered foods and ingredients. And unlike Europeans, Americans generally do not appear to be concerned by the foods. This lack of concern may be justified -- Consumer Reports notes that there is no scientific safety of genetically engineered foods.

In genetic engineering, scientists add genetic material from one source -- such as a plant, animal, or virus -- to the DNA of another living organism. Some crops, such as corn, have been genetically engineered to resist pests and diseases. Proponents of genetically engineered crops argue that the products could create higher quality crops, cut down on the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides, and increase crop yields.

But the technology has caused some scientists to worry about possible negative effects of this gene splicing on other plants and animals. Opponents -- spearheaded by environmentalists and organic farmers -- caution that some insects could become resistant to the natural pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis, which organic farmers use.

In addition, some scientists have speculated that genetic engineering could potentially increase natural toxins or decrease nutrients in some foods. Among environmentalists' concerns are reports that genetically engineered corn might imperil the monarch butterfly and harm other beneficial insects.

In their study, Consumer Reports' investigators purchased a variety of products from supermarkets this past winter and spring and found that many of them contained genetically engineered ingredients, although none of them were labeled as genetically engineered. Among the products that they found had genetically engineered ingredients were certain soy-based infant formulas, soy burger products, Ovaltine Malt powdered beverage mix, Bac-Os Bacon Flavor bits, Bravos Tortilla Chips Nacho Nacho!, Old El Paso 12 Taco Shells, and Jiffy Corn Muffin Mix.

Consumer Reports also notes that genetically engineered crops are grown on more than one quarter of US cropland, according to recent industry estimates. More than 35% of all corn, 55% of all soybeans, and almost half of all cotton are now genetically engineered.

``If US consumers want to avoid (genetically engineered) food, their only option is to buy organic products,'' according to a press release issued by the magazine.

The Consumer Reports article also cites a recent survey from the International Food Information Council that said that only one third of Americans surveyed were aware that genetically engineered foods are available in the supermarket.

The council, a Washington, DC-based food, beverage and agricultural products trade group, said on Monday that the Consumer Reports article left out other findings of the survey. Among the other findings, according to the council, ``three out of four consumers expect to derive benefits for their families from biotechnology in the next 5 years.''

In addition, the council said that its research suggests that consumers would prefer information in the form of brochures and toll-free numbers from credible sources regarding genetically engineered foods rather than food labels.

However, US Department of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman told Consumer Reports, ``...if the consumers demand labeling -- even if we think it doesn't convey a lot of good stuff -- we're probably going to end up with a labeling scheme.''

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules currently do not require manufacturers to obtain premarket approval for genetically engineered plants because they ``do not contain substances that are significantly different from substances already in the diet.''

Caroline Smith De Wall, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer health advocacy group, told Reuters Health on Tuesday,

``We have not seen any evidence that (genetically engineered) food is unsafe.'' She said, however, that other consequences, particularly regarding the environment, could become evident in the future.

Smith De Wall said that she believes US consumers would favor labeling of the products, even though they have not shown the same level of concern as Europeans have regarding genetically engineered foods.

Unlike the US, the European Union has mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods, and its regulations have prohibited imports of certain kinds of genetically engineered corn. That restriction has caused US corn exporters to lose approximately $200 million worth of business, according to the Consumer Reports article.

Meanwhile, US trade officials have warned the European Union that resistance to the genetically engineered products could cause a major trade dispute.

Consumer groups and environmentalists across Europe have voiced concerns about genetically engineered crops, and in June several European Union governments backed a de facto memorandum on approving new genetically engineered crops until a revised approval system was established.

Margot Wallstrom, the European Union's new Environment Commissioner said last week that she would launch a new initiative to study the potential long-term effects of genetically engineered crops on the environment and human health.

GM investors told to sell their shares

August 25
The Guardian (London)

Europe's biggest bank has advised the world's largest investors to sell their shares in leading companies involved in the development of genetically modified organisms because consumers do not want to buy their products.

In a report sent to several thousand of the world's large institutional investors, including British pension funds, Deutsche Bank says that "growing negative sentiment" is creating problems for the leading companies, including Monsanto and Novartis.

"We note that Monsanto has spent more than $1.5m (#1m) to persuade English consumers of the rectitude of their position, but alas, to no avail.

Monsanto is little match for Prince Charles, an anti-GMO advocate, when it comes to sensitivity for the English people's desires," says the report. "More broadly speaking, it appears the food companies, retailers, grain processors, and governments are sending a signal to the seed producers that 'we are not ready for GMOs'."

Since the report was circulated to investors, shares in companies named have fallen against a rising trend in stock markets generally and the frenzy to takeover seed companies has stopped. In the six months to yesterday Monsanto's stocks had fallen 11%, and Delta & Pine, a seed company that owns the terminator gene, which Monsanto is taking over, has lost 18% of its value.

The Deutsche Bank's Washington analysts, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell, say it is nine months since they first voiced their concerns that the biotech industry was "going the way of the nuclear industry in this country, but we count ourselves surprised at how rapidly this forecast appears to be playing out.

"Domestic concerns regarding ag-biotechnology are clearly on the rise. For the most part, though, it has not gotten the attention of the ordinary US citizen, but when it does - look out."

Deutsche Bank's first research report, dated May 21 and entitled GMOs Are Dead, said: "We predict that GMOs, once perceived as a bull case for this sector, will now be perceived as a pariah.

"The message is a scary one - increasingly, GMOs are, or in our opinion, becoming a liability to farmers," it adds. Non-GMO grains were already gaining a premium price which would, if the trend continued, far outweigh any economic benefit in growing GMOs.

The latest report, published last month under the heading Ag Biotech: Thanks, But No Thanks, says: "GMOs are being demonised by their opponents. What food manufacturer will 'take a bullet' for GMO corn in the face of such controversy?"

GM grains would have to be sold at a discount. "Farmers who planted (Monsanto's) Roundup Ready soya could end up regretting it." It could become an "earnings nightmare" for Pioneer Hi-Bred (a company due to be taken over by the chemicals giant DuPont) and for Monsanto which is buying Delta & Pine, a stock, the bank says, not worth holding on to.

The concerns of European consumers are real, concludes the report. "European consumers have recently been through the mad cow crisis, the French Aids-tainted blood crisis, the Dutch pig plague crisis, the Belgium chicken dioxin crisis, the Belgian Coca-Cola crisis, etc. Therefore hearing from unsophisticated Americans that their fears are unfounded may not be the best way of proceeding."

The report is a serious embarrassment to the Labour party because its pension fund has large investments in two leading GM companies, AstraZeneca and Novartis, both of which are reportedly considering selling their GM divisions after years of heavy investments but few returns.

Following European uproar over the crops, there has been a significant official cooling in the US. The US government and the biotech industry are preparing for a consumer and media backlash and the agriculture secretary, Dan Glickman, has told companies not to take consumers for granted.

The report coincides with growing official unease about claims made for GM crops. With the market for GM in Europe contracting as food processors turn their back on the products, Mr Glickman warned farmers they could be left with unwanted crops, and that small farmers could become "serfs on the land".

Recent US government research has shown that GM crops of maize, soya and cotton do not automatically produce greater yields or lower use of pesticides.

Sue Mayer of Genewatch said: "This shows the global impact of the concerns of pressure groups on this issue."

Group claims responsibility for GE corn damage in Maine

August 24
Bangor Daily News

A group calling itself the "Seeds of Resistance'' has claimed responsibility for destroying a half-acre plot of genetically engineered corn at the University of Maine-owned Rogers Farm last week.

In an anonymous e-mail sent Saturday to a number of environmental Web sites, the group claimed to cut down about 1,000 stalks of the experimental corn to protest the growing of genetically modified crops.

"This action was taken in an effort to send a message to those who seek to benefit from the risky endeavor of genetically engineering the food supply,'' the group states in its e-mail. "By taking such actions, we hope to motivate individuals engaged in such efforts to look into other lines of work.''

The e-mail also called the destruction the "first in a series of actions'' and encouraged more people to join in.

While the e-mail's origin is still a mystery, a copy did appear on a Canadian Web site titled A-Infos, which describes itself as a "multi lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists.'' The e-mail was sent to A-Infos by Wassumkeag EF!, a Searsport-based group listed on the Web site of Earth First!, a well-known radical activist group based in California.

Detective Chris Gardner of the university's Department of Public Safety said Monday that he considered the e-mail "one of many leads'' in the case, which is under "active investigation,'' he said.

Depending on the value of the crop, those found responsible for its destruction could face up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, according to Penobscot County District Attorney Christopher Almy. If the crop is valued at under $2,000, the charge would likely be a misdemeanor criminal mischief, he said.

University officials are in the process of estimating the crop's value. While authorities are stopping short of calling the destruction an act of ecoterrorism, researchers on the project said the reasons for the vandalism - however misguided - were clearly a response to the nature of the crop.

Genetically engineered plants differ from conventional plants in that they contain additional genes, which are spliced into the plant's DNA. The additions may increase the plant's size, resistance to pests or, in the case of the UM corn, prevent damage from herbicides.

John Rebar, program administrator at the university's Cooperative Extension, said the crop was being grown to study its resistance to the popular herbicide Roundup. Its destruction was a troubling setback, he said.

"It's unfortunate we won't be able to provide farmers with the results of our research,'' Rebar said Monday. "This kind of act makes it difficult for us to give them the information they want.''

The UM crop was not for human consumption, but to be fed to cows upon the project's completion.

Seeds for the "Roundup-ready'' corn are commercially available in Maine and the crop is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The seed for the UM experiment was donated by the DeKalb Seed Co., a subsidiary of the Monsanto Corp. Monsanto also manufactures Roundup. In its e-mail, the group also cited its perception of Monsanto's motives for supporting the project as a reason for its destruction.

"There is absolutely no benefit to humanity from corn plants such as were growing in Old Town, other than to create and sell them,'' the e-mail states. "They are only designed to sell more herbicide.''

Environmentalists have targeted genetically engineered crops - including corn - elsewhere in the world, often citing the potential for cross-pollination with other varieties of corn.

Nancy Allen, a Green Party activist, said Monday that while she disagreed with the tactics of the elusive group, its message was worth consideration.

"I think the university should have destroyed the crop itself,'' said Allen, who added that she had never heard of the Seeds of Resistance until Monday. "Agricultural research is one thing, but growing a crop that could adversely affect neighboring crops is not acceptable.''

Earlier this year, the Maine Legislature rejected a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically engineered food.

Religious sue for GM food labeling

August 18
Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- What do three rabbis, a Roman Catholic priest, a Seventh-day Adventist minister, an Eastern Orthodox cleric and a Buddhist who converted from Judaism have in common?

The answer: They all are part of a lawsuit in federal court here against the Food and Drug Administration.

The suit charges that the lack of labeling of genetically engineered foods makes it impossible for religious people to observe dietary laws and customs. The religious plaintiffs are demanding mandatory safety testing and labeling. The lawsuit, filed in May 1998, adds a new and unusual twist to the debate over biofoods.

Almost since such products started appearing on supermarket shelves a half-dozen years ago, critics worried that such experiments as splicing flounder genes into beets to make them resistant to cold could produce unpredictable results. In Europe, too, memories of mad-cow disease, along with old-fashioned protectionism, have stoked antipathy toward U.S. biofoods.

But the lawsuit filed by the religious officials charges, among other things, that genetically altered foods are sinful, unethical - and maybe not kosher.

"The religious groups add a vital aspect," says Andrew Kimbrell, who heads the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit group that is litigating the action. "It brings in a lot of the ethical questions that allow the public to better understand this."

The religious group was assembled by Steven Druker, a peripatetic lawyer, Meditator, Torah student and founding faculty member of Maharishi International University in Iowa. To Mr. Druker, 52 years old, the issue is very clear. In the Bible, Leviticus 19:19 forbids mating one species of animal with another, as well as sowing a field with two types of seeds. Companies and scientists who disobey this law, he declares, have "cosmic chutzpah."

The FDA doesn't see it that way. It treats the new gene combinations in biofoods just like the variations produced by more traditional breeding techniques; in neither case does the regulatory agency require mandatory screening or rules.

"Do we see [genetically engineered foods] as being so different as to be put in a special class, and be treated differently and regulated differently? I say no," says Eric Flamm, senior policy adviser in the FDA's office of policy planning and legislation.

But if Mr. Druker prevails, and strict labeling is required, the consequences for the biofood industry could be huge.

"The large concern [about labeling] in the back of everybody's mind is a boycott of products," worries Alan Goldhammer, executive director for technical affairs at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group. "That could have a serious economic impact."

Mr. Goldhammer says biofoods have nutritional qualities that benefit consumers and agronomic qualities that aid farmers. He adds that the religious plaintiffs aren't making a "cogent argument," because "a gene is a gene." He explains that when a cow gene is put in a tomato, "it's no longer a cow gene," because it has been chemically synthesized in a test tube.

Mr. Druker began to focus on forcing biofood companies to use labels in 1996. He had grown up in a not-very-observant Jewish household in Des Moines, Iowa. But about a decade ago, divorced and practicing law in Los Angeles, he joined a Torah study group.

"I became more involved with Judaism and studying Judaism and believing that we do have a duty to uphold the integrity of God's creation," he says.

Several years later, Mr. Druker began research for a planned book on the integration of religion, science and ethics. The more he researched, the more concerned he became about genetic engineering. He decided that the only answer to his concerns would be a lawsuit forcing food makers to at least label the ingredients of biofoods.

Mr. Druker says that one morning in August 1996, while praying in his apartment in tiny Fairfield, Iowa, he received guidance.

"I don't want to come across as Joan of Arc," he says, "but I felt on an inner level a very strong inner feeling to go ahead and leave the book off for a while and go ahead" with the legal action.

And so he began crisscrossing the country, gathering his Noah's Ark of plaintiffs, many of whom share his mystical spirituality and distrust of authority.

In December 1996, on his first recruiting trip to the East Coast, he was put in touch with Jossi Serebryanski, a Brooklynite and Hasidic rabbi. Rabbi Serebryanski is part of Judaism's cabalistic tradition, which focuses on the mystical dimension of the Torah and other Jewish law. He told Mr. Druker that he believes there is a spiritual energy in food, an energy he feels when he eats kosher foods. Indeed, he says, he has channeled that energy to help heal people. He claims it has taken him three to five minutes to heal carpal tunnel syndrome.

Mixing different species in food results in "destroying the natural boundaries of nature," says Rabbi Serebryanski. "No one is big enough to know all the damage that causes, and no one is big enough to repair it," he says. He signed on as a plaintiff.

Mr. Druker signed up four others after he spoke at the July 1998 "Summerfest of the North American Vegetarian Society" near Pittsburgh. One listener linked him up with Father Samuel Kedala, a priest at her church, the Holy Spirit Orthodox church in Wantage, N.J. In his written declaration in the lawsuit, Father Kedala sounds an apocalyptical warning against biogenetic engineering.

It is the biofood industry's worst labeling nightmare:

"Viewed from the Eastern Orthodox theological perspective, this process appears to be utilizing the infectious, destructive forces of nature in the creation of new life forms, which seems like a gross affront to the Creator's original design."

Mr. Druker's speech also caught the attention of the Rev. DeWitt Williams, director of health ministries for the Seventh-day Adventist church in North America. About half the church's 10 million members world-wide are vegetarians, he says.

"The reason I'm concerned about genetic foods is that many are made from soybeans," about one-third to one-half of which have been genetically engineered, he says.

Ron Epstein, a child of the radical 1960s, was concerned about other living things, including insects.

"The basis for all Buddhist teachings is respect for life," says Mr. Epstein, who converted to Buddhism from Judaism. He worries that the damage from biofoods, which sometimes contain insect genes, could be permanent. "If General Motors puts out a car, and it's got a problem, you can recall it; genetic changes are out there forever."

After three years of recruiting plaintiffs, Mr. Druker also even succeeded in finding common ground between observant Jews and Muslims.

Both religions eschew pork products. Joseph Regenstein, a Cornell University professor who has written about biofoods, says the biofoods issue "is not a problem" for even strict kosher certification organizations. And Mr. Druker says he doesn't think there are any biofoods on the market that contain pigs' genes. But without mandatory labeling, he says, there's no way to know what is in biofood.

Insects, says Mr. Druker, aren't kosher, citing the Torah's proscription against eating "swarming, crawling creatures."

The lawsuit is also crawling along, as Mr. Druker collects more religious supporters. According to one court document, the list recently consisted of: 113 Christians, 37 Jews, 12 Buddhists and 122 people who checked a box saying "my faith is not easily categorized."

Biotech food raises a crop of questions

Genetically modified food offers benefits, but is it safe for human consumption?

August 15
Washington Post

Steve Taylor practically yawned when researchers at Pioneer Hi-Bred, the giant agricultural seed company, asked him in 1995 to study a new soybean they had invented. "I didn't think we'd find anything interesting," the University of Nebraska scientist recently recalled.

Little did Taylor know that his findings would help trigger a wave of anxiety over the safety of genetically engineered food in Europe, a wave that, years later, now threatens to engulf the United States as well.

Pioneer had spliced a Brazil nut gene into soybeans, creating a soybean that boasted a nutritious nut protein. Taylor's task was to find out whether the new soybean would cause allergies in people allergic to Brazil nuts, a potential danger because people with allergies to nuts wouldn't think to avoid soy.

The company had put just one of the Brazil nut's thousands of proteins into its new soybean, and the odds of that one causing the nut's allergies were incredibly low, Taylor said. So he could hardly believe it when first one test, then another, and finally a third indicated that the transferred protein was indeed a major cause of Brazil nut allergies.

In trying to build a better soybean, the company had made a potentially deadly one.

Pioneer immediately halted the soybean project. But Taylor's study lives on today as a symbol of everything that is both frightening and reassuring about genetically altered food, which has quietly made its way into nearly every American kitchen.

Frightening because the study proved that a gene-altered food could cause an unexpected and potentially fatal reaction.

Reassuring because the problem was detected before the product was marketed.

And symbolic above all because it was, and still is, one of the very few studies ever to look directly for any harm from an engineered food or crop.

That dearth of studies is the legacy of a U.S. policy that considers gene-altered plants and food to be fundamentally the same as conventional ones, a policy some Americans are starting to question.

It is also the legacy of the sheer scientific difficulty of conducting the kinds of tests that might assure people that engineered crops and food are safe.

And it is the legacy of broken promises by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, both of which have said for the past five years that they intend to write rules to minimize the chances that gene-altered food will cause allergies or damage the environment.

"Americans are starting to realize that this process is not as all wrapped up as they thought it was," said Carol Tucker Foreman, a food safety specialist at the Consumer Federation in Washington.

Genetically engineered food, which is endowed with bacterial, viral and other genes not native to human food, has been widely, if mostly unknowingly, consumed in the United States since 1996. As far as scientists can tell, no one has ever been harmed.

But with evidence accumulating that the crops may be less environmentally benign than biotech companies had predicted -- most recently, gene-altered corn was found capable of killing monarch butterflies -- some Americans are reconsidering the technology's overall safety.

"I've had more calls about this allergy research in the past three months than I've had in the three years since we published it," Taylor said.

In Europe, that crisis of confidence already runs deep. Activists regularly vandalize newly planted plots of gene-altered crops. Major grocery chains have refused to carry engineered food. And food processors have begun to hire DNA fingerprinting labs to verify that their products are free of foreign genes.

The British Medical Association has warned that the technology may lead to the emergence of new allergies and speed the evolution of microbes resistant to antibiotics. Other groups worry that gene-altered crops may lead to the growth of insecticide-resistant bugs, or "superweeds" unfazed by herbicides.

In this country, gene-altered food is virtually unavoidable. About one-third of the corn growing in the United States is genetically engineered, mostly to exude its own insecticide, as is about half of the cotton crop (including some grown for edible cottonseed oil) and a smaller percentage of potatoes. Half of all U.S. soybeans are genetically modified as well, mostly to produce a chemical that makes the plants impervious to weed-killing sprays.

So with the exception of explicitly organic food, which flows through independent "identity-preserved" food streams, nearly everything made with soy, corn or cotton in this country ends up containing at least some gene-altered ingredients.

That's a lot of different foods. Soy protein can be found in about 60 percent of all processed food, including frozen meals, baby food, yogurt and other products. And corn, in addition to being the main ingredient in tortilla chips and corn starch, provides the high-fructose sweeteners found in many "natural" sodas, fruit drinks and other products.

U.S. regulators and industry representatives argue that engineered food is, if anything, safer than conventional food. Old-fashioned plant breeding involves the random and uncontrolled reassortment of thousands of genes with every mating, they note. By contrast, biotechnology allows the precise transfer of a single well-understood gene into a plant, leaving little to chance.

Moreover, they say, since 1992 the FDA has required allergy tests like the ones Taylor did for all new food made with genes taken from milk, eggs, wheat, fish, shellfish, legumes or nuts, foods that account for perhaps 90 percent of American food allergies. The agency also insists that gene-altered food be nutritionally equivalent to its conventional counterparts.

Most important, advocates say, the FDA can demand extensive safety testing if the new gene "differs substantially" from those generally found in other food. But critics call that a hollow promise. They note that all 44 crops that so far have gained FDA marketing approval have avoided that scrutiny because the agency has accepted the industry's claims that they are "substantially equivalent" to conventional food.

That is, they claim, because the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act demands safety testing on all new additives not "generally recognized as safe." Now activists are suing the FDA in federal court to force such testing on the bacterial and other genes being added to food crops.

Safety testing can be difficult, as researchers found with the Flavr Savr tomato, which was given a gene to make it ripen more slowly. When Calgene and Zeneca Plant Science developed that tomato in the early 1990s, no FDA rules were in place. So the companies voluntarily agreed to conduct a full range of tests.

When scientists tried to feed rodents the tomatoes, however, the animals wouldn't eat them, recalled Roger Salquist, one of the scientists involved in creating the Flavr Savr. "I gotta tell you, you can be Chef Boyardee and mice are still not going to like them."

The researchers went so far as to force-feed the tomatoes to rodents through gastric tubes and stomach washes. The procedure made the rodents sick, of course, and revealed nothing about the food's safety. The tomato ultimately won approval from the FDA but failed in the market in part because it was so expensive.

Safety testing is also difficult because there's no widely accepted way to predict a new food's potential to cause an allergy. The FDA is now five years behind in its promise to develop guidelines for doing so. With no formal guidelines in place, it's largely up to the industry to decide whether and how to test for the allergy potential of new food not already on the FDA's "must test" list.

That means there is a small chance that someone will suffer an allergic reaction, and perhaps a serious one, but science can never assure safety with 100 percent certainty, said University of Wisconsin professor Robert Bush, chief of allergies at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Madison. And when deciding how much effort and expense should be rallied to minimize that risk, Bush said, people should remember that new foods are introduced all the time from other parts of the world without regulators demanding studies on their allergy potential.

"I don't think there was a hue and cry about introducing kiwis onto the U.S. market," Bush said, even though many Americans have proven allergic to them.

The effects of gene-altered crops on the environment are at least as complicated as those on the human body. The EPA requires companies to conduct limited ecological impact tests before marketing gene-altered crops. But while the agency has promised to spell out in detail what crop developers should do to ensure that their gene-altered plants won't damage the environment, it has failed to do so for the past five years.

Meanwhile, several recent scientific studies have highlighted a of potential problems that may be arising from engineered crops.

The most publicized of those was the recent finding that pollen from corn that has been engineered to produce an insecticide called Bt is toxic not only to the caterpillar pest it is aimed at, but also to the monarch butterfly. The laboratory study leaves unresolved whether monarchs are actually being harmed around cornfields. But it inspired a coalition of national environmental groups, including several that had not weighed in on agricultural biotechnology before, to ask the EPA to stop its registration of new varieties of Bt corn until the agency comes up with a more complete ecological safety plan.

At the same time, recent studies have pointed to a variety of other problems that seem to be emerging from Bt corn. One report, for example, suggests that the EPA's primary strategy for preventing the emergence of Bt-resistant insects -- a plan that calls for planting "refuges" of conventional corn in nearby fields -- may be doomed to fail because Bt resistance genes in insects behave differently than scientists had thought.

Another study showed that Bt can alter the time it takes an insect to reach adulthood. That could dash the EPA's hopes that Bt-resistant insects will mate with Bt-susceptible ones and give birth to offspring still vulnerable to the chemical.

Still other studies suggest that Bt corn may be inadvertently killing beneficial insects such as ladybugs and lacewings, which eat insect pests. If true, then the insecticidal crops may be giving reprieves to as many insect pests as they are killing.

And scientists are finding that some engineered crops, such as herbicide-resistant canola in Canada, are cross-pollinating with wild relatives more widely than had been predicted, creating hardy weeds that can survive herbicidal sprays.

Now, the EPA faces a potentially larger problem: whether to approve a new kind of Bt corn called Bt cry9C. It's a decision that many observers see as a test case of just where the agency will draw the line on the degree of risk it is willing to accept.

While other versions of Bt break down harmlessly in the human digestive tract, the cry9C protein remains stable in the human stomach. And because the protein can survive digestion, it has increased potential to cause allergies.

The FDA demands extra allergy testing for new food that contains such stable proteins. And AgrEvo, the German company that is seeking approval for cry9C corn, has conducted some additional tests, including a comparison of cry9C's molecular structure with known allergy-causing proteins. Reassuringly no similarities exist.

But as the agency considers whether to approve the corn for human ingestion, it is up against the reality that there is no surefire way of testing a new protein like cry9C for its potential to cause allergies in people.

"We all wish there was a test where you plug in a protein and out pops a 'yes' or 'no' answer," said Sue MacIntosh, a protein chemist with AgrEvo.

But there is no such test, short of giving it to a lot of people and seeing what happens. The EPA is considering the company's application and hopes to make a decision by fall.

On the shelf

Much of the corn, soy and cotton grown in the United States is genetically engineered. Therefore, ingesting food made from genetically engineered crops is almost inevitable.

Percentage of U.S. crop that's genetically engineered:

Corn 33%
Soy 50%
Cotton 50%

Products that may contain one or more genetically engineered ingredient:

Corn
* Juice
* Soda
Cotton
* Nuts
Soy
* Tuna
Corn & Soy
* Frozen pizza
* Spaghetti sauce
* Crackers
* Cookies
* Salad dressing
Corn, Soy & Cotton
* Soup

Next food fight brewing is over listing genes on labels

Processors, retailers resisting demand of some consumer groups

August 15
Washington Post

Food is more thoroughly labeled than ever. When shoppers go to the grocery store, they can tell at a glance how much salt, sugar, fiber, fat and selected nutrients each item contains.

But labels do not disclose perhaps the most controversial change in the nature of food these days: the addition of genes from unrelated organisms through genetic engineering.

Now, spurred by a debate over possible health and environmental risks from gene-altered foods in Europe, where labeling rules are already in force, some Americans are starting to call for such labels here as well.

It is a demand that the food industry desperately hopes will go away. But many experts believe that the labeling issue will be the battleground on which the war over engineered food will be fought.

"Labeling is absolutely a critical acid test issue for the U.S. biotech food industry," said Charles Benbrook, a consultant on biotechnology for Consumers Union and a former executive director of the National Research Council's board on agriculture, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.

Until recently, no one in the United States seemed to care whether gene-modified food was labeled. But that's changing.

Last summer, two consumer groups sued the Food and Drug Administration, claiming that the agency's failure to institute a labeling regimen for gene-altered food is in violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The law demands that food additives not "generally recognized as safe" be labeled. This spring, activists gathered a half-million signatures calling for labeling of gene-altered food and submitted them to Congress and other officials.

Most food processors and retailers are opposed. They note that U.S. regulators have deemed gene-altered food safe, and they warn that labels could cost consumers millions of dollars.

Most important, they say, mandatory labels would wrongly imply that safety or nutritional value has been compromised in these foods, undermining confidence in the high-tech varieties that producers claim will ultimately help feed the world's growing population.

"The concern," said Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, "is that a label would be seen as a stigma, like a skull and crossbones."

The industry is also wary of labels saying "free of genetically engineered ingredients," because such labels might imply superiority, as in "fat free." The Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) recently announced that it and other groups would initiate a $1 million advertising and educational campaign to counter the nascent U.S. anti-biotech and pro-labeling movements.

"We are trying to effectively reach out so what has happened in certain European countries does not happen here," said GMA spokesman Gene Grabowski. "In our view a lot of clamor and misinformation and hysteria has been allowed to overwhelm reasonable debate on this issue."

The industry's position raises the difficult question of whether there are appropriate limits to the amount of information that should be made available to consumers and, if so, who should decide them.

The FDA and the food industry say labels should be reserved for relevant, "science-based" information. But a number of consumers believe that science should not be the sole criterion.

Some orthodox rabbis, for example, say their strict dietary laws require them to know when a foreign gene -- say, a pig gene -- has been spliced into their food. (No pig genes have been put into crops, but one has been experimentally engineered into salmon to accelerate growth.)

Other shoppers are concerned about the ecological risks that some scientists have said gene-altered agriculture poses. They don't want their purchasing dollars to support biotech agriculture, but they find the "organic" niche too limited.

Biotech labeling is not unprecedented in this country. In 1993, Ben & Jerry's triggered a three-year legal battle by labeling its products as containing milk only from cows raised free of a genetically engineered hormone that boosts milk production.

"People can say 'dolphin-free tuna' and 'stone-ground wheat,' " said Liz Bankowski, a senior director for the company in South Burlington, Vt.

"We felt strongly that people have the right to know how their milk is produced."

After tangling with federal and state regulators over the issue, Ben & Jerry's won the right to keep the label as long as it is accompanied by a disclaimer saying the FDA considers the milk equivalent to conventional milk, and that in any case there is no known way of testing milk to confirm whether it is really free of the offending hormone.

That problem of being able to back up a claim that a food either contains or does not contain genetically engineered ingredients has plagued regulators in the European Union, where a law went into effect in September saying all gene-modified foods must be labeled.

The European law did not specify how much gene-altered material must be present to trigger a label. Now EU ministers are having to negotiate whether a food can avoid the label if it has less than, say, 1 percent engineered ingredients. They must also decide whether "1 percent" means 1 percent of the whole product or 1 percent of the ingredient in question.

Complicating the issue, altered DNA or proteins can disappear during processing, so products can test negative despite their gene-altered origins. At the same time, even a sprinkling of engineered cornmeal or soy flour from a previous shipment can make an entire grain silo or rail car of otherwise unengineered food test falsely positive as engineered.

Melodi Nelson has a good sense of what that can mean. Last fall, testers in Europe detected traces of genetically engineered corn in organic corn chips made by her company, Prima Terra Inc. of Hudson, Wis. Some of the corn supplied to Prima Terra from a certified organic supplier was contaminated, it turned out, with minuscule amounts of gene-altered corn, perhaps because a few grains of engineered pollen blew into the organic grower's fields from a neighboring farm. The positive test forced Prima Terra to recall 87,000 bags of chips valued at $147,000. "It broke my heart," she said.

What do consumers really want? Consumer groups cite studies indicating that 80 to 90 percent of Americans think gene-altered food ought to be marked, and 50 to 60 percent say they would choose nonengineered food if they could. But other studies have found that those numbers drop precipitously when people are given additional information, such as that the FDA has deemed the food safe and nutritious.

"In focus groups, consumers say, 'Tell us if there is something meaningful or different or good or bad,' " said Tom Hoban, a professor of sociology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who has done research on biotech labels. "Consumers are saying, 'I have enough food anxiety, and phew, I don't want to worry about something else unless I have to.' "

Consumers have also balked when told labeling may significantly increase the cost of the food. Grocery groups have not made specific cost estimates but argue that labeling would entail creating expensive separate transportation and processing streams for engineered and nonengineered foods.

Yet quietly, some of America's largest agricultural corporations have begun to do just that. In June, Archer Daniels Midland Co., the giant commodities processor and merchandiser, said it would separate U.S.-grown nonengineered crops for export to European countries.

Several large American growers have begun using gene-testing companies to certify food as free of foreign DNA.

And as confident as American companies say they are about the safety of gene-altered food, fear of public rejection has them on the defensive. Last month, when Greenpeace announced that one kind of Gerber baby food contained gene-altered ingredients, the company quickly announced it would find a supplier that could guarantee nonengineered ingredients.

British Watchdog tells Monsanto to stop making GM safety claims

August 11
The Independent (London)

Monsanto, the genetically modified food giant, has been ordered to stop claiming that it has been testing the safety of its GM crops for the past 20 years.

The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld complaints from environmental groups about a series of newspaper advertisements used by Monsanto to calm public fears over the safety of GM foods.

The complaints are part of a growing trend where the ASA finds itself adjudicating on politically sensitive claims between activist groups and commercial companies.

The adverts claimed that "rigorous tests have been undertaken throughout Monsanto's 20-year biotech history to ensure our food crops are as safe and nutritious as the standard alternatives".

The ASA took expert advice from scientists and discovered that before 1983 Monsanto's research was centred on developing GM techniques and did not include evaluation of their effects on humans and the environment. A spokesman for the ASA said: "When Monsanto clearly state what its beliefs are we do not have a problem with it. But the complaints we upheld were about factual statements that were made.

"A big company like this knows there are pressure groups out there who will pick holes in everything it says and should be very careful with their advertising."

The ASA dealt with complaints from the public and environmental groups such as the Soil Association and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds against 13 adverts. In all, the regulator upheld four complaints and dismissed the rest.

Among those upheld were complaints about an advert by pro-hunt group Countryside Alliance. It was found to have used "misleading and inaccurate comments" in an advert that aimed to tell the truth about country sports.

The judgment said that some of the statements made by the Countryside Alliance were "misleading", that it had misquoted from a previous ASA report and it said the Alliance should "take more care in future" with its adverts.

In another instance of a campaigning group prompting an investigation, the ASA spent three years looking into claims made by Nestle in an advert in a student newspaper about its supplies of formula milk to the developing world. Baby Milk Action, which made the complaints, was rewarded with an adjudication which allowed them a victory over Nestle.

Individuals with concerns about the regulation of the cosmetic surgery industry have also used the ASA to attack companies they believe to be misleading the public and breaking the regulations about their surgeons' qualifications.

Complaints to the ASA by a few dedicated individuals have led the Government to consider tightening up the regulation of clinics offering cosmetic surgery.

Scientific blunder may have given Britain mad cow disease

August 8
London Observer

Britain's ``mad cow'' disease epidemic was caused by a scientific experiment that went wrong, some experts believe. The blunder has cost Britain $6.4 billion, claimed the lives of 43 people and triggered fears that the death toll could eventually reach several million.

Experts believe that hormones, taken from the brains of slaughterhouse carcasses, were injected into cows in a bid to create a new breed of super-cattle. But the experiment -- carried out in the 1980s -- backfired. The hormones, extracted from pituitary glands, were transmitted in an agent that spread mad cow disease and eventually infected humans as new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD).

Twenty years ago, a similar use of human growth hormone, extracted from the pituitary glands of cadavers and given to children with congenital dwarfism, was shown to have spread CJD among humans.

``The theory is simple,'' said Dr. Anne Maddocks, a retired senior medical scientist who specialized in infection control at St. Mary's Hospital in London. ``The promiscuous use of pituitary hormones in cattle led to BSE in the same way that they led to CJD in humans. The timing of the deaths in cattle and humans who were exposed to pituitary hormones is very compelling.''

Maddocks has spent a year investigating the theory, which overturns previous ideas that blamed the epidemic on changes in the preparation of sheep carcasses infected with the brain disease scrapie, which were fed to cattle.

Maddocks is backed by Malcolm Ferguson-Smith, an award-winning Cambridge University scientist on the government's mad cow disease inquiry team.

Evidence supplied separately by Joanna Wheatley, a former researcher and now an organic beef farmer, also supports the theory.

Wheatley says abattoirs were selling pituitary glands to vets and researchers. Cows then got the disease through contaminated brain extract in their hormone injections. Infected cattle were ``recycled'' back into the national herd when carcasses were used in feed or bovine medicine.

The theory is also supported by David Brody, the lawyer acting for families of victims of the BSE-related nvCJD, who are suing the government. Brody also represents families of those who died from CJD after receiving growth hormone treatment.

``One has to take this theory very seriously indeed,'' he said. ``There is a striking resonance to the timing of events and the thinking behind them, and the similarities suggest that serious questions need to be answered.''

A spokesman for Ministry of Agriculture refused to be drawn: ``It is a theory being considered, but it is only a theory.''

Although the ban on British beef exports was lifted in Europe last week, specialists warn that nvCJD could still kill millions of people.

Sir John Pattison, the chairman of the government's scientific advisory body on the disease, said it would take a decade to know the full impact of the crisis.

``We, as a population, are in deep trouble,'' he said. ``That is why the range of possible numbers of variant CJD still goes from something not very different from the numbers we have at the moment to six- or seven-figure numbers.''

His remarks led another panel member, David Pepper, to warn that the chance of such comments causing ``alarm and despondency and maybe even worse are quite high.''

In another sign that scientists are still in the dark over the disease, a new warning has been issued by John Collinge, another scientist advising the government, suggesting that people having their tonsils and appendix out are at risk of contracting nvCJD. This is because the disease has been found in these parts of the body and can be spread through surgical instruments, he warns.

Japan to label 28 biotech foods

August 5
Environmental News Service

Twenty-eight genetically modified foods would have to carry identifying labels if a draft plan introduced Wednesday by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries becomes law. The draft was submitted to the Minstry's advisory panel for consideration at a meeting August 10.

The advisory panel's approval of the draft, would open the way for the Ministry to put the labeling requirement into practice in April 2001.

The foods to be labeled include items made from soybeans such as tofu, miso and soy milk, and snack foods containing corn such as popcorn.

The plan is expected to be criticized by consumers because it does not go far enough. Some syrups and oils, said by some authorities to contain the highest amount of biotech food ingredients, are not covered by the draft plan.

Only genetically altered agricultural produce and processed foods that are sold in retail markets are included in the labeling plan. Ingredients that are marketed to the food industry would not be labeled. Food manufacturers would be responsible for labeling the foods.

The list of foods to be labeled is divided into three categories. The first section is for foods of enhanced nutritional value due to genetic engineering. Soybean oils, for instance, can be modified to increase the oleic acid content. Oleic acid is highly nutritious. This oil would be labeled "high oleic acid soybean oil (genetically modified)."

If the foods are genetically altered, but their nutrients remain unchanged, they will be listed in the second category. Unprocessed soybeans, which may be in this group, would be labeled, "soybeans (genetically modified)." Most of the 28 foods belong to this second category of labeling.

Foods with an unknown mix of natural and genetically modified ingredients would have to carry a label saying that the modified ingredients are present but not specified.

Japanese sources say that soy and corn exporting countries, such as the United States and Canada do not want Japan to require the labeling of genetically modified foods, as they are worried about a possible decline in their food exports to Japan.

However, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman told reporters July 13 that some type of labeling will happen in the United States eventually. "At the end of the day many observers, including me, believe some type of informational labeling is likely to happen. But, I do believe that it is imperative that such labeling does not undermine trade and this promising new technology," Glickman said.

Right now, there are about 50 genetically altered plant varieties approved by U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The upcoming round of World Trade Organization talks set for November in Seattle, Washington will focus on agricultural products, including those modified by biotechnology.

On June 18, Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries released a proposal for the upcoming WTO negotiations. "WTO Members should actively address such new issues as the treatment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)," the ministry said.

Bugs may resist new crops faster than expected

August 5
Wall Street Journal

University of Arizona scientists said some insects might be able to develop resistance to the biotechnology industry's new bug-proof cotton plants more quickly than expected.

The peer-reviewed laboratory study, which is being published in today's issue of the science magazine Nature, signals that some genetically modified plants might become obsolete sooner than their inventors had planned.

Biotechnology executives were quick to challenge the study, saying among other things that it didn't resemble actual field conditions.

But if follow-up field studies find similar results, the Environmental Protection Agency would likely have to change the rules that farmers must follow in order to plant the novel crops. The EPA rules are designed to prevent so-called "super bugs" from evolving.

"There are some real concerns that resistance can evolve," said Bruce E.. Tabashnik, head of the Tucson-based University of Arizona's entomology department and an author of the study. "Some strategies might need to be changed."

U.S. farmers are tending about 3.5 million acres of bug-resistant cotton this year, which is equal to about one-fourth of the total U.S. cotton acreage. The farmers use seed containing a gene transplanted from a common soil micro-organism called Bacillus thuringiensis.

The Bt gene tells the plant how to make a toxin that specifically kills caterpillars, such as the pink bollworm, a big pest in Southwestern cotton fields and the subject of the University of Arizona study. The introduction of Bt plants three years ago has allowed cotton farmers to cut by millions of pounds their annual use of synthetic pesticides, which end up killing bugs indiscriminately, including those that are beneficial to the crop.

The University of Arizona study strengthens the hand of environmental groups that oppose the development of bug-proof plants. They worry that exposing bugs to the Bt toxin every day increases the chances that enough resistant strains would evolve to make the natural pesticide ineffective.

Bt-based sprays have been popular with vegetable growers for decades, because the toxin doesn't harm beneficial insects such as ladybugs and honeybees.

The EPA requires that farmers who plant Bt cotton and Bt corn set aside some of their fields as insect havens. The refuge is intended to guarantee that there are plenty of conventional insects around to mate with any that might develop Bt resistance. According to regulators, random mating reduces the odds that the next generation of bugs might inherit the Bt-resistant trait.

Bt-resistant bugs have yet to be found in actual U.S. corn and cotton fields. Indeed, in a bit of good news for the biotechnology industry, the University of Arizona study concluded that their laboratory-raised pink bollworms got their Bt-resistant abilities from a recessive trait. That means any progeny from a mating with a conventional pink bollworm won't express the trait.

The potential problem exposed by the University of Arizona study is that the mating cycle of its Bt-resistant bugs was out of synch with that of regular pink bollworms. That suggests any Bt-resistant bugs that develop in the wild might only be able to mate with each other, which could trigger a population explosion of their kind.

Stephen Johnson, the EPA deputy administrator in charge of pesticides, said the agency will study the University of Arizona report to see whether it needs to take additional steps to regulate Bt crops. The EPA has approved nine Bt crops for planting in the U.S., including a bug-proof potato.

"This is a rapidly evolving science," said Mr. Johnson. "We will be constantly diligent."

Some cotton-insect scientists said yesterday that the refuge strategy is adequate to prevent Bt-resistant pink bollworms from developing. So many of those shortlived bugs are hatching at any time that there are always plenty of conventional bugs around for breeding purposes, they said.

Still, many scientists say it is only a matter of time before bugs in the wild develop some sort of resistance to the current stable of bug-proof crops; the debate is over the length of time it will take.

That is one reason crop-biotechnology companies such as Monsanto Co. are developing new insecticidal genes they can put into crops in order to stay ahead of bug evolution. The second generation of Monsanto's bug-proof plants might hit the market as early as 2001.

Are these new biotech foods safe? Research shows gene-modified plants can produce unintended effects

August 5
Christian Science Monitor

In Europe, a public backlash has forced many food companies to ban genetically engineered products from store shelves.

Now, however, new evidence is showing that some genetically altered crops can cause unintended consequences - which could spur more resistance to the booming bio-agriculture industry in the United States.

The latest sign: A study in the journal Nature that implies genetically modified cotton can promote resistance to pesticides in a well-known - and much feared - parasite.

In the US, acceptance of the technology is widespread: Most of the nation's wheat and corn, for example, is genetically modified.

The research comes in the wake of a study in May showing Monarch butterflies die after contacting pollen from genetically engineered corn.

Moreover, last week the country's largest baby food manufacturer, Gerber, announced it would stop using genetically engineered soy and corn products because of public concern - warranted or not - about safety.

"I think this is another small piece that tells us to be conservative," says Fred Gould, a North Carolina State University entomologist, of the news in Nature. "I think that what we need is a lot more science and a lot less talk."

Yet one group that is talking a lot more is environmentalists. They have seized on the latest research to buttress their claims that genetically engineered crops could pose a danger to people and the environment.

"There may be long term effects that we may not see for many years but could have serious detrimental impacts on brain development and organ development," says Charles Margulis, a genetic issues specialist with Greenpeace.

But it is safe

For their part, the big biotechnology and agricultural companies argue there is no conclusive evidence that the crops are dangerous. In fact, they see them as beneficial to both the environment and consumers, since the crops require fewer pesticides.

"It's had a tremendous impact on the reduction of insecticide use," says Gary Barton, a spokesman for Monsanto Co., the big US chemical company. "The activist communities seem to ignore the nearly 1 million gallons of pesticide that hasn't been used on the cotton crops over the last three years. And that's just the cotton crop."

But it is precisely these claims, along with the lack of public opposition in the US, that make the Gerber announcement so surprising. Furthermore, Gerber's parent company, the Swiss pharmaceutical and agriculture conglomerate Novartis AG, has invested millions in developing the genetically altered plant strains that it now refuses to buy for Gerber baby foods.

Novartis executives say they want to make sure mothers retain their confidence in Gerber. In Europe, Novartis has tried to avoid conflicts with Greenpeace and other environmental groups. The company pulled baby food with genetically engineered ingredients off the shelf 24 hours after a Greenpeace request for information similar to the one sent to Gerber more than a month ago.

Despite the actions, Novartis and all other manufacturers of genetically engineered crops continue to maintain they're safe - a claim upheld by many food researchers in the US.

That's why each new study is being so closely scrutinized. In the findings published today in Nature, researchers at the University of Arizona document a flaw in a technique that causes plants to produce their own natural pesticide.

The study focuses on the fight against the pink bollworm, a pest that preys on cotton. Scientists have been splicing into cotton -as well as corn and other plants - a gene that produces a bug-killing chemical. Organic farmers have sprayed this bacteria on crops on rare occasions as a safer alternative to chemical treatments.

But the pests can develop a resistance to the bacteria. To counteract this, scientists plant genetically altered crops alongside regular crops. Under this "refuge strategy," bollworms that eat the altered crops - and eventually develop a resistance - will breed with bollworms that have not. The result is a slowing of the generations of insects that inherit a resistance.

The danger

Here's the problem: The life cycle of insects eating the genetically engineered cotton is delayed five or six days, altering their mating cycles. As the Arizona researchers point out, this may undermine the refuge strategy - and thus diminish the effectiveness of the natural pesticides.

This prospect especially worries organic farmers, who often use the natural pesticides as their last line of defense against crop-destroying pests.

Despite these concerns, few scientists advocate a ban on the development and use of genetically engineered crops, which farmers are already planting in vast amounts. But some do say the bollworms and Monarchs are evidence that a go-slow approach is warranted.

"This is just one more of those studies that shows that all the ideal assumptions are not being met," says Mr. Gould.

Chefs cast a skeptical eye on altered food

August 4
Boston Globe

Our food and exactly what's in it is shaping up to be the burning issue of the next millennium. And chefs, the come-from-behind superstars of the end of this one, are poised to be our gurus.

The storm clouds have been gathering for most of this decade, ever since scientists devised a tomato with a longer shelf life, called it Flavr Savr, and put it on the market. It flopped, but the battle lines, as muddled as in real warfare, began to be drawn. On one side, there is science and industry; on the other, the skeptics who worry about bioengineered vegetables, grains, and even fish. Now the United States and the European Union are locked in a fight over altered foods that threatens to explode into an international trade war.

Meanwhile, scientists for Monsanto and other big seed and food companies are genetically engineering corn, soybeans, and other products. Some milk producers inject cows with a growth hormone to increase production. Genes from one species of fish are being spliced with other species to counteract cold water and speed production.

Chefs, led by such young lions as Stan Frankenthaler, owner of Salamander in Cambridge, are stepping up, scrutinizing the rush, questioning the results. ''What I feed my customers, my friends, my family is definitely important to me,'' says Frankenthaler, who is the vice chairman of the national Chefs Collaborative 2000. The collaborative, an initiative of Oldways Preservation & Exchange Trust, seeks to promote sustainable cuisine and to encourage eating local and seasonal products.

To Frankenthaler and Rick Bayless, chef-owner of Frontera Grill and Topolobampo in Chicago and the collaborative's chairman, it makes perfect sense for restaurateurs to be as concerned with what's in food as with how to be creative and make money from serving it. ''We buy a lot of food,'' says Bayless, and biogenetic engineering ''is definitely going to affect our food supply.''

He adds: ''Chefs are becoming more articulate and more savvy. I don't know all the scientific things, but I can choose whether or not to serve my customers genetically altered food. Right now, there are a lot of questions floating around that we don't have answers for.''

The past decade has seen an upsurge not only in fine dining but in listing the sources of food. Even at fairly modest restaurants, menus now are likely to tout the farms where the green beans were raised, give the provenance of the beef, reveal the source of the strawberries. Chefs have proudly proclaimed relationships with small growers and farmers, many of them organic, and made it a selling point of their food.

Their concern about biogenetics is a natural outgrowth. ''I'm bothered by the idea that I don't know the origins of ingredients in my food,'' says Frankenthaler. By working with farmers in season, knowing his suppliers, and using as many organic products as he can, Frankenthaler feels he's fairly knowledgeable about origins. But some ingredients, such as soy oil used in frying, would cost three times as much as nonorganic, he says. ''Customers are only willing to bear so much,'' he says, adding with a smile, ''It would be difficult to get customers to pay $38 for chicken.''

He buys organic flour, eggs, and canned tomatoes, plus milk produced without growth hormones. The milk issue crystallized his views early in the '90s. ''I became more deeply aware, because of the controversy around the bovine growth hormone, of the seriousness of science being involved in the foodstream.'' Milk - and whether it is affected by the hormone called rBST, used to increase production - has created stronger comment, Frankenthaler thinks, because ''it struck home. Milk is nurturing; it's what you give children. It's supposed to come straight from the cow'' without tampering.

Both Frankenthaler and Bayless emphasize that the Chefs Collaborative is not saying that genetic engineering is inherently bad for the food supply. After all, as Frankenthaler says, farmers have crossed seeds and manipulated agriculture for centuries, but ''within the laws of nature.'' Now scientists are able to do amazing things, Bayless says, but some in the agricultural industry and the federal Food and Drug Administration are taking the position that the public should not be worried unless there's proof of damage. Because corn and soybeans, so far the most likely crops to have been genetically altered, are in many processed foods, consumers aren't likely to know or be able to make decisions. On the milk issue, in contrast, there was enough outcry that supermarkets began refusing to stock milk containing rBST.

''Let's just put some brakes on all of this,'' says Bayless. His question: ''Do we want the companies like Monsanto'' making these decisions for us?

''We want labeling, so that people can make their own decisions,'' he adds. And the recent case of monarch butterflies dying after feeding on the pollen of genetically altered corn was a wakeup call, he says, indicating that the seed companies hadn't thought through all the possible results.

The question of labeling is under review by the US Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has said he is reconsidering the labeling issue after the outcry over bovine growth hormones in milk. And the monarch butterfly incident has caused more discussion among the science and industry components.

One restaurateur who has chosen to take the purist's approach is Nora Pouillon, owner of the elegant Nora and Asia Nora in Washington, D.C. A national organic commission recently certified her restaurants 95 percent organic, with ingredients ranging from vegetables, milk, cheeses, and meats to items such as salt from Brittany and spices. ''I've been in business 20 years,'' Pouillon says, ''and so it's maybe more economical for me,'' because of rents and long associations with organic suppliers. ''I wouldn't do it any other way,'' she says, adding that one person on her staff is employed only to source organic products.

Why chefs, one might ask. ''The answer is, chefs have always been authority figures about food,'' says K. Dun Gifford, whose Oldways organization spawned the collaborative, ''but only in the last decade have they been taken seriously. We pay a lot of money to go eat their food. If food is dangerous, they care deeply.''

As for the premise that the issue is important only to an elite group of chefs and those who pay more for organic products, Gifford angrily replies: ''The people who speak that way about the public are really the snobs. They treat food as a subject important to only rich people.''

Bayless brings the argument back to the consumer. He scoffs at the idea that Americans prefer not knowing about their food sources if that saves them money. ''The US pays less for its food than anywhere else,'' Bayless says. ''Europeans pay a lot more for food, and they won't accept'' hormones or genetic engineering. ''We're on the wrong road'' on prices, Bayless thinks. As a nation of consumers, we need to make sure our food is safe, rather than worrying so much about cost and demanding giant amounts of food.

And all consumers, as well as restaurateurs, should have the right to know what's in their food, the chefs agree.

For more information, write to Chefs Collaborative 2000, 25 First St., Cambridge, MA 02141, or telephone 617-621-3000. The local chapter president is Ana Sortun, chef of Casablanca in Harvard Square.

Japan's agricultural ministry proposes mandatory labeling

August 4
Reuters

Japan's Agriculture Ministry proposed on Wednesday that crops grown with genetic modification technology and foods produced from these crops should require mandatory labeling, effective April 2001.

Japan has already approved 22 varieties of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under its food safety guidelines, including soybeans, corn, rapeseed, potatoes, cotton and tomatoes.

Still, these crops and food products produced from them should be labeled to allow consumers to make informed choices when buying foods, the ministry said.

Food products in which DNA or protein resulting from gene alteration cannot be detected using current technologies should be exempted from the label requirements, it said.

Edible oil produced from high-oleic genetically modified soybeans should be labeled, as the product differs significantly from oils made from non-modified soybeans in composition, use or nutritional quality, the ministry said.

Japan's Health Ministry is now considering if high-oleic, genetically modified soybeans should be allowed to be imported under the nation's food safety guidelines.

No official data is available on the amount of genetically modified crops actually imported by Japan. But research conducted by Kyoto University showed that over 30 percent of soybeans imported from the U.S. in 1998 were genetically modified.

The Agriculture Ministry estimates that in 1998, about 27 percent of total U.S. soybean acreage was planted with genetically modified strains of the crop, and 23 to 34 percent of corn-planted acreage was growing modified varieties.

Japan imported 2.45 million tons of soybeans in the first half of 1999, of which imports from the U.S. accounted for 2.11 tons or 86.2 percent.

In the same period Japan imported 9.13 million tons of corn, of which imports from the U.S. accounted for 8.82 million tons or 96.5 percent.

Following is the proposed list of items exempted from labeling:

+soyoil
+soy sauce
+corn oil
+corn flakes
+glucose syrup
+high fructose corn syrup
+alcoholic beverages with corn starch
+dextrin
+rapeseed oil
+cotton seed oil
+mashed potatoes
+potato starch
+potato flakes
+frozen/canned/retort-packed potato products.

Following is a list of food products which the ministry said should require labeling, and the volume of crops used annually to make each product. Figures are the Farm Ministry's estimations based on information obtained from Japanese importers and end-users of agricultural products, and from foreign government sources:

FOOD PRODUCT ANNUAL USAGE (TONS)

+"tofu" soybean curd 524,000 tofu-based foods
+soy milk 3,000
+soybeans for direct 68,000 consumer consumption
+fermented soybeans 120,000
+soybean paste 165,000
+boiled soybeans 33,000
+powdered soybeans NA
+foods made from powdered soybeans NA
+foods made from plant protein NA
+corn for direct consumer NA use
+corn snacks NA
+frozen/canned corn 52,000
+potatoes (not processed) NA
+foods made from corn flour NA
+foods made from corn starch NA

Japan risks U.S. ire with GMO labeling plan

August 4
Reuters

Japan's Agriculture Ministry, under pressure from consumers, proposed Wednesday that foods made with genetically altered crops be specially labeled -- a move that could spark trade tensions with the United States.

Japan, believed to be the world's biggest importer of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is heavily dependent on farm imports from the United States, the world's largest producer of genetically altered crops.

The United States has warned that if Japan implements mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods, it could mislead consumers about food safety and disrupt agricultural trade.

Japan has approved 22 varieties of GMOs under its safety guidelines, including soybeans, corn, rapeseed, potatoes, cotton and tomatoes, but the ministry said labeling requirements should be imposed on these crops and food products that use them in order to allow consumers to make an informed choice of foods.

The ministry expects, however, that the proposed rules will affect only a small portion of Japan's imports of U.S. crops, since exemptions are granted to any food products in which DNA or protein resulting from gene alteration cannot be detected using existing technologies.

Soybeans used to produce soyoil and soy sauce, which are exempted from mandatory labeling, account for about 75 percent of Japan's annual soybean imports.

And corn used for feed and syrup, which are also exempted from labeling requirements, accounts for about 80 percent of Japan's annual corn imports. There are also no food products made from rapeseed or cotton that would require labeling.

Japan imports no genetically modified tomatoes and its 700,000 tons in annual imports of processed potatoes are also exempted from the proposed rules.

The ministry submitted its proposal to a government committee working on GMO labeling rules. The committee plans to make a final decision on the issue by the end of this month.

At a Wednesday meeting to discuss the ministry's proposal, committee members representing the food industry opposed the plan, saying labeling is not necessary for genetically modified foods that the Japanese Health Ministry has approved as safe.

"I cannot understand why foods confirmed as safe should require labeling," said Atsushi Suzuki, a committee member from Japan Tobacco Inc, one of Japan's leading biotechnology firms.

U.S. officials have also expressed concern.

"We do not believe that obligatory GMO labeling is necessary, because it would suggest a health risk where there is none," said Isi Siddiqui, special assistant for trade to the U.S. agriculture secretary.

"I fear major trade disruptions and increases in food costs to consumers if Japan requires mandatory labeling," he said.

Siddiqui met senior Agriculture Ministry officials in Tokyo last week. But a majority of the committee members support the ministry's proposal for mandatory GMO labeling, although they are divided over which foods should be labeled.

Committee members representing consumer groups asked for mandatory labeling of all GM foods.

"For an informed choice of foods by consumers, I cannot accept the idea that foods are labeled depending on whether DNA or protein (resulting from genetic modification) is detectable or not," said Masae Wada, chairman of the Housewives Association.

Keishiro Fukushima, director-general of the Agriculture Ministry's food and marketing bureau, said the proposed labeling rules are practical and reliable.

The working committee will hold its next meeting on August 10.

Church ban on GM trial crops

August 4
Independent (London)

The Church of England has refused to allow the Government to use its land to conduct genetically modified crop trials.

The decision, which was prompted by the continuing controversy over the morality and safety of the technology, will come as a huge embarrassment to the Government.

The Central Science Laboratory, the main research arm of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, asked to lease the land at a meeting with Church Commissioners. However, The Independent has learned that the commissioners blocked the move pending a full-scale inquiry into genetic modification and its "theological implications".

After objections from Christian Aid, English Nature, Friends of the Earth and others, the church's Ethical Investment Working Group will now spend several months weighing up the whole issue.

Christian Aid, which has declared that American companies are "selling suicide" to the Third World by forcing GM crops on to them, welcomed the decision to freeze the government application.

As a practicing Christian, the Prime Minister will take particularly hard their accusations that genetic manipulation of crops is "unethical" and will ruin the livelihoods of poor farmers. The church's decision follows intense internal debate over the warm welcome some of its senior officers had given to GM technology.

The church owns more than 123,000 acres of agricultural land in Britain, worth some �237m. At present, no church agricultural land is used for experimental or commercial genetically modified crops.

Jim Thomas, GM campaigns officer for Greenpeace, said that the church's decision would be welcomed by nearly all churchgoers. "These farm-scale trials are very much a propaganda exercise by the Government and industry to make genetic pollution of the countryside inevitable. The church's caution is entirely in line with the public, who simply don't want these trials," he said.

Australia, New Zealand require mandatory GM labels on food

August 3
Reuters

Australia and New Zealand agreed to order the mandatory labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the two governments said in a joint statement on Wednesday.

The health ministers for the two governments announced the decision through their joint Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC).

"ANZFSC has agreed to require mandatory labeling of foods produced using gene technology and foods containing genetically modified ingredients," the council said.

How the labeling would be enforced would be decided in October, the food council said.

This would include the setting of a threshold level for genetically modified ingredients before a food has to be labeled as containing genetic modifications.

The food council would also consider whether to allow manufacturers to label their goods with the label that the product "might contain genetically modified ingredients approved by health authorities" to allow them to avoid the need to track the genetic history of all ingredients.

Last week the United States warned Japan against mandatory labeling of foods containing GMOs as an unfair barrier to trade.

However, New Zealand Health Minister Wyatt Creech said the common theme of public submissions on the issue was that the consumer had a right to know whether the food they were buying was genetically modified.

"The New Zealand government is committed to ensuring food sold and available in New Zealand is safe for people to eat," he said in a statement.

"We are also committed to giving consumers information to make an informed choice about what they are buying."

The food council said it would consider the implications for the two countries' World Trade Organization obligations in requiring genetically modified foods to be labeled.

New Zealand food manufacturers warned that the cost to industry of monitoring ingredients and labeling all genetically engineered foods would amount to approximately NZ$150 million ($80 million) a year.

"Most food manufacturers use between about two to three thousand ingredients in processed foods...that is a very big task," Brenda Cutress of the Grocery Marketing Association told Radio New Zealand.

"It is very difficult keeping GE and non-GE ingredients separated through complex supply-chains. That's where the incredible cost lies."

GE corn found in baby foods; Gerber to use organic corn

August 2
The Independent (London)

The US baby-food giant, Gerber, is rethinking its buying strategy after the environmental organization, Greenpeace, discovered GM maize in its children's cereal products and made its findings public. The company said it will buy only "organic" maize from now on and will use the absence of GM grains as a marketing aid.

Gerber's action, disclosed by The Wall Street Journal, is the result of an inquiry to the company from Charles Margulis, a Greenpeace campaigner living in New York. Two months ago, he faxed a letter to Gerber's chief executive officer, asking whether the company used GM products in its baby food. If so, which products? and "what steps have you taken, if any, to ensure you are not using" GM ingredients? He asked for a reply within five business days.

Mr Margulis did not get his reply. But what followed, according to The Wall Street Journal, was a frenzied response that penetrated to the top of Gerber's parent company, the Swiss conglomerate, Novartis, in the space of four weeks and a change of policy affecting an established product worth $1bn (�625m) in annual sales.

Now, Gerber is abandoning some of its long-standing maize and soya bean suppliers. This will increase costs - both in broken contracts and the purchase of more expensive organic replacements. But baby food, as Greenpeace well understands, is an especially emotive issue.

The president of Novartis's US consumer health operation, Al Piergallini, said: "I have got to listen to my customers. So, if there is an issue, or even an inkling of an issue, I am going to make amends. We have to act preemptively."

Whether Gerber will label the resulting products "GM-free" is another matter, however.

The view of the US Food and Drug Administration, which has approved licenses for specific GM crops, is that they are safe and a potential boon to farmers and consumers alike. This assessment is now enshrined as official US policy.

But middle-class consumers are now asking whether they should not be worried about GM produce if Europeans feel so strongly about it, and American farmers, persuaded by manufacturers that GM seed will increase yields and reduce costs, now fear they could be landed with crops they cannot export at a time when agricultural prices are falling.

The first chink in the US adminstration's armor of confidence came last month when the Agriculture Secretary, Dan Glickman, announced extra regional monitoring of GM crops and a review of licensing procedures. While the pharmaceutical industry professed itself unconcerned, it is still adamantly opposed to labeling GM products as such. Indeed, the pervasiveness of GM soya and maize in the US make labeling almost impossible: there are so few products that can be guaranteed GM-free.

To establish that Gerber baby food contained GM produce, Greenpeace had to send samples to a laboratory in Britain. It was found that processed food in jars did not contain GM elements, but that the dry cereal did. With no response from Gerber by then, Greenpeace made the results public.

GM soya milk gives children herpes, senior surgeon tells the Government

August 1
Electronic Telegraph (London)

A leading British surgeon is to give evidence to the Government that genetically modified soya milk triggered a herpes-related virus in her daughter.

The surgeon, from south-west London, will explain that cold sores repeatedly erupted on her two-year-old's face when she regularly drank the GM product and immediately cleared when she stopped.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last week that it would investigate her claims. The revelations coincide with worries expressed by the Prince of Wales earlier this year and a number of leading geneticists who believe that some GM products can trigger viruses in humans.

The woman, who wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter said she wants to make sure that a similar situation is not repeated with other children. She said: "I want the Government to look into this because I saw the change in my daughter - as soon as she was taken off the GM milk, her health dramatically improved. I, and my GP, have not found any other reasons why she became ill. My family previously ate GM products without worrying - but now we do not."

Tests have showed that the child is not allergic to soya milk, which her mother began feeding her in February 1998, when she was just a year old because she had developed an allergy to dairy products. The girl immediately began developing large cold sores which did not respond to treatment. She was drinking about four pints of the milk every day - and the sores were getting worse.

Her mother, a 38-year-old plastic surgeon in a London hospital, said: "I became aware that she was not getting better. There seemed to be three large, weeping sores on her face at any one time." So she spoke to a friend - who is also a hospital-based geneticist - who warned her that critics of GM products are worried that they could provoke viral infections.

She cut the amount of soya milk her daughter was drinking to half a pint a day and the sores cleared up overnight. She said: "The circumstantial evidence was there for all to see." Critics of GM foods believe that "virus promoters" - pieces of DNA in plants that can control activity in its genes - could be responsible for triggering the herpes virus. But other experts disagreed.

Prof Jim Dunwell, a plant biotechnologist from the University of Reading, who has been involved in producing GM plants, said it is highly unlikely that plant viruses could provoke reactions in human beings. He said: "It sounds highly unlikely that this child has had her herpes provoked by soya milk. It is more likely to be an allergic reaction."