August headlines

Return to August article index

Biologist's salt-resistant tomato can grow in desert

But public remains skeptical of biotech creations, and farmers won't grow it if people don't want it

August 17
The Beacon Journal

San Francisco -- Plant biologist Eduardo Blumwald swears that the tomato he genetically engineered to be salt-resistant -- despite thriving in the world's increasingly more saline soils -- tastes as good as any available in the local supermarket.

``Of course, I'm biased,'' said Blumwald, a professor at the University of California, Davis.

He may also be one of the few ever to taste his tomato. The plants were destroyed after his experiment ended, and bio-engineered foods just aren't selling.

Remember the Flavr Savr?

That tomato was genetically engineered by Calgene Inc. in 1994 to stay fresh on store shelves longer than regular tomatoes. Today, Calgene is no more. Agricultural giant Monsanto Corp. gobbled it up in 1996, and the Flavr Savr is off the market, falling victim to an inferior taste and public distrust of genetically modified food. The public remains skeptical about transgenic crops, so farmers don't want to grow them.

``Biotech is taboo,'' said Tom Braner, business manager of Tanimura & Antle, which grows 240,000 acres of tomatoes near Fresno. ``Everybody wants organic. Nobody wants genetically modified food.''

Consumer fears are fed by a growing number of activists who want to discourage development of genetically altered food.

``Nobody knows enough about the safety of these things,'' said Andy Kimbrell, executive director of the International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C. ``I don't think anybody wants to participate in an experiment.''

All of which upsets Blumwald. He complains his work is misunderstood.

Fully 40 percent of the world's farmland has been damaged by high levels of salt from mineral-rich irrigation water, blocking plants from absorbing water and reducing crop output. Crops more resistant to salt need to be developed if the trend is to be reversed, Blumwald said.

He also says he's merely ``crossbreeding'' plants, as farmers have done for centuries -- though horticulturalists using traditional crossbreeding methods have failed to develop salt-resistant crops.

``I'm not doing anything different than farmers did a thousand years ago,'' Blumwald said. ``Nothing bad is going to happen.''

Blumwald infused his tomatoes with a salt-fighting gene from arabidopsis, a cabbage relative. The resulting plants thrived in water containing 50 times more salt than normal. His findings were published this month in Nature Biotechnology.

He believes his invention can be used in a variety of crops and bad soils, including the deserts of the Middle East and abandoned farmlands in India.

Others argue that developing salt-resistant plants won't improve the deteriorating conditions of the world's farmlands.

``It's a Band-Aid,'' said Mark Lipson, co-owner of Molino Creek Farm, which grows organic tomatoes on six acres. The real problem, he said, is over-irrigation of cropland by large corporations.

Lipson and organic farming proponents are concerned that pollen from biotech crops will contaminate their organic plants. They fear that hard-to-kill super weeds will sprout from genetically modified pollen. Not enough research has been done to ensure safety, they say.

Cloning likely to start with your burger, not you

August 17
Florida Times-Union

"If the [Food and Drug Administration] sees the benefit of cloning, animal technology will start first," said Steven Stice, a University of Georgia scientist.

Stem cell-derived therapies for human diseases, he said, will come later due to current limits of science and a lack of funding.

Stice headlined the UGa business school-sponsored lecture "Cloning and Commercialization" yesterday in Atlanta.

At issue was the use of cloning to mass market genetically superior livestock. Research suggests the offspring of cloned cattle could go to market as much as seven years quicker than naturally conceived offspring. The cloned cattle would be leaner, tastier and more tender than the average cow.

While limited commercial cloning of cattle already is taking place, without funding and FDA approval, cloned cattle haven't entered the American food supply so far.

Stice, as well as other Athens-based researchers, expects this to change within the next two to three years.

"We're contemplating hundreds, if not thousands, of cloned bulls for breeding schemes for more uniform beef," he said.

Much of the technology that will yield genetically improved livestock already exists.

In June, Stice announced significant progress in his research, reducing the cloning success rate from one in 20 cattle to one in seven.

And the money needed for mass-scale cattle cloning -- as well as for human stem cell research -- may be on the way.

Gordhan Patel, UGa's interim vice president for research, said the international interest surrounding Stice's research could help the university obtain even more backing than previously thought.

Already recognized for his work in animal cloning, Stice was thrust back into the spotlight last week when President Bush announced the approval of federal funding for limited research on stem cells extracted from human embryos.

The president's approval applied only to 60 existing lines of stem cells. Stice is the vice president for human stem cell research at BresaGen Inc., an Athens-based biotechnology firm that owns four stem cell lines.

"We're already seeing the trend," said Patel, noting the university's research coffers are substantially fuller this year than they were in 2000.

"We are picking up momentum in [research funding]," he said.

Stice said the stem cell research being conducted now could lead to clinical treatments for Parkinson's disease within the next two years.

Still, widespread use of stem cell-based therapies may not be a reality for five to 10 years or longer, he said.

When asked about the potential of human cloning, Stice says he is still strongly opposed to advancing anything other than animal cloning.

"I've been accused of taking my work home with me," joked Stice, alluding to his son and daughter -- 13-year-old twins. "I love my kids very much, but I wouldn't want another one of each of them."

Strange DNA found in soybeans

August 17
UPI

The biotech soybeans are the world's largest genetically modified crop and have been part of the food chain on the international market since 1996. About half the U.S. soybean crop is Roundup Ready. Monsanto also makes Roundy Ready corn, cotton and canola.

The modified soybeans have been approved in Europe and Japan but so far have not been grown there.

No health problems have been reported from consumption of the beans.

The New York Times Thursday said the unknown DNA was found by government and university scientists in Belgium. The researchers' findings were published Wednesday in the journal European Food Research and Technology.

Monsanto acknowledged the mysterious DNA has been in the soybeans since a gene from a bacterium that makes the plant resistant to Roundup was added, but said it was confident the DNA segment had no effect on the plant.

Monsanto said tests had determined the soybeans were safe.

Roundup is routinely sprayed on soybeans during the growing cycle to kill weeds.

Geneticist: Altered soybeans no worry

He rejects worries about potential risks from the bioengineered crop

August 17
AP

LONDON -- A scientist who discovered that the DNA pattern in genetically engineered soybeans differs from normal soybeans said Thursday that his findings are not cause for concern.

Marc de Loose rejected calls by the environmental group Greenpeace to suspend safety approval of the product, Monsanto Co.'s Roundup Ready soybeans, the world's most widely grown genetically modified crop.

"I have no scientific data that we have to be afraid of," said de Loose, a plant geneticist at the Center for Agricultural Research in Melle, Belgium.

Greenpeace contends that the DNA could be from another organism that inadvertently got into the mix during the engineering process. One of the group's scientists, Janet Cotter, appealed to researchers for help identifying the DNA and its possible consequences in an Internet Wednesday.

"That's not the correct interpretation," said de Loose, who is also a food safety adviser to the Belgian government.

He said the discrepancy was simply a case of technology now allowing scientists to examine DNA in more detail than previously. The product has not changed, he said.

Cotter said the concern over the newly described genetic pattern is that it might affect the functioning of other important genes in the soybean and might have altered its composition.

"That's just ridiculous," said Janet Bainbridge, director of the School of Science and Technology at Teeside University in England. "We do know the downstream effect. That's why we have the regulatory process. We know far, far more about GM DNA than we do the non-GM crops."

The Monsanto soybean contains a gene that makes it immune to herbicides. Last year, as part of a routine check, De Loose examined the DNA sequence of the bean at the site where the gene was inserted. It did not match the genetic makeup of the herbicide-resistant bean as outlined by the company in 1994 when it submitted the product for Belgian approval.

De Loose's findings were published Wednesday in the journal European Food Research and Technology.

Scientist: No reason to fear soybean's DNA

August 16
Modesto Bee

London -- A scientist's discovery that the DNA pattern in genetically engineered soybeans differs from normal soybeans is not a cause for concern, he said Thursday.

Marc de Loose rejected calls by the environmental group Greenpeace to suspend safety approval of the product, Monsanto Co.'s Roundup Ready soybeans, the world's most widely grown genetically modified crop.

"I have no scientific data that we have to be afraid of," said de Loose, a plant geneticist at the Center for Agricultural Research in Melle, Belgium.

Greenpeace contends the DNA could be from another organism that inadvertently got into the mix during the engineering process. One of the group's scientists, Janet Cotter, appealed to researchers for help identifying the DNA and its possible consequences in a letter on the Internet on Wednesday.

"That's not the correct interpretation," said De Loose, who is also a food safety adviser to the Belgian government.

He said the discrepancy was simply a case of technology now allowing scientists to examine DNA in more detail than previously. The product has not changed, he said.

Cotter said the concern over the newly described genetic pattern is that it might affect the functioning of other important genes in the soybean and might have altered its composition.

"That's just ridiculous," said Janet Bainbridge, director of the School of Science and Technology at Teeside University in England. "We do know the downstream effect. That's why we have the regulatory process. We know far, far more about GM DNA than we do the non-GM crops."

The Monsanto soybean contains a gene that makes it immune to herbicides. Last year, as part of a routine check, De Loose examined the DNA sequence of the bean at the site where the gene was inserted.

It did not match the genetic makeup of the herbicide-resistant bean as outlined by the company in 1994 when it submitted the product for Belgian approval.

De Loose's findings were published Wednesday in the journal European Food Research and Technology.

"They are not abnormal, they are just there. They were not discovered by Monsanto at that time, but that's not strange because the methods we have available now allow a more detailed analysis," De Loose said. The new technique is about nine times more sensitive than the old.

Bainbridge said rearrangements are normal in the DNA sequence of a plant as it accommodates a new gene.

Conventional crop breeding creates as much as, if not more, DNA shuffling than genetic modification, said Bainbridge, who is chairwoman of the advisory committee on novel foods and processes for Britain's Food Standards Agency.

De Loose's findings were examined by food safety experts in Belgium and Britain more than a year ago and neither country changed its mind.

Britain's Food Standards Agency determined that because the scrambled DNA has been in the engineered beans all along, results of the original safety tests were still valid.

Belgian authorities also determined there was no harmful effect.

GM process lacking, expert panel repeats

August 16
Western Producer (Canada)

Ever since the Royal Society of Canada published a report last winter critical of the government's regulating of genetically modified foods, defenders of the system have insisted the scientists simply did not understand how it works.

The scientists' report called for more long-term research and more stringent controls before consumers could be assured of the safety of these new products. But the government said despite their stature as scientists, they did not do the basic research required to understand how Health Canada assesses the safety of GM or novel foods.

A winter exchange of letters between the Royal Society and Health Canada, unearthed by the Canadian Health Coalition using Access to Information laws, suggests the scientists who wrote the critical report felt they understood the government system of control perfectly. They just did not agree that it was up to snuff.

On Feb. 2, after reviewing an advance copy of the report, deputy health minister Ian Green wrote to suggest the society panel was off-base in criticizing the Health Canada use of "substantial equivalence" to approve new GM products if tests showed these have the same characteristics as existing products created by conventional science. He called it a "fundamental misunderstanding" of government procedures.

Green said "publicly available information" indicates that Health Canada experts use a safety assessment process which includes:

• How the food crop was developed, including molecular biological data on genetic change.

• A comparison of food composition between novel foods and traditional varieties.

• A comparison of nutritional information.

• The potential for production of unexpected toxins.

• The potential for allergic reactions.

"These considerations are made based on data and information provided by the petitioner, which are carefully reviewed by scientists within Health Canada," Green wrote.

The co-chairs of the Royal Society panel offered a short and uncompromising response three days later.

Conrad Brunk and Brian Ellis said that despite the public information, Health Canada personnel did not provide the detailed data needed to allow the scientific panel to assess how accurate those claims were.

They said they appreciated that Health Canada does an analysis to determine if substantial equivalence can be applied to a new product.

"However, that analysis is based solely on data and information provided by the petitioner and the decision documents describing and validating the outcome are, as you point out, internal and thus not readily available to either the scientific community or general public," Brunk and Ellis wrote.

"In the view of the expert panel, this situation does not meet the expectations of either stakeholder group for a full, rigorous and transparent evaluation of GM crops and foods."

European GM food rules denounced

August 16
Western Producer (Canada)

A coalition of agriculture, food and biotechnology interests in the United States is urging a political attack on the European Union's proposed rules for assessing genetically modified food imports.

In an Aug. 9 letter to U.S. agriculture secretary Ann Veneman, it argues proposed EU rules requiring labeling and the ability to trace the origins of products are "onerous, unworkable and internally inconsistent."

The coalition suggests the U.S. try to enlist the support of allies and developing countries in fighting what it sees as European biotechnology protectionism.

"In particular, we note that Europe's stance on biotechnology is at odds with the interests of the developing world on food security and productivity," said the letter.

It was made public by the Inside U.S. Trade publication and signed by 26 groups as diverse as the American Farm Bureau, the American Feed Industry Association, the American Meat Institute and the Pet Food Institute.

Canada also has protested the proposed new EU biotechnology product rules, arguing they are more protectionist than science-based and that they jeopardize $600 million worth of Canadian sales to EU countries.

The Americans have suggested it could involve $4 billion worth of their products.

The European proposals, now being debated and proposed to take effect in 2003, would require labeling of products derived from GM varieties, an ability to trace back the origin of products trying to enter Europe and a limit of one percent on unintended GM content of shipments before labeling is required.

"Such a labeling regime enforced through onerous traceability and documentation requirements creates a dangerous precedent not only for biotechnology but for labor, environment, animal welfare and other non-science-based social issues," said the American coalition.

It suggested the European proposal be referred to various World Trade Organization committees for assessment.

It warned that implementation of the rules would effectively bar a number of American farm products from European markets.

"Food manufacturers in the EU will be forced to seek major supplies of food ingredients from non-U.S. sources," they wrote.

Canada and the U.S. governments have been co-operating in their campaign against the EU proposals.

The Canadian food and agriculture industry, while involved in advising the government, has not been as vocal or as organized as its U.S. counterpart in denouncing European proposals.

Swiss cook book aims to give 'Frankenfood' flavor

August 9
Reuters

Zurich -- How about a nice, steaming dish of genetically modified (GM) carrots as a way to whet skeptical consumers' appetite for scientifically engineered food?

That's one of the suggestions in what is being billed as the world's first cookbook featuring only GM ingredients, penned by an energetic champion of the controversial technology who is also a passionate cook.

Beda Stadler, a researcher at Berne's Inselspital hospital, is fed up with people who brand GM products ``Frankenfood'' that may pose incalculable risks to the environment and human health.

``No other food was genetically altered as much as our daily bread,'' he said, noting that wheat developed from three different grasses whose genetic material managed to merge.

His book, ``Genes on the Fork,'' is being published by InterNutrition, a group backed by a pro-GM lobbying group called the Swiss Working Group for Research and Nutrition.

The group says GM foods are so thoroughly tested before they get to the dinner table that they are the safest thing to eat, while exotic plants like potatoes, maize and kiwis leapt onto menus effortlessly and without safety rules.

Owner hopes cloning will bring pet dog back

Virginia woman aims to recreate beloved Yorkshire terrier

August 3
Baltimore Sun

But with the help of modern genetic research, a Texas biotechnology company and her veterinarian, she now thinks she has a chance to re-create her beloved 13-year-old Yorkshire terrier.

The dog wears special outfits, poses for professional photographs and is the center of Withrow's life. Lollipop also has kidney problems. So Withrow decided to spend almost $1,000, to start, to preserve her dog's genes, in hopes of later cloning her. "I don't want to not be able to do this years from now," Withrow said.

Withrow arranged for her veterinarian, Dr. R. Andrew Murphie at Boulevard Veterinary Hospital, to remove tissue samples from Lollipop's stomach and mouth while the dog is under anesthesia to have cysts removed and her teeth cleaned.

The tissue samples will get whisked into a "biobox," a modified cooler equipped with a solution that keeps the cells viable, to be shipped overnight to Genetic Savings & Clone in College Station, Texas. "I just think it's kind of neat because there's a chance of following this dog, who is 13 years old, to see if this comes to fruition," Murphie said.

When Genetic Savings gets the samples, scientists there will multiply them into 8 million to 12 million cells. They will then harvest those cells, transfer them to tiny vials and store them in a freezer indefinitely.

"They're the nuclear material, the DNA, that's hopefully going to grow into a new individual," said Charles Long, general manager of Genetic Savings & Clone.

Texas A&M University researchers, working on the much-publicized project to clone Missy, a border collie and Siberian husky mix, founded Genetic Savings & Clone in 1999. The company has a bank of DNA from hundreds of dogs, Long said. But those dogs' owners will have to wait until the researchers develop workable cloning technology for canines. Scientists have produced clones of mice, pigs, cows, goats and sheep, starting with the now-famous Dolly, but a dog's system remains elusive.

"We know very little about the basic reproductive physiology of dogs," he said.

Genetic Savings hopes to complete the first cat clone this year. Long said he expected to clone a dog within one to two years. "We jokingly say from 60 days to 60 years away," he said.

Even after they develop the technology, researchers must make it affordable enough to market to the general public, not just people like Missy's anonymous but wealthy owners. Genetic Savings & Clone aims to bring the cost down to about $25,000, Long said.

Withrow will pay $995, including shipping, to bank Lollipop's genes for the first year. Each subsequent year in the bank will cost her $100, and the entire fee will go toward the price of cloning Lollipop, if it happens. But Withrow said she's happy to wait. For now, she still has the real thing.

"I love her spirit, intelligence and loyalty. She can dance, sit and speak," Withrow said of Lollipop. "She goes to the nightstand at night and looks at my water glass" to indicate that she wants a drink, ignoring her own dish.

Withrow has designed clothes for her. "Her hair is very pretty, silver and blond," she said.

Withrow, of course, could simply get another dog, even another smart Yorkshire terrier with a great personality. But it wouldn't be Lollipop. "The minute I walk into the door, the dog is there. I don't want to lose that support of having a dog with Lollipop's qualities in my life."

Long and other experts emphasize, though, that cloning can't produce an identical pet. Long said he took pains to explain this to clients. "Look, this is not the same dog. This is a whole new animal. It is a genetic copy, but it's going to have a whole different life," he tells them. "It's going to look, and it may act a lot, like the original. But it's going to have some quirks that make it unique."

Dr. Audrey Cook of Veterinary Internal Medicine in Newport News said any puppy grown in a laboratory would end up with a different personality than one raised by its mother. "It has never been done," Cook said. "That's the worst thing about what all these companies are touting."

Ethical concerns aside, animal cloning has inherent scientific problems, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Most cloned animals have abnormalities, get sick and die early, he said. "Normal animals are not ever going to result from cloning," he said. "People get very emotional about their pets," he added. "What they're trying to do is keep from losing them."

Withrow feels confident that using Lollipop's DNA will yield the same qualities in a new dog. But even a close match would satisfy her. "I really can't imagine my life without her," she said. "That is what it's all about."