August headlines

Return to August article index

Greenpeace asks France to ban Roundup soybeans

August 17
Reuters

Paris -- Environmental group Greenpeace asked France on Friday to ban imports of Monsanto Co's genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans after scientists discovered unidentified fragments of DNA in the oilseeds.

Greenpeace France said the scientists' discovery meant that Roundup Ready soybeans had been authorized for human and animal consumption on an ``incomplete and false'' basis.

``We therefore demand the French government to immediately suspend the authorization of Roundup Ready soybeans on the market, and to ban its import and marketing in France,'' Greenpeace France said in a statement.

A spokesman for the French farm ministry's food agency, the DGAL, declined to comment immediately on Greenpeace's demands.

Marc De Loose from Belgium's Center for Agricultural Research said on Thursday he and colleagues had found alien gene fragments in Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans that had no link with the plant's DNA sequence or the genome of soy.

But he said there was no evidence to suggest that the unidentifiable genetic sequence could lead to unknown and unpredictable results, dismissing statements made by Greenpeace.

``There is no scientific data to support this idea because we checked this sequence in different generations that were on the market and we didn't see any differences. This means that the sequence is stable and all the data concerning safety are still valid in my opinion,'' De Loose told Reuters.

Monsanto has said the discovery is not a food safety issue and that the unidentified gene fragments could be the result of the plants' DNA being ``rearranged''.

Mystery gene in soybeans heats GMO debate

August 16
Reuters

CHICAGO -- Fresh controversy erupted on Thursday after scientists discovered unidentified fragments of DNA in gene-altered soybeans, jolting grain markets and heating up a simmering debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Biotechnology critics quickly said the latest discovery casts fresh doubts on such foods' safety, while backers of GMO crops just as quickly said that reaction was overblown and the news would hardly dent consumer confidence.

A team of Belgian scientists found alien gene fragments in soybeans grown from seed developed by biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. which are spliced with a bacterium to make them resistant to the company's Roundup Ready herbicide.

The discovery comes nearly a year after an unapproved gene-altered corn entered the U.S. food chain, sparking recalls of items such as taco shells from grocery shelves and causing a slump in exports of American corn to its top buyer, Japan.

Marc De Loose from Belgium's Center for Agricultural Research said he and his colleagues found that the unidentified gene fragments in Roundup Ready soybeans had no link to the plant's DNA sequence or the genome of the soybeans.

But he added there was no evidence to suggest that the alien fragments could lead to any unknown effects, such as possible allergic reactions in people.

``There is no scientific data to support this idea because we checked this sequence in different generations that were on the market and we didn't see any differences. This means that the sequence is stable and all the data concerning safety are still valid in my opinion,'' De Loose told Reuters.

FRANKENSTEIN

Environmental group Greenpeace said the discovery showed that Monsanto did not know ``with any certainty what it is creating through genetic engineering.''

``Like Dr. Frankenstein, Monsanto has created a new life form but doesn't know what will happen when it's turned loose in the world,'' Kimberly Wilson, a Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner, said in a statement.

She called for full disclosure of the data submitted by Monsanto in its registration process for Roundup Ready soybeans.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, commenting on the Belgian group's research, said the agency was ''aware of it and is looking into it.''

Officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture declined to comment.

Monsanto spokesman Bryan Hurley said: ``This isn't a (food) safety issue. The information about the soybeans were characterized by Monsanto more than a year ago and we have shared that with regulatory authorities throughout the world.''

He said the unidentified gene fragments could be the result of DNA being ``rearranged'' as a result of the process when the bacterium to make the plants resistant to Roundup Ready soybeans was inserted.

``It's been there since the point of the original transformation 10 years ago and throughout all of the safety tests,'' he said, adding that new high-precision equipment allowed the company to detect the alien fragments.

``We are better able to see the stars than a hundred years ago. It doesn't mean the stars have changed, just your perspective.... It's the same principle,'' Hurley said.

NO LOSS OF CONSUMER CONFIDENCE

Hurley said he did not foresee any loss of consumer confidence in foods produced from gene-altered crops.

``As we characterize things better, it doesn't change the fundamental safety questions that are addressed and have for a long time been established,'' he said.

The Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organization, which groups biotech companies in the pharmaceutical, industrial, environmental and agricultural sectors, said the discovery did not raise any question over food safety.

``DNA is in all food, it's always been there and is safe. I cannot see that it (discovery) raises any safety questions,'' BIO spokeswoman Lisa Dry said.

Chairman of the American Soybean Association, Tony Anderson, said: ''Unless there is something definitive, to me, that there is a problem, I am still of the belief that we have a product that is safe and allows us to be more efficient with our farming practices. We believe in good sound science.

``And if the day should come that good sound science says we need to rethink this, then we will rethink it. But if the good sound science tells us over and over we got a product that is safe, let's stay with it,'' he added.

The discovery took its toll on soybean prices at the Chicago Board of Trade on Thursday, with speculators selling amid fears that the news might dent U.S. soy exports to buyers like Japan or China. Down almost 20 cents at one point, soybeans for November delivery were 13-1/4 cents per bushel lower at $4.99-3/4 at the close of trading.

Almost 70 percent of the soybeans produced in the United States are genetically modified, nearly all of them Roundup Ready soybeans. Soybeans are used in a wide variety of food products but mainly as animal feed.

Roundup Ready soybeans are also grown on a large scale in Argentina, the world's third-largest soybean producer after the United States and Brazil. Europe and Japan allow the import of Roundup Ready soybeans for use as food and animal feed but do not permit their commercial cultivation.

Soybeans fall on GMO worries

August 16
AP

Chicago -- Soybean futures tumbled sharply Thursday on the Chicago Board of Trade, reacting to a revived debate about the reliability of genetically modified organisms.

Grain prices were mixed.

Market-watchers attributed soybeans' drop to a report that Belgian scientists found unexpected DNA next to the inserted gene in the Monsanto Co.'s Roundup Ready soybeans -- the world's most widely grown genetically engineered crop. A New York Times report said the discovery casts doubt on the biotechnology industry's contentions that its technology is precise and predictable.

Greenpeace called for countries to re-evaluate their regulatory approval of soybeans, saying the unknown DNA might be a safety hazard.

Investors sold soybean futures heavily, fearing the discovery might hurt U.S. exports. Prices sank all the way beneath the $5-a-bushel benchmark.

But the controversy could be much more short-lived than the StarLink flap that troubled the corn market for months. One of the researchers who discovered the unexpected DNA said the findings were not a cause for concern.

Plant geneticist Marc de Loose, a food safety adviser to the Belgian government, said the discrepancy was simply a case of technology now allowing scientists to examine DNA in more detail than previously. He said the product itself has not changed.

Corn prices declined more modestly, weighed down by Midwestern rains that are seen as improving crops' prospects.

Altered tomato thrives in salty soil

August 14
New York Times

More than a quarter of the world's irrigated land has become so salty that many crops can no longer grow. But a genetically engineered plant that was recently developed can live extremely well in salty soil and still produce tasty tomatoes, a team of researchers says.

The first batch of the genetically manipulated tomatoes was grown in soil so salty that ordinary tomatoes would quickly die. To do that, a plant physiologist, Dr. Eduardo Blumwald, came up with a molecular trick: he inserts a DNA sequence from another plant into the tomato so it will produce larger amounts of a protein that can get salt — or, more specifically, sodium — out of the way. The protein ferries the sodium into cellular storage compartments in leaves.

Scientists have been trying for more than 50 years to create salt- tolerant crops by crossing plants that cannot survive in high-salt environments, called glycophytes, with those that can, called halophytes. But it was not until 1998, when Dr. Blumwald, then at the University of Toronto, zeroed in on one of the proteins involved in the salt-removal process, that the real breakthrough came.

Dr. Blumwald is now at the University of California at Davis; he and his colleagues there reported the development of the transgenic tomato in last month's issue of Nature Biotechnology.

When tomato plants or other glycophytes are exposed to a high-salt environment, they die of thirst. The water cannot be absorbed by the cells because any water that is taken up contains toxic sodium ions, which must be pushed out of the cell. And when the sodium is forced out, osmosis causes the water to leave with it.

The plants that can thrive under salty conditions absorb sodium ions into their cells, then get the sodium safely out of the way. The cells transport the sodium into storage compartments called vacuoles, and that process keeps the sodium from damaging the other machinery of the cells. With the sodium inside the cells instead of outside, the osmotic pressure reverses, pushing water and nutrients into cells. The result is plant growth.

The protein that pumps sodium into the vacuole, called the sodium- proton antiport, is found in most plants but is highly active only in the salt-tolerant plants. If the protein activity could be increased in other plants, Dr. Blumwald hypothesized, they could grow in salty environments.

"Some researchers have been trying breeding," Dr. Blumwald said, "but we decided to look for the central mechanism of salt-tolerance in plants. And we discovered that the sodium-proton antiport is essential in getting significant salt tolerance in plants that you want to produce fruit, seeds and grains."

Dr. Blumwald isolated the gene for the protein from a thale cress plant, a small weed related to the mustard plant, and introduced it into the tomato via the nucleus of the seeds, which then made many more copies of the protein. The transgenic tomatoes were grown in a solution of sodium chloride that was so concentrated that it killed or stunted the growth of normal tomatoes. Dr. Blumwald's tomatoes, however, grew and flowered in the solution and produced fruit that was nearly identical to normal tomatoes.

Dr. Blumwald was the first to taste the new tomatoes. Because the transgenic plants move excess salt to the leaves, the tomatoes taste the same as ordinary ones, he said.

When the genetically engineered tomatoes in a salty solution were grown side by side with ordinary plants, they appeared even greener and healthier than the normal plants in a low-salt solution.

The transgenic plants produced tomatoes that were roughly 5 percent smaller in volume than those from the normal plants. But the transgenic fruits smelled the same and were just as red as the normal tomatoes, Dr. Blumwald said.

"The tomatoes still have to undergo proper taste-testing and pass regulatory standards," Dr. Blumwald said. "But unofficially, I can say there is no difference at all in the taste. With proper funding, we expect that they could be available on the market in three to five years."

A patent has been filed for the gene that the team inserted. Dr. Blumwald owns the rights to the patent but an arrangement provides the University of Toronto with a small percentage of any revenue.

Dr. Blumwald's team hopes to use the same strategy to develop corn, rice and other plants that can tolerate salty soil.

"It's not that these crop plants are deficient in any way," said Dr. Maris Apse, a postdoctoral researcher in Dr. Blumwald's laboratory. "It's that we're changing the conditions that they're growing in, and we have to think rationally about how to change them so that they can adapt to the changes man is making to their environment."

French farmer leads McDonald's protest

August 12
AP

Millau, France -- Militant farmer Jose Bove and two thousand supporters returned Sunday to the same McDonald's restaurant he helped dismantle two years ago, this time holding a more restrained rally to protest unchecked globalization and demand support for farmers.

The mustachioed sheep farmer and fellow members of the Farmers' Confederation, a radical union, rode tractors into the southern town of Millau and surrounded the fast-food restaurant before addressing the crowd.

Sunday's protest came on the two-year anniversary of the attack on the Millau McDonald's, a high-profile demonstration against the ills of globalization that led to Bove's conviction in a French court.

About 70 police officers cordoned off the parking lot to prevent the protesters, many wearing shirts that read ``The world is not merchandise,'' from approaching the McDonald's. Large signs that read ``closed due to threats'' were hung on the restaurant's windows.

Bove and his allies pledged to continue their protest as long as necessary to gain support from the French government for farmers hit by a U.S. surcharge against Roquefort cheese, which is made in a nearby village.

The protesters have targeted McDonald's as a symbol of how unchecked globalization can trample local culture - such as French cuisine.

``We are the hostages of the World Trade Organization and the United States,'' Bove told protesters. ``We won't leave until negotiations have begun with the French government.''

Bove said his supporters would remain in Millau until at least Monday evening, depending on progress made during his discussions with EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, planned for Monday in Brussels.

In March, an appeals court in nearby Montpellier upheld a decision ordering Bove to spend three months in jail for vandalizing the fast-food restaurant on Aug. 12, 1999 while it was under construction.

Bove remains free pending appeal. He has also been fined for briefly holding three Agriculture Ministry officials captive in the town of Rodez in 1999.

Bove said he spoke with Agriculture Minister Jean Glavany on Sunday, demanding support for French farmers hurt by the U.S. surcharge on Roquefort - one of the many EU luxury products that the United States slapped with a surtax after the World Trade Organization ruled the European Union improperly rejected U.S. hormone-treated beef.

Bove also said he asked for a halt to tests of genetically modified crops in fields in southern France.

``We've given an ultimatum that if the French government doesn't rip up those fields, we'll do it ourselves ... as early as this week,'' he said.

Under a scorching sun, farmers with deep tans and youths in tie-dyed T-shirts called out in support for Bove as he approached the restaurant in a blue Ford tractor with a pipe in his mouth.

A marching band dressed in African-style batik clothes played jazz near the restaurant, nestled on a hillside overlooking Millau and the Tarn River.

Cars filled the parking lot at the Millau McDonald's on Saturday evening, but many diners were unaware of the protest scheduled for Sunday. Some were sympathetic to Bove's crusade against ``malbouffe'' - or ``foul food'' - while others insisted the attack against McDonald's was just an anti-American ploy.

``I agree with the battle against bad food, but not the methods (Bove) used,'' said Thierry Ciabatti, 37, a visitor from Nice, who was eating a Big Mac on the restaurant patio.

``McDonald's is a bad habit for kids, and it leads to loss of our culinary heritage - but the reason they attack here is because they know it will make a big splash.''

Lessen the fear of genetically engineered crops

August 8
Christian Science Monitor opinion by Gregory A. Jaffe

Neither corporate hyperbole nor radical slogans do much to inform the public. What is needed is the shaping of sensible measures to ensure that genetically engineered foods are safe. The first few first engineered crops are already providing remarkable benefits. Cotton modified to kill insects has greatly diminished farmers' use of toxic insecticides, thereby reducing costs, increasing yields, and, presumably, reducing harm to nontarget species. Likewise, biotech soybeans facilitate no-till farming, which reduces soil erosion and water pollution.

Despite such benefits, agricultural biotechnology is under siege for reasons good and bad. Activists have burned fields and bombed labs. Farmers will not plant genetically engineered sweet corn, sugar beets, and apples, for fear of consumer rejection. And countries in Europe and Asia refuse to import US-grown genetically engineered crops. Some countries now require labeling of foods containing engineered ingredients. Those requirements have spurred food processors, who want to avoid negative-sounding labels, to eliminate bioengineered ingredients.

Buffeted by the polarized debate, many Americans oppose biotech foods, in part because farmers and seed companies get the benefits while consumers bear the risk. If anti-genetically engineered sentiment increases, US farmers may be forced to forgo the advantages of engineered crops. And most public and private investment in agricultural biotechnology would dry up.

To reap the benefits of agricultural biotechnology, minimize the risks, and boost public confidence, the US must upgrade its flawed regulatory system. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not formally approve any genetically engineered crops as safe to eat. Instead, it reviews safety data provided voluntarily by seed companies. That consultation process, which the FDA admits is "not a comprehensive scientific review of the data," culminates with the FDA stating only that it has "no further questions ... at this time." Although no health problems with genetically engineered crops have been detected, that industry-driven process is weak insurance. The recent FDA proposal requiring a formal notification before marketing a biotech food is an improvement.

All biotech foods should go through a mandatory approval process with specific testing and data requirements. The National Academy of Sciences should be commissioned to recommend a precise method of assessment.

Genetically engineered crops also raise environmental concerns. They could lead to pesticide-resistant insects and weeds and might contaminate plants that are close relatives of the crops. To safeguard our ecosystem, the current laws need fixing. Congress should close regulatory gaps to ensure that all future applications of biotechnology, ranging from fast-growing fish to corn plants that produce industrial chemicals, receive thorough environmental reviews. Also, the Environmental Protection Agency must enforce restrictions it has imposed on bioengineered crops to help prevent emergence of insecticide-resistant pests.

Although strong regulations would minimize environmental and safety risks, nothing would boost public confidence more than engineered products that benefit consumers. No beneficial products currently exist.

Worldwide acceptance of biotechnology will only occur when other countries reap benefits from this technology. Instead of spending millions of dollars on feel-good advertising campaigns, the biotech industry should train developing-country scientists and fund research in those countries. Companies - and universities - should donate patented crops and processes to developing countries. Agricultural biotechnology is not a panacea for all agricultural problems here or abroad, nor is it free from risk. But, with adequate safeguards, it could provide tremendous benefits for an ever-populous, pesticide-drenched, and water-deficient globe.

Gregory Jaffe is co-director for the Project on Biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Hidden wheat fields spark outrage

August 7
Wired News

OTTAWA, Ontario -- Canadian farmers are upset that they have no way of knowing whether neighboring fields are full of genetically-modified wheat that could potentially cross-pollinate with their conventional crops.

That's because the Canadian government and two companies testing GM wheat refuse to reveal the more than 50 secret test sites across Canada.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) maintains that the locations must be kept secret because Monsanto Canada and Syngenta, the two firms conducting the trials, have expressed concerns about vandalism and industrial espionage.

The companies are growing wheat in five different provinces and are testing strains for increased herbicide tolerance and fungal resistance. The wheat is not registered to go to market, and none of the sites are believed to be near the U.S. border.

Across Canada, farmers groups and environmental agencies are angry over the secret test sites. "We think it's outrageous that the information is not made public by the Canadian government," said Holly Penfound, Greenpeace Canada's environmental health campaign coordinator.

"We believe the Canadian government should be representing the interests of Canadians, not the narrow interests of multinational corporations."

The concern is that the GM wheat's pollen may become wind-borne, spread from the test sites, and cross-pollinate with other crops.

Marc Loiselle, a Saskatchewan grain farmer and spokesman for the province's Organic Directorate, said contamination from GM wheat would mean the loss of organic certification for farmers. "I think it's abhorrent it's being kept secret," he said. "This is something that should be public knowledge."

Monsanto Canada spokeswoman Trish Jordan said the company has taken every precaution to ensure the GM wheat doesn't spread. The plots have 100-foot buffer zones of bare land separating them from other crops, as well as 80 feet of broadleaf crops and another 16 feet of corn to catch stray pollen.

Research shows that gene flow doesn't occur much beyond 20 feet, said Jordan, who added that in most cases Monsanto is exceeding the regulatory guidelines.

But Penfound said they have no way to evaluate whether or not the regulatory conditions are adequate, or even being adhered to properly, since the sites are being kept secret. And Loiselle argues that with the current drought conditions on the Canadian prairies, the high winds are more than capable of picking up pollen and moving it beyond the buffer zone.

The controversy comes at the same time that a number of organizations have sent a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chretien protesting the introduction of GM wheat in Canada. The nine groups who signed the letter include the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Health Coalition.

The letter has also received the support of more than 200 Canadian industry associations, local governments, citizen groups, as well as 50 Canadian experts and researchers and 60 international organizations.

"Overwhelming numbers of Canadian farmers and consumers, as well as customers for Canadian wheat overseas, have said that they do not want GM wheat at this time," the letter reads in part. "We hope the Canadian government will act democratically, heed the wishes of its citizens, and act in the best economic interests of farmers."

Stephen Yarrow, national manager of the CFIA's plant biosafety office, said the trials locations are bound by the government's Access to Information Act, and the locations are considered intellectual property that must be protected against vandalism.

While he said that not many cases of crop vandalism have occurred in Canada, he cited an instance last year in British Columbia when a research plot of trees was destroyed. "They were somebody else's research, who innocently got caught up by activists who thought they were finding transgenic trees," Yarrow said.

Yarrow said the CFIA is caught in the middle of the controversy because it acts as a liaison between the provinces and the corporations. "Perhaps if the developers had been a bit more transparent themselves with who should see this information, then it would not be such a problem," he said.

Australia Survey: GM food better be good for you

August 7
Reuters

Sydney -- What's in it for me? Australian research is showing this may be the key question in selling genetically modified (GM) foods to consumers.

Surveys by government agency Biotechnology Australia show that the strongest consumer acceptance of genetic engineering is for GM foods with health benefits, such as lower cholesterol in oils, lower sugar content, or improved nutrition.

If consumers perceive that the motive behind genetic modification is blind profit, the product may not sell.

Genetic manipulation for taste is a put-off. Engineering better yields for farmers, one of the main reasons why GM crops are being grown in the first place, is also less accepted.

And cross-species genetic manipulation, for example through the insertion of fish genes in tomatoes, is a definite ``no-no.''

``If a GM food or crop appears to have been done to no direct consumer benefit, there's a good chance it may not be picked up,'' Biotechnology's manager of public awareness, Craig Cormick, said following the release last week of the group's latest survey.

``Consumers want products they get benefits from, not products that will benefit a grower or a company,'' he told Reuters.

Biotechnology's survey of 1,200 people in April and May showed a continued rise in the acceptance of GM foods in general. The proportion of those who said they would eat GM foods rose to 49 percent from 35 percent a year ago and 28 percent in 1999.

This enthused biotech groups.

``It's pretty positive,'' said Brian Arnst, spokesman for the Australian unit of U.S. life science giant Monsanto Co.

AUSTRALIAN VIEWS MIDWAY
BETWEEN U.S., EUROPE

The survey results put Australia in line with public attitudes in New Zealand on GM foods and midway between Europe, where the majority of consumers oppose GM foods, and the United States, where most people accept them.

Australia's consumer acceptance rate of about 50 percent compares with 70-75 percent in the United States and about 35 percent in Europe.

Biotechnology's new Australian survey showed a majority, 51 percent, believe genetic engineering would improve human lives over the next 20 years. This was up from 42 percent in 1999.

Most Australians also now believe that most applications of gene technology are morally acceptable.

``There's a lot of concern (about GMs), but low level concern. GM food concerns were noticeably less than concerns about pollution or greenhouse gases,'' Cormick said.

But the survey showed support had fallen for GM foods which were altered simply for taste, a trivial rather than beneficial modification, Cormick said.

Only 37 percent of respondents accept modification of crops to make them more pest resistant, although this was up from 31 percent in 1999.

The survey delivered a decisive thumbs down to cloning, rejected by 98 percent, and to cross-species engineering.

``People are pretty comfortable crossing plants with other plants. Animal genes in plants, forget it,'' Cormick said.

``They are fairly comfortable with human genes for a human pharmaceutical application. (But) putting human genes into animals, like growing organs on pigs... forget it,'' Cormick said.