August headlines

Return to August article index

Proposed GM food labels called 'meaningless'

August 21
CBC

MONTREAL -- Greenpeace Canada has denounced draft federal standards for voluntary labeling of genetically modified (GM) food.

"The draft is so weak it's meaningless," said Greenpeace campaigner Eric Darier in a written release.

The voluntary labeling standards, expected to be released this week, are the recommendation of a federal panel looking into what consumers think of GM food.

As well, a private member's bill calling for mandatory labeling of GM food has gone through first reading in the House of Commons.

Recent polls show nine out of 10 Canadians support mandatory labeling of GM foods.

EU says no evidence U.S. GM soybeans pose risk

August 20
Reuters

Brussels -- The European Commission said on Monday it had no scientific evidence that a brand of genetically modified soybeans -- which environmental group Greenpeace wants banned -- posed a health risk.

The EC comment followed the discovery by Belgian scientists of unidentified gene fragments in Roundup Ready soybeans, grown from seeds developed by biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. which are spliced with a bacterium to make them resistant to Roundup herbicide.

Commission spokeswoman Andrea Dahmen told a news briefing the results of the Belgian study would be evaluated as a matter of routine by the Commission scientific plant committee, and any further action would depend on the committee's findings.

But she added: ``From a scientific point of view there is no reason to say the product is unsafe for the plant itself or for those who eat it.''

On Friday, environmental group Greenpeace called on France to ban imports of the soybeans, saying they had been authorized for use as human food and feedstocks for animals on an ``incomplete and false'' basis.

Dahmen said the findings did not suggest an import ban was needed, adding that it was unlikely France would impose a ban since it would first have to prove the soybeans posed a safety risk.

Dahmen said the gene fragments had not been detected when the Commission in 1996 approved the import, but not planting, of the Roundup Ready Soybeans. Europe is a leading export market for U.S. soybeans and soy products.

``Scientifically the existence of this DNA does not mean it is a consequence of modification in the plant. It could have been generated by a spontaneous mutation, which often happens in plants,'' Dahmen said.

ALIEN GENE FRAGMENTS FOUND

Marc De Loose from Belgium's Center for Agricultural Research told Reuters last week he and colleagues had found alien gene fragments in Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans which 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.

``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 said.

``There is also no evidence that the sequence causes any expression, so we did not demonstrate that the sequence is expressed...there is no indication that this (soy) might cause any allergy.''

Monsanto has said the Greenpeace demand for a ban was unjustified.

``There is no safety issue here at all that Greenpeace alleges,'' Monsanto spokesman Bryan Hurley said last week. ``It is absolutely uncalled for.''

These plants eat nails for breakfast

August 20
National Post

Researchers say they are close to harnessing the enormous potential of "metal-eating" plants to clean contaminated land or be reaped for their metals in a smelter.

Purdue University scientists discovered a gene they believe helps 350 plants known as hyperaccumulators (among them Thlaspi goesingense) to bulk up on metals they extract from soil. The plants can contain nickel, cadmium, selenium or zinc at levels hundreds of times higher than other plants.

"These plants have this extraordinary capacity to accumulate metals and we've now seen how they do it," said David Salt, a plant molecular physiologist and the leader of the study.

Within two years, he said, cloned hyperaccumulators could facilitate phytoremediation, the use of the plants to clean up contaminated land.Scientists have enjoyed some success with phytoremediation experiments, but most known hyperaccumulators are small.

By genetically modifying larger plants to become hyperaccumulators they could speed the process, making way for development in brownfields, urban sites left unusable by industrial tenants.

"The land value for these sites is very low and they cause a lot of problems for the cities they're in," said Dr. Salt. "But if you could come up with an economical way to clean [them], what you come up with is some land with the potential for development."

Newly engineered hyperaccumulators could also pave the way for phytomining, the process of smelting hyperaccumulator crops and reaping their metals for other uses.

He said he is most excited by the Purdue study's potential bearings on human nutrition. It might soon be possible to genetically engineer plants with higher levels of essential dietary metals, he said.

"One of the hopes is that we can use these genes to develop foods that have appropriate levels of micronutrients," Dr. Salt said. "I'm not going to say definitely we'll save the world, but this could change the way people eat."

He noted that nickel might constitute .001% of the dry weight of most plants, but it can easily constitute 1% of the weight of a hyperaccumulator.

Dr. Salt said researchers set out to find a genetic explanation for this phenomenon using Thlaspi goesingense, a tiny wild mustard plant found in the Austrian Alps. They found a cause in a gene they have named Metal Tolerance Protein 1. The gene is expressed far more frequently in the genetic code of hyperaccumulators than in that of other plants.

The gene, they concluded, is in part responsible for transporting metals across cell membranes and into cellular storage compartments called vacuoles.

The researchers cloned the gene and inserted it into the genetic code of a non-hyperaccumulator, the Arabidopsis thaliana. "Within three to six months, we'll know if we've turned this plant into a hyperaccumulator."

Sri Lanka urged to postpone GM food controls

August 20
Reuters

Colombo -- Sri Lanka's business community appealed to the government on Monday to delay plans to bring back tough  controls on genetically modified (GM) food on September 1.

The restrictions were first introduced in May but removed a month later at the request of the World Trade Organization to give exporters in other countries more time to adjust. The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce said the controls, which require 21 categories of food imports to be free of GM products, should be delayed until 2003 when a U.N.  commission will announce an international standards regime for GM foods.

"We would appreciate if consideration is given to defer the current provisional regulations banning the importation of GM foods," the chamber said in a statement. The chamber said the government should concentrate on regulating the advertising and labeling of GM foods.

The government says the controls would allow Sri Lanka time to assess any risks to human health from GM foods. Sri Lanka lacks the capability to test imports for genetic modification and plans to rely on certification in countries of origin until such a system is in place.

Soybean industry dealing with China rules

August 19
Reuters

The U.S. soybean industry, hoping to minimize disruptions to a major export market, is asking China to set a transition period for new rules on imported foods that have been genetically modified.

On June 6, China put into effect rules governing genetically modified organisms. But the details on how the regulations are to be implemented still have not been laid out by China.

Asian commodity traders are speculating it could be months before those details are forthcoming from China, possibly jeopardizing U.S. exports of the soybean crop that will soon be marketed.

``We would like the application (of the new rules) delayed until the details are announced. And then, we need a sufficient time period to make the necessary applications,'' said Stephen Censky, chief executive officer of the St. Louis-based American Soybean Association.

Censky explained that it will take time for U.S. exporters to apply for shipment of GMO soybeans, have those applications reviewed and adhere to whatever other bureaucratic requirements China imposes.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 68 percent of domestic soybeans are genetically modified.

China's new rules require safety certificates stating GMO products are not harmful to humans, animals or the environment. Imported GMO foods will also require special labeling.

During the first half of this year, China imported nearly 6 million tons of soybeans, with about three-quarters of that being supplied by the United States.

U.S. MAJOR SOYBEAN SUPPLIER

According to the latest USDA estimates, China will import from all sources 13.2 million tons of soybeans in 2000/01 and 14.5 million tons in 2001/02 (Sept. 1-Aug. 31).

Asked in a telephone interview on Tuesday whether the current confusion over China's new GMO rules has had an impact on soybean trade, Censky responded, ``Can we point to specific shipments being blocked? We can't.''

Censky added that now is a seasonally ``slow time in the shipping period'' but there are concerns over U.S. sales that normally would be expected to accelerate in September and October.

Another U.S. agriculture industry source, who asked not to be identified, said new sales ``have very much slowed up. The trade doesn't know what the rules are. I'd be surprised if anyone is making new sales'' of soybeans to China.

Various USDA officials would not comment on the likely impact of China's new GMO rules and the uncertainties of the implementing details.

A USDA spokesman said the agency has ``done no analysis, primarily because the Chinese have not released the regulations, so we're not sure what all is involved.''

Censky insisted that if China's GMO regulations are ''applied in a transparent and scientific manner, they should have no'' negative impact on U.S. soybean sales.

He added that with China on the verge of becoming a member of the World Trade Organization, it has an ``obligation'' to play by internationally-accepted sanitary rules for food.

Censky said his organization has had daily conversations with officials at USDA and the U.S. Trade Representative's office to urge them to convey the industry's ``concerns'' to China.

He also said that if China's GMO regulations are not fleshed out by October, it would be ``appropriate'' for President Bush to raise concerns then with Chinese leaders during a visit to that country.

New report on regulation of GM food due Tuesday

August 19
Globe and Mail (Toronto)

A federal-government advisory committee widely criticized as biased in favor of the biotechnology industry will publish a report Tuesday on the regulation of genetically modified food that is expected to be a careful attempt to find consensual middle ground.

The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee's report is the second to be commissioned by the government on how — or whether — to control GM food, estimated by some food-monitoring organizations to comprise 70 per cent of store-bought processed foods in Canada.

The first report, prepared by an independent panel of scientists under the auspices of the Royal Society, declared Ottawa's regulation of food as unacceptably weak and plagued by conflicts of interest, ambiguous testing and a lack of transparency. The federal government forcefully disagreed with its findings.

"It will be particularly interesting to see how the government is likely to choose between a scientific, independent body and a very highly politicized process — more of a stakeholders' group," University of Waterloo risk-management expert Conrad Brunk, co-chairman of the scientific panel, said in an interview Sunday.

Arthur Schafer, director of the Center for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba, said one could predict the direction of the CBAC report merely by the names of committee members. "Most are industry friendly," he said.

The committee, chaired by former University of Manitoba president Arnold Naimark, draws members from science, business, nutrition, law, environment, philosophy, ethics and public advocacy. It calls itself an arm's-length body, but it has been criticized as being closely linked with Industry Canada, which promotes the biotechnology industry.

Several non-government organizations — especially environmental bodies — boycotted its GM-food consultations. One academic who has tracked the committee's work said most submissions it received appeared to come from industry and scientists favorable to the industry.

Nevertheless, Dr. Naimark is reported to have said the committee might limit recommendations to government to what everyone generally agrees upon because of the depth of conflict and boycott by environmental groups. He did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages Sunday.

The issues are health and environmental, as well as intellectual property and North-South relations, with so-called genetic prospectors from wealthy Northern countries roaming the South to collect biomedicinal plants and take out patents on them.

The CBAC already is in trouble with environmentalists because it advised Ottawa not to continue objecting to a patent for the so-called Harvard mouse, which would be the first patented life-form in Canada.

Tuesday's report follows a draft proposal from the federal Canadian General Standards Board rejecting mandatory labeling of GM food.

The proposal — yet to be made public — says labeling should be voluntary and manufacturers who wish to tell consumers that their products are non-GM would be able to do so even if each ingredient contains up to 5-per-cent genetically engineered material.

In Europe, the threshold is 1 per cent. Canadian critics say there should be a zero threshold of contamination, as there is with foods labeled organic.

The draft proposal also says food manufacturers would not have to declare whether their products use genetically modified "processing aids" (for example, chymosin, a genetically engineered substitute for rennet used in making cheese) and livestock feeds.

The standards board, part of the Department of Public Works, has had a committee from industry, universities and civil-society groups deliberating on labeling for 20 months. Apparently the draft proposal lacks committee consensus.

Australia rejects applications for secret GM crops

August 10
Reuters

Canberra -- The location of genetically modified (GM) crop trials in Australia will be published on the Internet after a regulator on Friday rejected applications to keep the sites secret from anti-GM activists.

Six organizations requested secrecy over the location of GM field trials, fearing disclosure could lead to sabotage by opponents and thus endanger the farmers involved.

But the country's gene technology regulator said none of the applications met conditions to justify not disclosing the sites.

"I could not, therefore, approve any of the applications submitted to me," acting gene technology regulator Liz Cain said in a statement. 

Under an interim voluntary monitoring system, a total of 120 GM crop field trials, each with several sites around Australia, had previously been approved without their locations being disclosed.

But new laws, which came into effect in June, meant the location of GM experiments, dominantly run by Monsanto Co and Aventis, could be  kept secret only if they were proven to be "commercial in confidence".

That means the organizations have to prove that disclosure would threaten their ability to make a profit.

Cain said the applicants were unable to prove their profits would be threatened, and also failed to show there would be damage to the environment, to human health and safety or to property if the crop locations were made known.

Concerns about secrecy surrounding GM crops have risen after breaches of voluntary guidelines on the containment of GM material in South Australia and Tasmania.

Australia commercially produces GM cotton but so far produces no commercial GM food crops. Aventis has 30 GM food trials underway and Monsanto about five, mainly of canola.

Other trials are being conducted on poppies, grapes, lupins and cotton by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) and universities.

Cain said Monsanto, La Trobe University, the University of Queensland, Pacific Seeds, the University of Western Australia and GlaxoSmithKline, had filed applications for secrecy.

Monsanto spokesman Brian Arnst said the decision was disappointing and the company would lodge an appeal.

"We were acting for the growers who wanted confidentiality as many of them have concerns about perceptions in the community or stigma over growing GM crops," Arnst told Reuters.

"Some came back to us saying they would prefer to keep confidentiality because they were worried about trespassers on to their property." 

Appeals against the decision can be lodged within 28 days, after which time details about the sites would be placed on the Internet.

Brazil backs off approving GM soybeans - papers

August 9
Reuters

SAO PAULO -- Brazil's Agriculture Ministry reversed its previous position that it would soon approve Monsanto brand genetically modified soybeans for sale in Brazil, local newspapers reported on Thursday.

Agriculture Minister Pratini de Moraes abandoned the idea that the ministry was likely approve the marketing of Roundup Ready GM soybeans by Monsanto this week or in the immediate future, as had been the ministry's stance over the last few weeks, reported the financial daily Gazeta Mercantil.

According to the paper, Pratini at a meeting of the National Agriculture Confederation late Wednesday said: ``As there are judgments still pending, we shall only issue registration (for Monsanto soy) when these judgments have been resolved.''

Ministry spokesmen declined to comment further.

Over the last month Pratini and ministry officials said Brazil's long-standing ban on GM crop sales would soon be lifted, allowing a handful of Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybean varieties, which have been bio-engineered to withstand the Roundup Ready herbicide, onto the market.

In Brazil, the world's No. 2 soy grower and exporter after the United States, environmentalists Greenpeace and local consumer protection groups have been effective in stopping the entrance of GM crops and foods onto the market with court injunctions.

Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans are the farthest along the bureaucratic trail toward approval for sale, but the company is still completing a five-year environmental impact study in Brazil, ordered by the court in 1998.

Although GM soybeans are officially banned in Brazil, an increasing percentage of farmers are turning to a thriving black market in illegal GM seeds like Monsanto's which promise to reduce their operational costs in applying herbicide, according to the Brazilian Seed Producers' Association.

North Dakota farmers could be hit hard by opposition to modified wheat

August 8
AP

North Dakota farmers have the most to lose from Canadian opposition to genetically modified wheat, the state agriculture commissioner says.

Modified wheat is not now available, but research is focused on hard red spring wheat varieties, Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said. 

North Dakota is the nation's top producer of those varieties and competes against Canadian farmers in many overseas markets where consumers are vehemently opposed to genetically modified wheat, Johnson said. That could expose the state to a greater backlash if modified wheat is planted in the United States without confidence buyers will accept it.

"The impacts will be acutely felt in North Dakota, more than any other state, because it's hard red spring wheat," he said.

Last week, a coalition of Canadian farm organizations wrote a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chretien to oppose the introduction of genetically modified wheat in Canada. The group includes international environmental groups and the Canadian Wheat Board, which oversees wheat and barley exports from the country's western provinces.

The coalition says farmers and grain groups fear they will lose ground in overseas markets if modified varieties are allowed in Canada. The group asks Chretien to block modified wheat from Canada until "the concerns of Canadian farmers, industry and consumers are addressed adequately."

The call is similar to the stance taken by the U.S. Wheat Associates, which urges seed companies to make sure buyers will accept modified wheat before bringing it to market.

"The markets are not ready for it now," said Jim Peterson, marketing director for the North Dakota Wheat Commission, which is a member of the national group. "And will it be in two years or five years? That's anybody's guess."

Several studies on methods of modifying wheat are under way, including tests to see how well the plant can be made to resist disease or tolerate weed killers. Those traits can make the crop cheaper to grow.

But genetic engineering is controversial to people who think its health and environmental consequences are not fully known.

Wheat faces stronger opposition than other crops for which modified varieties are now available, in part because wheat is used for staple foods around the world, said Dawn Forsythe, public affairs director of the U.S. Wheat Associates in Washington.

The relatively little processing that wheat undergoes during milling and baking also make it seem "much closer to the consumer" than other crops, Forsythe said.

The North Dakota Legislature debated a two-year ban on genetically engineered wheat earlier this year. Supporters of the measure argued it would protect the market for state growers' wheat.

During the debate, lawmakers changed the proposal so it would allow genetically modified wheat if the Canadian Wheat Board did so. They later scrapped the ban in favor of a legislative study into genetic research issues.