August headlines

Return to August article index

Scientists develop environmentally friendly GM tomato

August 31
Reuters

LONDON -- German scientists have developed a genetically modified tomato which they say is environmentally friendly and could be used to deliver vaccines and antibodies.

The tomato has been engineered in such a way that it will not pass on its genes to other crops -- something that is a concern in most genetically modified GM crops.

Its creators also believe the new technology could be used to develop fruit and vegetables that could help immunize against certain diseases.

``In a way you can call it a breakthrough that really opens up a lot of new applications,'' Professor Ralph Bock, who headed the research, said in a telephone interview on Friday.

Bock developed the plant with a team at the Institute of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology in Munster.

Using a new technology, the scientists inserted a foreign gene into the chloroplast of the plant cell instead of into the nuclear DNA or genome, the conventional way of genetically altering plants.

The chloroplast, which is similar to the mitochondria or powerhouse of animal cells, has a separate small genome.

Bock said it was much more difficult to put genetic material into the chloroplast genome, but there were a number of advantages.

One of these is that the foreign DNA in the chloroplast cannot be transmitted by pollen, so it will not contaminate neighboring plants.

Much of the fear surrounding GM crops is the danger they pose to non-GM crops.

Inserting the foreign gene in the chloroplast also allows scientists to produce more proteins in the plants.

Bock, a plant microbiologist, said it could lead to edible plants that can be used to deliver vaccines, drugs and antibodies into the body.

``You can have the plant produce vaccines which can be orally taken up with the food to give immunization to certain diseases,'' said Bock, whose research is reported in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

``In the future we will probably collaborate with industrial partners,'' he added.

Pal Maliga, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, described the work as a milestone.

``The capacity to express foreign proteins at a high level in a consumable fruit should open new opportunities for engineering the next generation of medicinal products that are more palatable to the consumer,'' Maliga said in a commentary on the research.

So far only a marker gene has been inserted into the plants to show the technique works.

Until now the technology had only been used in tobacco plants which are not edible.

Bock and his team have filed for a patent on the technology. They are currently working on plants that produce vitamins and in the future they hope to produce vaccines in tomatoes.

The team collaborated on the research with scientists at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil.

GM tomatoes with medicinal benefits

August 31
The Scotsman

Scientists have developed an environmentally friendly genetically modified tomato which could pave the way to fruits and vegetables containing edible medicines.

The tomato was created by altering its DNA, but a different kind of DNA from that normally targeted in GM experiments.

Instead of tampering with the chromosomes in cell nuclei, the scientists inserted a new gene into loops of DNA found in chloroplasts - specialized plant cell bodies which generate energy from sunlight.

Unlike chromosomal DNA, the DNA in chloroplasts is not transmitted in pollen. There is therefore no danger of windblown pollen spreading foreign genes to other crops and wild plants.

Another advantage is that much more of the desired protein is produced using this technique. That is because many thousands of copies of the genome are present in chloroplasts and other DNA-containing cell bodies, or "plastids".

Technical difficulties meant that non-chromosomal gene manipulation had only been fully achieved in tobacco plants before.

One expert, reported in the journal Nature Biotechnology, today, described it as a "milestone".

The German scientists, led by Ralph Bock at the Institute of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology in Munster, inserted a gene for a marker protein into the tomato by bombarding young leaves with DNA-coated gold particles.

Canadians have little taste for GM food

August 30
Globe and Mail (Toronto)

As he studied plump produce at a downtown Winnipeg grocery store Wednesday, Ernest Montsion said if any of it were genetically modified it wouldn`t make it to the checkout with him.

According to the results of an Ipsos-Reid/Globe and Mail/CTV poll released Thursday, Mr. Montsion is among a majority: 63 per cent of Canadians surveyed recently said they would be less likely to buy a food product that is genetically modified or contains genetically modified ingredients.

The poll of 1,000 people from across the country also shows that Canadians are split when the issue moves off their own dinner plates and on to world markets. Forty-five per cent of those surveyed believe that Canada`s competitive edge in the global food trade hinges on embracing the science of genetically engineered food. But another 50 per cent think if our food producers continue to use the technology it will hurt the country`s international trade.

Mr. Montsion is unambiguous: He doesn`t want to eat genetically modified foods and doesn`t want Canada to push forward with the science either. ``I just don`t think the farmers need it.``

The frustration for Mr. Montsion is that there is no way for him to put his words into action. Most soy, corn and canola produced in Canada has already been genetically engineered with a herbicide-resistant gene, courtesy of bacteria — and those three plant foods make their way into a legion of products, none of which carries a label identifying its genetically modified contents.

``They`re wary but whether or not that will translate into action is still to be seen ... It`s clear Canadians want to be able to choose,`` John Wright, Ipsos-Reid senior vice-president, said Wednesday.

How worried Canadians are about genetically modified foods depends on where they live: Respondents from British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec feel most strongly about not purchasing genetically modified foods.

A federally commissioned report from the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee released this month suggests Canadians will wait to choose: It advocated gradual and voluntary labelling of genetically modified foods.

On the flip side, there`s also frustration in the industry — specifically that average consumers such as Mr. Montsion often have a very fuzzy concept of what the term ``genetically modified`` means.

``This whole `frankenfoods` label is used unfairly,`` said Lorne Hepworth, president of the Crop Protection Institute, a trade association of about 30 companies such as Monsanto and DuPont that develop biotechnology for agriculture, said Wednesday. ``Mother Nature has been genetically modifying foods through the ages.``

This past July, however, the prospect that a new genetically engineered strain of wheat could be approved in Canada galvanized a diverse group of people who do understand the science — from Greenpeace to the Canadian Wheat Board. They signed a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien listing concerns ranging from the trade losses to health and safety worries.

For the Council of Canadians, a national interest group, the genetic manipulation of plants is worrisome when it involves mingling traits between plant and animal life, biotechnology campaigner Nadége Adam said. For instance, fish genes have been used in a variety of U.S. tomato to help it withstand cold weather.

``We just don`t know whether these foods are safe ... and the government is trying to be both the regulator and the promoter of Canadian GM foods to the rest of the world,`` Ms. Adam said.

Canadian farm harvests second batch of GM potatoes

August 30
AgWeb.com

The crops are part of a continuing farm-to-fork study with the University of Guelph that began in June 2000. The project compares different pest management technologies and consumer reaction.

Last year, farmer Jeff Wilson, owner and operator of Birkbank Farms, found that genetically engineered Bt sweet corn and potatoes provided an effective pest management option allowing him to reduce insecticide use while producing the high quality sweet corn his customers demand.

This year, Wilson once again found that the Bt sweet corn required no insecticides and the Bt potatoes provided effective management of the Colorado potato beetle, the number pest of Ontario potatoes. The conventional corn was sprayed twice with insecticides and the potatoes were sprayed with an insecticide called Admire. All of the products used have been approved for safety by Canadian regulators and were used according to recommended guidelines to ensure safety.

"This was a challenging summer for managing pests," said Wilson. "The three straight weeks of 30 degree C weather reduced my options for controlling the worms on the sweet corn. The Bt crops allowed me to focus more time on irrigation rather than spraying and the message I got from my customers last years was that they like the fact the Bt crops reduce sprays."

The sweet corn and potatoes were harvested, segregated and are now available in the Birkbank farm market, fully labeled with additional information on Bt crops and the insecticides used. Sales will be tracked for the remainder of the season to test consumer preference.

Thailand goes down slippery path of GM labeling

August 29
IPS

BANGKOK -- As it moves toward labeling food products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Thailand is grappling with the question of whether or not there should be a 5 percent threshold for disclosure purposes.

For consumer rights advocates and environmentalists, the need of the hour is "complete transparency," which means that labels should appear on any food product that contains any trace of genetically modified ingredients.

"The people have a right to know what they are eating," said Saree Aongsumwang, secretary-general of Thailand's Confederation of Consumer Organizations (CCO). "They have a right choose food that is safe, and that can be assured if all products with GMOs are identified."

"The food industry needs to be honest about their products," added Jiragorn Gajaseni, who heads the Bangkok-based Southeast Asian wing of Greenpeace, the global environmental lobby.

Besides, she said, "If the manufacturers are confident about the safety of their products, they should back the idea of labels for all food that contain GMOs."

But the country's Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has been assigned the task of conceiving the national policy on GMOs in food products within the year, thinks otherwise.

In a draft of a GMO policy paper that it has made public, the FDA has recommended that Thailand follow in the footsteps of Japan, which has adopted a mandatory labeling policy for food that has more that 5 percent genetically modified ingredients.

"We have looked into the Japanese policy and feel there are merits in it as a model for us," said an expert on food standards at the FDA, who requested anonymity. "Food producers will have to carry labels if their products have ingredients with more than 5 percent GMOs."

However, the expert admits, the last word has still to be written on this policy. On Sept. 5, the FDA will hold the first of its public hearings on GMO labeling. "We need to gather more information from consumers, activists and the industry before making our final recommendations," he added.

Greenpeace and the CCO will be among the groups present at the Bangkok hearing to question the FDA's draft policy.

"The FDA's idea of 5 percent is a mistake, for it denies the Thai people from knowing the GMOs that have contaminated their food," charged Jiragorn.

Besides, Jiragorn says he is worried given the pressure that he says the FDA has come under from the food industry and foreign governments. "Its current position reveals a bias towards the food industry and countries producing GM foods, like the United States."

So far, Nestle, the world's largest food company, and the U.S. embassy here say they support the Thai government's moves toward GMO labeling.

"We welcome the initiative by the FDA to come up with a constructive solution to the current discussion on GM-derived food ingredients," a statement by Nestle to IPS noted, adding that it will "strictly adhere to the regulations that are now being developed by the Thai authorities."

The U.S. embassy, which the pro-GMO labeling lobby says is against labeling and has pressuring developing-country governments against it, also said it favors the FDA's initiative.

"Every country has the right to make its own laws and to implement such regulation," Joseph Yun, counselor for economic affairs at the U.S. embassy, said in an interview. "We hope that it would be based on science."

"What about the consumers who do not want any trace of GMOs in their food?" asked Auaiporn Suthonthanyakorn, a Greenpeace campaigner. "Some of the food products contain GMOs that may not be to the liking of Buddhists (most Thais are Buddhists) or may be avoided by people for other cultural reasons. The FDA needs to respect them."

According to Rene Vellve of the non-government organization Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN), Thai authorities should be unequivocal in their labeling policy by distinguishing between foods that have GMOs and those that do not.

"No one can say whether a 5 percent threshold is safer than a 1 percent threshold or a 0.001 percent threshold. Either a product contains genetically modified substances or it does not, full stop. That's what the labels ought to indicate," said Vellve, who is based in Manila.

Vellve pointed out that the risks for consumers can include "hypersensitivity, toxicity, allergies, increased antibiotic resistance, lower nutritional quality and possible mutagenic effects."

Thai consumers are aware of this and are demanding a stronger labeling system, says Witoon Lianchamroon, who heads the Thai Network on Biodiversity and Community Rights (BIOTHAI). "This right is even guaranteed in our new (1997) constitution."

Such awareness is reflected in the results of two surveys conducted here. In 1993, a survey commissioned by CCO in Bangkok revealed that only 25 percent of some 300 consumers in the Thai capital were aware of GMOs.

At the beginning of this year, however, a survey commissioned by BIOTHAI among 334 Bangkok consumers revealed that 91 percent were aware of GMOs and "82 percent wanted mandatory labeling."

According to Auaiporn, Greenpeace has been receiving daily telephone calls from mothers since it launched a nationwide awareness campaign in April about GMO labeling. "Mothers are among the regular callers. They often ask which foods contain GMOs and which they have to avoid," she explained.

That campaign came in the wake of a study that Greenpeace and the local environment group Green Net had commissioned on Apr. 10, showing the range of food items available here that contain GMOs.

Based on laboratory tests done in Hong Kong, the report, "Genetic Engineering: The Hidden Ingredient in Thai Food," said that one in four food items sold in Thailand contained genetically engineered ingredients like soy or corn.

On that occasion, Greenpeace and Green Net named seven products that contain GMOs. They included Nestle's Baby Cerelac, Unilever's Knorr instant cream of corn soup, Nissin's duck-flavored cup noodles, Vita-Tofu soybean curd, Good Times instant cereal beverage and Pringles potato chips.

Most of the manufacturers of these food products denied having GMO ingredients.

"These GE ingredients were not labeled on the packaging so Thai consumers have no way of knowing what they are eating," the report by the environment groups said. "The outcome of these tests reveals shocking double standards by global food companies. These companies promise not to use GE food in Europe and Japan but are secretly selling GE food in Thailand."

In a statement reacting to that report, Nestle had said, "There is only one standard for Nestle products, the standard that is used all over the world."

"From all these processes, quality selection, examining raw material, production processes that are used globally and the quality and nutrition testing, we care about safety most," the statement added. "We are confident that the safety of ingredients derived locally from such crops is assured through this evaluation process and are confident that they do not constitute a health risk."

In the days ahead of its decision on GMO labeling, Jiragorn says the FDA must see the Thai consumer's rights as its foremost priority: The consumer needs to know all foods that are contaminated by GMOs."

Australia: GM food labeling guides launched

August 29
National Capital News

The growing commercial importance of genetically modified (GM) foods has been recognized with the launch of a new guide aimed at improving the food retailing industry's understanding of GM labeling.

The Australia New Zealand Food Authority's (ANZFA) publication GM Food Labeling Guide has been developed in consultation with government and food industry representatives on both sides of the Tasman to help manufacturers and retailers interpret the Food Standards Code, which will come into effect in both Australia and New Zealand in December.

The code requires that where a GM food or ingredient is present in a packaged food the words genetically modified must be used in conjunction with the name of the food, or in association with the specific ingredient on the label's ingredient list.

The code will also apply the same labeling standard to unpackaged processed foods and where possible, unpackaged fresh foods such as fruit and vegetables.

In addition, the code requires food businesses such as manufacturers, packers, importers and where appropriate, retailers, to take all reasonable steps to find out whether a food or ingredient - including additives and processing aids - has been produced using GM technology.

However in an important distinction, the code does not require GM labeling for foods prepared for immediate consumption, such as restaurant, take-away food and catered meals, leaving the onus on consumers to request this information from these types of food outlets.

Food retailing small businesses will in addition to the guide, be able to access information about the code either from a telephone help line - 1300 652 166 - or via email at advice@anzfa.gov.au 

ANZFA's General Manager Peter Liehne said that the implementation of the code would bring considerable benefits to the food retailing industry by allowing consumers to make an informed choice about GM foods.

"Since it was first made available in draft form last year, we have been through several rounds of consultation with industry representatives to make sure that the code effectively meets user needs," said Liehne.

During that consultative process, food manufacturers and retailers had expressed serious concerns about the cost of overhauling the established food labeling regime.

The Australian Food and Grocery Council had claimed at the time that the industry would have to spend up to $400 million to comply with the new code once it was introduced, translating to a 2 percent rise in household food bills as businesses sought to recoup their costs.