December headlines

Return to December article index

Keep GM tests in the lab, farmers warn

December 9
New Zealand Herald

The benefits of gene science are over-hyped and the rush to patent new technology is nothing more than bio-piracy, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification has been told.

Organic farmers put their case to the commission in Wellington this week, asking that gene experiments be confined to the laboratory.

The organics industry believes the risk of contamination is too great to allow genetically modified organisms into the environment.

James Kebbell, managing director of retailer Commonsense Organics, said organic products would earn $500 million from exports in the next four years.

In 1991, New Zealand had fewer than 200 certified organic farmers; now it had more than 800, he said.

Mr Kebbell, a founder of the Organic Federation of New Zealand, told the commission that New Zealand's desire to experiment with genetic modification was "keeping up with the Joneses."

Crop experiments could destroy decades of work by organic farmers.

The Golden Bay Organic Employment and Education Trust said the biotechnology industry had misled regulatory bodies around the world, and unbiased and independent testing of GM products had not been done.

Golden Bay quoted a British study that found genetically engineered pollen could travel more than 5km.

Patenting medical and agricultural knowledge that resulted from gene experiments was bio-piracy and should not be allowed, the trust said.

The organics industry flew American Corn Growers' Foundation chief executive Gary Goldberg in for the hearings.

Mr Goldberg said the planting of GM "Starlink" corn had ruined export markets and tainted the crops of non-Starlink farmers.

The corn was never meant for human consumption, but had entered the food chain through cross-contamination.

Farmers faced a $US200 million ($470 million) bill to protect their crops from contamination by GM varieties.

The potential loss in corn exports from the US was in the billions of dollars, he said.

Genetically modified crops had also led to an over-production of corn, causing an estimated loss of between $US1 billion and $US1.5 billion.

Also before the commission was Bill Bracks, owner of Comvita, a company which produces natural therapies from honey and employs more than 60 people.

Bee products could be the most susceptible to contamination from genetically modified organisms, Mr Bracks said. Any release of GM crops would affect the company's ability to make GM-free guarantees.

He also poured scorn on big food manufacturers' claims that mandatory labeling of GM products, due to be introduced within the next year, would add between 14 and 15 per cent to the retail price.

"I would guess that to put on a GM warning, depending on the size of the label, would cost ... less than half a cent per product."

Testing corn affects Cheetos supply

December 9
AP

DALLAS - Cheetos lovers, prepare for a crunch.

Supplies of the cheese-flavored snack are down by as much as 10 percent as maker Frito-Lay Inc. attempts to keep genetically engineered corn from the recipe.

``We've required all cornmeal to meet all tests, and that's slowed things down,'' company spokeswoman Lynn Markley said.

Frito-Lay is running thousands of tests a month to make sure its supplies don't contain the StarLink variety of bio-engineered corn. The Cheetos supply problem is expected to be fixed in two weeks, company officials said.

StarLink, which was genetically modified to produce its own pesticide, is not approved for human consumption because of unresolved questions about its potential to cause allergic reactions.

Discovery of StarLink in the food supply has forced nationwide recalls of taco shells and forced the shutdown of processing plants.

Regulator to rule gene technology

December 9
The Australian

SCIENTISTS involved in human cloning risk 10-year jail terms and protesters two years' jail for damaging genetically modified crops, under Australia's first gene laws passed by the Senate.

A Gene Technology Regulator will be set up with the same sweeping powers as the federal police and the tax office to inspect laboratories and farms for illegal GM activity.

The laws passed yesterday make it a crime to experiment with GM crops, animals, viruses or vaccines without approval from the gene regulator.

States will be able to declare "GM-free" zones and the location of modified crops will be made public unless the regulator rules that to do so would pose a "significant risk" to public health.

But to ease farmers' fears about environmental protesters destroying their GM crops, the Gene Technology Bill imposes two-year jail terms and $13,200 fines for damaging or preventing authorized gene modification activity.

All food with GM ingredients will have to be labeled from the end of next year, under separate laws announced by Australian and New Zealand health ministers.

The legislation was passed after an overnight debate in the Senate, capping six months of negotiations by the Coalition with Labor, the Greens, Democrats and Independent senator Brian Harradine.

The bill outlaws human cloning with 10-year jail terms and $220,000 fines. The same penalty will apply to researchers who put human cells into animal eggs, or implant animal cells into a woman's womb.

The gene regulator will have to publish details of all GM applications it receives, and contact state governments, the federal environment minister and relevant local councils for comment.

The public will have at least 30 days to comment on applications for GM licenses and the regulator will have to assess risks to the environment, health and safety.

A Gene Ethics Committee with members experienced in law, religion, health, the environment and farming will be set up to advise the regulator.

And "gene police" will be given the power to enter and search premises to collect evidence for prosecutions.

Under the legislation, companies or farmers that breach their GM licenses or operate without a license risk five-year jail terms and fines of up to $1.1 million.

The Australian Greens yesterday criticized the bill as "weak and dangerous" because it did not require licenses for "low-risk" GM dealings or require GM crop growers to take out insurance against the spread of mutant genes.

The Government and ALP voted down Democrat amendments to ban members of the gene regulator having links to a company or organization in GM research.

Gene crops subject to stricter controls

December 9
The Age (Australia)

New genetically modified crops will have to be approved and crop locations made publicly available, after a marathon parliamentary debate culminated in the passage of the Federal Government's Gene Technology Bill.

Growers of GM crops will face penalties up to $220,000 for breaching the new laws, which require appropriate precautions against modified crops cross-pollinating with standard plants.

Labor and Democrats amendments to the laws demand that the new gene-crops umpire, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, make applications for new crops public except in extreme circumstances.

The office of the regulator may only suppress locations if disclosure would involve "significant damage to the health and safety of people, the environment or property".

Debate on the legislation continued until 6am yesterday, after an all-night parliamentary sitting in Canberra.

After a Federal Government compromise, state governments are now able to reject nationally approved crops in certain areas, on the grounds of preserving the market value of non-engineered products.

Critics of the final package, including Greens Senator Bob Brown, argue the opt-out provision does not go far enough.

"State governments have to do it plant by plant or crop by crop," he said. "And it has to be for marketing purposes - it ought to have been for any purposes, like environmental concerns or health concerns."

Senator Brown's amendments tried to extend this right to local councils, but the government and Opposition combined to defeat them.

Organic farmers are also angry, claiming the legislation lacks control over what happens to GM crops after they are harvested.

The regulatory regime, drafted cooperatively between the Commonwealth and the states, is the first attempt to regulate the genetically modified crops industry.

Democrats science spokeswoman Natasha Stott Despoja described the legislation as a "missed opportunity" that failed to reflect community concerns about the health implications of GM crops.

The Opposition parliamentary secretary for health, Alan Griffin, said Labor's deal with the government, allowing the bill to pass, had improved disclosure provisions and allowed more public input.

He said only four of Labor's proposed amendments had been rejected.

Ban on import of oil from GM oilseeds likely

December 9
Indian Express Newspaper

New Delhi : The Union Agriculture Minister, Nitish Kumar said that the government is considering to ban imports of edible oils made from genetically modified (GM) soybeans and other seeds.

He said that this measure will stall dumping by some producer countries that has adversely affected the Indian farmers.

He said these countries resort to dumping by taking undue advantage of the low WTO bound-rate duty of 45 per cent for imported soybean and rapeseed oils. All other oils attracted a higher import duty of up to 300 per cent. The minister said much of the soybean oil coming from abroad was from genetically modified seeds.

He said the lower bound-rate duty for soybean and rapeseed oils was responsible for upsetting the edible oil import structure, depressing the domestic market and impoverishing the domestic oilseed producers.

Mr Kumar was speaking at a meeting of the members of parliament from the main coconut producing states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. About 30 MPs who attended the meeting pressed for imposing of higher import duty to stall cheap imports and giving a higher minimum support price (MSP) for copra and streamline of the procurement by the official agencies.

Allaying the apprehensions of the members, Mr Kumar said the MSP for copra for the coming year would not be delayed and declared before December 31.Referring to the member`s demand for restricting the import of palmoil, he said that alone would not be of much help. The government has already raised the import duty on palmoil from 16.5 per cent to 25 per cent on November 21 while the duty on other oils were raised from 27.5 per cent to 35 per cent, he pointed out. Mr Kumar preferred to deal with the edible oil situation in its totality, in consultation with finance and commerce ministries.

Gene technology regulation becomes law

December 8
Yahoo! Australia and New Zealand News

Controversial laws regulating gene technology in Australia have been passed by parliament after a marathon debate in the Senate.

The laws, governing the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) such as crops and GM foods, are a first for Australia, with GMOs currently overseen by a regulatory body.

The minor opposition parties tried but failed to pass a number of amendments to the laws.

The laws were eventually passed with the support of the opposition earlier this morning.

A spokesman from the Organic Federation of Australia said the laws would not work because they did not adequately regulate the handling of genetically modified crops.

He said without that regulation, genetically-modified crops could contaminate other plants.

"To regulate for trade issues, it needs to be controlled very strongly from the moment the farmer plants the crop through to the harvest, through to the grain handling and transport of the crop, including segregation," he told ABC Radio.

GM laws 'not tough enough'

December 8
news.com.au

AUSTRALIA'S organic farmers today warned controversial new legislation on gene technology would not protect farmers from the spread of genetic crops.

New laws governing the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) such as crops were passed by Parliament overnight after a marathon debate in the Senate.

But Organic Farmers' Federation spokesman Scott Kinnear said the laws would not work because they did not adequately regulate the handling of GM crops.

He said without that regulation, genetically-modified crops could contaminate other plants.

"To regulate for trade issues, it needs to be controlled very strongly from the moment the farmer plants the crop through to the harvest, through to the grain handling and transport of the crop, including segregation," he told ABC Radio.

"The pollen contamination issues overseas have cost hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars."

But NSW Farmers' Association spokesman Hugh Roberts believed farmers would follow license requirements to avoid contamination of other crops.

"There is no question they have got to, that's the rules of the game and if they don't want to play the rules of the game don't for heaven's sake run out on the field," Mr Roberts said.

He said genetically modified crops with their higher yields were the only solution to date to the production required in the next 40 years and as an export nation Australia had to stay abreast of the world.

He was confident consumers would accept the benefits of GM foods.

"It's not a question of winning (them) over, it's basically a question of time," Mr Roberts said.

"Our whole push has been to make sure we can grow the crops when they become available and I am sure we can do that, but the consumers will slowly and surely see benefits and the benefits will manifest in better food and cheaper food."

MPs' marathon gives gene law go-ahead

December 8
Sydney Morning Herald

Controversial laws regulating gene technology in Australia have been passed by parliament after a marathon debate in the Senate.

The laws, governing the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) such as crops and GM foods, are a first for Australia, with GMOs currently overseen by a regulatory body.

The minor opposition parties tried but failed to pass a number of amendments to the laws.

The laws were eventually passed with the support of the opposition earlier this morning.

A spokesman from the Organic Federation of Australia said the laws would not work because they did not adequately regulate the handling of genetically modified crops.

He said without that regulation, genetically-modified crops could contaminate other plants.

"To regulate for trade issues, it needs to be controlled very strongly from the moment the farmer plants the crop through to the harvest, through to the grain handling and transport of the crop, including segregation," he told ABC Radio.

Deal over GM law 'a disaster'

December 7
The Age (Australia)

The Federal Government and Opposition have combined forces to pass new laws on genetic modification in a deal producing amendments that have angered the Democrats and Greens.

Labor claims it has forced the Government to agree to include in the bill a legal mechanism known as the "precautionary principle", which would preclude the release of any GM organism or technology until it is known to be safe.

During the debate green groups have argued strongly for this principle. But the minor parties claim the amendment agreed to for the Gene Technology Bill 2000 is significantly watered down, leaving out references to human health and including a provision that environmental protection measures be "cost effective."

Now a cross section of groups including the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Organic Federation are describing the compromise as a sell-out and a disaster.

The bill, which is due to be finally debated and expected to be passed by the Senate tonight, has been through a lengthy process of debate in both houses including two committee reports.

North Carolina State U. professor evaluates biotechnology

December 7
The Technician

RALEIGH, N.C. - Starlink, a genetically modified variety of corn used in animal feed but not yet approved for human consumption, was found in American-made taco shells. Thousands of the shells have been stripped from store shelves in a recall to include more than 1.4 million pounds of corn flour and other baking ingredients.

The discovery of Starlink corn in taco shells produced by Kraft foods was found as a result of a fishing expedition by a coalition of environmental groups. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth oppose most modern agricultural methods, and thus hired a testing company to analyze more than two dozen processed foods specifically for traces of Starlink. The taco shells were the only food in which Starlink corn was present.

Thomas Hoban, professor of sociology and food science at North Carolina State University, emphasized that the Starlink recall hardly affected consumers' support for biotech products. Sixty-seven percent of consumers said they would continue to use biotech products that had been engineered to resist insects. Starlink, developed by the French-based drug company Aventis, is no different from other corn, except for the addition of a gene that produces an insect-fighting protein.

Hoban relates that "biotechnology represents a powerful set of tools that will have a significant impact on society over the next century."

New biotechnology products provide important benefits, including reduced use of chemical pesticides and enhanced vitamin and iron content.

Most Americans support new developments in science and technology. According to Hoban, between two-thirds and three-quarters of U.S. consumers support agricultural biotechnology and welcome its benefits.

Starlink has not been approved for human consumption because of concern that its new protein may cause human allergies. However, food allergy specialists have questioned this, pointing out that it's virtually impossible for anyone to have an existing allergy to a protein that would be completely new to the human diet.

Steve Taylor, head of the University of Nebraska's department of food science and technology believes "there is virtually no risk associated with the ingestion of Starlink corn in this situation."

There is a controversy over the government's role that creates a concern. The EPA, not the FDA, granted Starlink partial approval while expressing doubts about its allergenic potential. The agency most familiar and better equipped to deal with food allergens is the FDA, which has a long track record in the area.

Biotech products do undergo extensive safety and nutrition testing, and biotechnology has been shown to be as safe or safer than traditional breeding practices.

In an interview with FDA Commissioner Jane Henney, she confirmed that there is "no evidence that the bioengineered foods now on the market pose any health concerns or are in any way less safe than crops produced through traditional breeding."

GM labeling takes effect in 12 months

December 7
New Zealand Herald

Agreement between New Zealand and Australian federal and state health ministers to label all genetically modified foods was made at a meeting in July this year.

Health Minister Annette King says amendments to the standard have been made in response to consumer concerns.

She says under the amended standard, food or ingredients labeled 'genetically modified' either contains new genetic material or protein as a result of genetic modification.

Mrs King says under the new labeling standard, unpackaged GM food such as fruit and vegetables, must also carry a statement identifying the food as genetically modified.

Texas A & M biologists are developing genetically modified rice resistant to insects and microbes

December 6
Science Daily

Texas A&M University biologists are developing genetically modified rice resistant to insects and microbes, which could revolutionize the food and agriculture industries and help alleviate hunger in developing countries.

For many years, spraying insecticides on rice crops has been the best way to protect rice crops from insects. Scientists are now creating new strains of rice plants that would contain insect-killing proteins, so no insecticide would be needed.

"We are interested in killing insects that eat rice plants, like the rice water weevil," says Timothy C. Hall, distinguished professor of biology. "This insect feeds on the leaves and lays its eggs on them. When the eggs hatch, larvae grow and spend about a month chewing the roots." To protect rice plants from water weevils, Hall and his colleagues insert insect-killing genes in the seeds of rice plants. Ideally, when the plants grow, these genes produce insect-killing proteins in the plant roots, preventing water weevils from eating the roots.

However, Hall and his group discovered that many of the insect-killing genes are not expressed or expressed only in the early stages of the growth of the plants. These genes-also called transgenes-are turned off once they are inserted in plants.

"This lack of expression-also called gene silencing-is a way for plant cells to protect themselves from invasion," Hall says. "When we put the gene in, it is seen by the plant cells as an invasive event, so there are various ways in which the cells turn off the expression of the foreign gene." Hall and his colleagues are making new genes that would escape the gene silencing mechanisms.

"We want to create what we call stealth genes, basically genes that can get underneath the radar of the host cell protection," Hall says. "That involves understanding what the actual mechanisms of gene silencing are." The silencing mechanisms are strategies by which plant cells inactivate and eliminate foreign genes.

Many silencing mechanisms have been encountered by Hall and his colleagues. Their results and those of others have been recently reviewed in the journal Plant Molecular Biology.

An important silencing mechanism consists of methylation, a process by which the introduced gene is modified, so it can be distinguished from the original genes of the cell.

Other silencing mechanisms include the degradation or rearrangement of the transgenes once they enter the cell, prior to their stable integration into the chromosomes.

Hall and his group are also designing fluorescent markers to track down the position of the transgene in the plant cell genome.

"We hope to be able to tell exactly where our genes are inserted and whether it really does make a difference where the transgene is inserted," Hall says.

Hall adds that these studies should be improved when the sequencing of the rice genome is completed in the next few months.

Hall and his colleagues are now developing and testing five different gene constructs that may be able to escape the gene silencing mechanisms, and produce insect-killing proteins. One gene construct is developed in collaboration with the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, while the four others are elaborated in collaboration with Aventis.

"By changing various regions in the transgenes, we hope to be able to make the rice resistant to the water weevil," Hall says. "But we still need to learn a lot about the many ways in which gene silencing is achieved."