December headlines

Return to December article index

Modified-crop studies are called inconclusive

December 14
New York Times

Ever since genetically modified crops appeared, supporters and detractors of the plants have made competing claims about whether they are safe or harmful to the environment.

Tomorrow, in what some scientists say is the first comprehensive review of the published scientific data, researchers will report that simple conclusions cannot yet be drawn because the crucial studies have not yet been done.

Millions of acres of the crops have been planted in the United States, their way paved by studies conducted by industry and submitted to government regulators as evidence of safety but which typically were not published in peer-reviewed journals.

For this review, the researchers examined only studies that other scientists had determined were of high- enough quality to merit publication.

The researchers found that while genetically engineered crops hold potential for both risk and benefit, scientists still know little about the likelihood even of the environmental threats of greatest concern. Also, almost no studies have been published documenting ecological benefits.

The two authors of the study published in the journal Science are fellows sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest nonprofit scientific federation.

In their study, in which they call for new research, the authors say current data indicate that assessing ecological risks is likely to be complex, with risks varying among crops, even among strains of a single crop, between environments and over time. Some risks, they say, may be so difficult and time-consuming to assess as to be effectively unknowable.

"We're a ways away from really having answers," said Dr. LaReesa Wolfenbarger, an ecologist who is doing her fellowship at the Environmental Protection Agency and is co- author of the study with Dr. Paul Phifer, a conservation biologist doing his fellowship at the State Department. The authors emphasized that they had conducted the study independently and did not speak for the government.

"Some of these questions are very elusive," Dr. Wolfenbarger said, "but that doesn't mean that we stop studying them or make sweeping generalizations that they don't exist."

Scientists on both sides of the debate called the review fair and accurate, though each side interpreted the findings differently.

"It's a pretty reasonable summary and pretty well balanced," said Dr. Robert Fraley, chief technical officer of the Monsanto Company.

Dr. Fraley played down the findings, however, saying that in several years of commercial use, no ecological problems had yet been shown to be caused by genetically engineered plants.

Dr. Jane Rissler, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group critical of the use of genetically modified crops, called the paper "very fair and clear."

Dr. Rissler said: "You come out of this with a strong sense that we don't know very much about the risks and the benefits. If we don't know, why are we doing this?"

A spokeswoman for the Department of Agriculture, which oversees regulation of genetically engineered plants, said scientists at the department were reviewing the study.

The researchers examined 35 peer-reviewed studies. They looked at risks including the production of "superweeds," the creation of new viral diseases and unintended harm to nonpest species, like monarch butterflies. They often found that while studies suggested a potential for risk, other studies presented conflicting results arguing against risk. In some cases, laboratory studies suggested risk, but no studies in the field were conducted to test if harm occurred.

And while some studies showed the potential for environmental benefits from these crops, the researchers found they fell short of documenting actual benefit.

For example, a Department of Agriculture study indicated a 1 percent decrease in the amount of pesticides used on corn, cotton and soybeans in 1998, as an apparent result of the adoption of genetically modified crops. Yet, Dr. Wolfenbarger said, it remains unknown whether this decrease in pesticides translated into any environmental benefit for wild species.

No clear message yet on GMO safety, report finds

December 14
Reuters

Studies aimed at showing whether genetically modified plants pose a risk to the environment have so far failed, researchers said on Thursday.

There could be some serious risks -- such as the creation of pesticide-resistant ``superweeds'' -- but the studies done so far have not been able to show either way, the review, published in the journal Science shows.

This is in part because it is so hard to tell what is going to happen in nature, LaReesa Wolfenbarger, a research fellow at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who helped write the paper, said in a telephone interview.

``There are definitely studies that suggest that the crop that has been looked at does not have a certain risk,'' Wolfenbarger, who reviewed 35 different studies, said.

``There are also studies that suggest there may be ecological risk. But I think that what we are often lacking is a test in the field.''

For instance, two highly publicized studies suggested that Monarch butterflies in the United States might be harmed by pollen from corn genetically modified to carry Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a toxin originally taken from bacteria that kills certain insect pests.

But Wolfenbarger said the studies did not go far enough.

``How broadly these results apply to natural populations is not known because neither study addressed the rate at which larva encounter the toxin, a necessary component for assessing risks,'' Wolfenbarger and her colleague, P.R. Phifer, a fellow at the Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science at the State Department, wrote in their report.

``A laboratory study can suggest that there might be a possible ecological consequence, but that really has to be confirmed under field conditions,'' Wolfenbarger, an ecologist and molecular geneticist, said.

``When you are dealing with ecological questions, there is an incredible amount of variability, a lot of complexity, in ecological systems that make it difficult to assess risks.''

Wolfenbarger, who did not look at studies on whether genetically modified crops are safe for people to eat, said another risk is that genetically engineered crops will interbreed with weeds.

``Genetic modifications, through traditional breeding or genetic engineering, of crop or other species can potentially create changes that enhance an organism's ability to become an invasive species,'' she wrote.

She cited studies that show invasive species cost the United States an estimated $137 billion a year. But again, studies have not clearly shown whether this can happen under natural conditions.

Possible benefits of genetically engineered crops include better yield, the need to use fewer pesticides and herbicides and, perhaps, better nutritional value.

Wolfenbarger noted that U.S. regulators such as the Department of Agriculture were already approving genetically modified (GM) crops, so the best approach may be to test them once they are in use.

``I think that small-scale experiments can be done that will offer information, but I think ... there is no way to do large scale experiments until something is actually commercialized,'' she said.

Center to encourage research on GMOs

December 11
Times of India

CALCUTTA - The Center would encourage research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) but approval for their commercial use would not be given unless the field trials yielded satisfactory results.

"We will encourage research on the GMOs. We have allowed field trials on the transgenic plants. But approval for commercial use of the same would be given only after the results of the trials are proved to be beneficial for the farmers and the consumers," Dr S R Rao, director, department of biotechnology under the Union ministry of Science and Technology, told PTI here.

While multinationals like Monsanto and Novartis were given clearance to undertake field trails, institutions like Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) were also taking up projects on the GMOs.

The Center was, however, concerned about the possible risks involved in consumption of such food products, he said.

"We have formulated stringent biosafety regulations and the projects must satisfy those. However, these guidelines still need further improvement," Dr Rao said.

On the labeling of the GM Foods, he said India has obligation at the international fora to make marking of the transgenic foods mandatory.

"India along with some other developing nations had agreed to do comprehensive labeling of GM foods. The people should know what they are consuming. But implementation of the same is difficult."

Only half of woman would eat genetically modified foods, while only one of three would feed it to their children

Women are less likely than men to support genetic modification of food

December 11
Oxygen/ Marble Pulse press release

Even though most of the food available in supermarkets is genetically altered, few Americans feel very informed about these foods and many are concerned about their risks, according to the Oxygen/Markle Pulse (www.pulse.org) poll released today. The poll results were announced by Cheryl Mills, Oxygen's Senior Vice President of Corporate Policy and Public Programming.

Among the poll's findings:

-- Men and women differ in their feelings toward genetically modified food

Only half of women surveyed (50%) would eat genetically modified foods, compared to 71% of men. Fewer women (37%) than men (59%) would give genetically modified foods to their children, and 47% of women say they are willing to pay more for fruits and vegetables that have not been genetically altered, compared with 35% of men.

-- Americans do not feel that they know enough about genetically modified food.

Only 18% of Americans say they feel ``very informed'' about the benefits and risks of genetically modified foods. An additional 46% feel ``somewhat informed.''

-- Americans want genetically modified foods labeled and tested, but they're split over who should be responsible for it.

85% support the labeling of genetically modified foods, and 88% support testing. However, there is some dispute over who should do the testing: 56% think the FDA should have the main responsibility for testing; 29% believe it should lie with an independent, non-governmental third party.

-- Americans are evenly divided over whether genetically modified foods are healthy.

43% of Americans believe genetically modified foods are just as healthy as organic foods. 40% believe genetically modified foods are less healthy.

Cheryl Mills stated, ``Nearly two-thirds of the food for sale in America's supermarkets is genetically altered. But very few Americans know which foods they are, and what effect those foods can have on their health. This lack of knowledge, combined with a lack of uniform labeling and testing, is causing many people to worry about what they eat and what they feed their children.''

Additional results from the Oxygen/Markle Pulse are available at www.pulse.org. The Oxygen/ Markle Pulse is a joint project of Oxygen Media and the Markle Foundation.

For this poll, Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates conducted a nationally representative telephone survey of 2,248 adult men and women between April 20 and May 10, 2000. The sampling error for adult women, adult men and teenagers is 3.1%, 4.4%, and 4.4% respectively, at 95% confidence level.

About the Oxygen/Markle Pulse

The Oxygen/Markle Pulse seeks to learn what women think and believe and to give voice to these findings through the media. The Pulse will comprehensively track and measure women's opinions, attitudes, needs and values. The Pulse seeks to engage women in a dialogue to help shape the direction of the Pulse research and the Oxygen/Markle Pulse's findings will inform and add depth to Oxygen's online and television programming. Oxygen will create programming that is responsive to the findings uncovered through the research conducted by the Oxygen/Markle Pulse. The Pulse invites women to express their opinions through its web site, located at www.pulse.org.

Mixed reports in biotech safety debate

December 11
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

In the past 18 months, agricultural biotechnology has taken several punishing blows.

First was the revelation that the supposedly "green" technology could actually harm the environment by killing off monarch butterflies and other benign insects.

Then, in September, a variety of genetically altered corn not approved for human consumption was found in taco shells. That incident led to the temporary closing of some food manufacturing plants and recalls of more than 300 grocery and restaurant products containing corn.

Consumer confidence began to waver in both the safety of biotech foods and in the government regulatory process, and anti-biotech activists proclaimed that the end of genetically engineered crops was nigh.

Not so fast, said biotech supporters. As they have since the introduction of genetically engineered crops in the mid-1990s, industry advocates counted on science to save them from the fears of the public.

In recent mixed victories, scientists ruled on the safety of biotech crops for man and monarch.

Yet, lingering questions have many observers wondering if biotechnology will be the agricultural revolution of the 21st century or if fears about the new technology will sink genetically engineered crops for good.

Researchers gathered last week in Montreal for an entomology conference seemed convinced that science can save biotech. But they say that will happen only if the general public is educated about the benefits genetically engineered crops - also called transgenic crops - bring to the environment and the dinner table.

"We've just been doing a poor job of educating consumers about the benefits and the risks of transgenic crops," said Galen Dively, an entomologist at the University of Maryland in College Park.

Dively was one of a group of scientists that examined the effect of genetically engineered corn pollen on monarch butterflies this summer. Last year a study by Cornell University researchers suggested that monarchs could be killed if they ate milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from genetically engineered corn.

The corn contains a protein from a common soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis. The protein, called Bt toxin, kills the European corn borer, but it is also poisonous to other moths and butterflies.

Environmentalists and monarch lovers, stirred by publicity surrounding publication of the study in the British journal Nature, began to call for a ban on biotech crops.

But industry and academic scientists claimed that the experiment was flawed and set out to determine if the monarch was in danger from the genetically modified corn pollen.

At an informal conference last week, scientists said the results from two summers of research indicate that the answer is a resounding "probably not."

But that finding was largely overshadowed by a report released the day before that found that the corn contaminating taco shells has the potential to cause food allergies in people.

The report, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency's scientific advisory panel, said that a different form of Bt toxin in StarLink corn had "medium likelihood" of causing allergies. The panel also said so little of the protein, called Cry9C, is likely to be found in food that the chance of anyone actually developing such an allergy is low.

The panel called for further scientific study as both biotech proponents and critics claimed the report as a victory for their side.

One argument against the use of plants engineered to contain the Bt toxin is that pest insects could develop resistance to the pesticide. Bt toxin is widely used by organic farmers, and if insects become resistant to it, the farmers will be robbed of one of their most important tools, critics say.

Some scientists say that's ludicrous.

"You don't say that we're not going to use an insecticide because someday pests will be resistant," said Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson who is studying the pink bollworm's ability to become resistant to pesticide proteins engineered into cotton.

The average person can't see the benefits of the current class of biotech crops because there is no direct effect on their health, pocketbook or sense of taste, Dively said. He predicts that once prettier, tastier vegetables start showing up in produce bins at local markets, most people will want the genetically engineered products.

Right now most genetically engineered crops carry traits that are useful for farmers - built-in insecticide or resistance to herbicides that let farmers kill weeds without damaging their crops. What most people don't realize is that those properties also benefit consumers and butterflies by reducing the amount of pesticides used in growing the crops, Dively said.

Many farmers have embraced biotech crops. Nearly a quarter of the corn, more than half the soybeans and more than 60 percent of cotton grown in the United States is genetically engineered.

But some farmers have become disillusioned since the StarLink controversy.

"Farmers that bought into the hype are just outraged because all of the wonderful promises made about the future of these crops are not coming to fruition," said Bryce Oates of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, a group that opposes biotech crops on the ground that they are not economically sound for small family farmers.

Faced with high production costs and low market prices for their grain, farmers are an easy mark for the biotech industry's sales pitch, Oates said.

"They're going to be looking for a savior," he said. "Companies like Monsanto and Pioneer seize the opportunity to take advantage of that."

Farmers are not so easily duped, said Stuart Reeve of the National Corn Growers Association. "If a farmer doesn't make money on (a biotech crop) one year, he won't be back for it the next," he said.

Gerald E. Wilde, an entomologist from Kansas State University in Manhattan, said consumers must recognize the benefits of genetically engineered crops, such as how they help reduce the use of pesticides. One survey has estimated that pesticide use was reduced by 28 percent in 1998 because of Bt corn.

"If the public just keeps a halfway-open mind ... hopefully the science will win out," Wilde said.

Biology & Society: You are what you eat - and whatever it has eaten

December 10
Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch column by Steve Rissing

Some taco shells recalled recently contained 2 percent of a genetically modified strain of corn not permitted for human consumption.

I'll keep eating tacos. But if 2 percent of the "meat product'' in my lunch ever comes from "mad cows,'' I'll drop the chalupa.

Inserting a gene into corn to produce a protein that kills insects adds one gene and its "normal'' protein to the 50,000 already there. That gene and its protein product are digested, but the protein is not digested completely, possibly causing an allergic reaction. Although this has never occurred, the shells were recalled.

The proteins behind mad-cow disease (and similar diseases, some occurring in humans) are a different story not yet understood by biologists.

These are "infectious, self-replicating pathogens'' that, according to one scientist, "def(y) basic Darwinian principles.'' That's not correct; the proteins defy basic genetic principles by apparently foregoing any role for genes in their replication while spreading in perfect accord with evolutionary principles.

Stanley Prusiner, who won a 1997 Nobel Prize for work on these proteins, calls them "proteinaceous infectious particles, prions'' that cause spongelike holes in the brains of victims.

Genetically modified corn and "superproducing'' dairy cattle reflect advances in genetic and food-science technology. Not only can we move genes from bacteria to corn; we also can increase growth and production of farm animals, such as dairy cattle (quadrupling milk output).

That sky-high level of milk production, while less "high tech'' than moving genes among kingdoms, occurs by turning ol' Bessie into a carnivore, if not outright cannibal.

Today's dairy cows get custom diets, including protein supplements. Those can come from corn and soybeans, but there's lots more protein at less cost in recycled farm animals, including cows -- especially diseased or dead ones or "leftovers'' (such as brains, home of prions).

In Britain, this resulted in the rendering of sheep carcasses infected with scrapie, a prion disease, into protein supplements for cows. The prions apparently crossed the species barrier, leading to the mandatory destruction of almost 4 million cattle.

So far, Americans have been spared the trauma of the European "mad cow'' epidemic because of timely policy by the Food and Drug Administration and (probably) luck. But as described in a recent Atlantic Monthly article by Ellen Ruppel Shell, the FDA still permits some cattle and other animal products in protein supplements for beef animals. Further, enforcement of FDA policies at 14,000 U.S. rendering and feed-production facilities falls on the equivalent of 17 full-time inspectors.

This country has had many sheep-prion outbreaks; one of the first was in Ohio in 1952. The British "mad-cow'' outbreak likely came from sheep prions jumping to cattle and on to humans, on at least 81 fatal occasions. No wonder Europeans worry about new food technologies.

A final irony: To replace all animal protein in livestock feed would likely require additional production of more than 2 million tons of soymeal a year in Europe. In the United States, 50 percent of all soy grown is genetically modified, just like corn in taco shells.

Me, I'm checking out fish tacos.

Steve Rissing is director of Ohio State University's Introductory Biology Program.

Genetically developed potato in market

December 9
The Hindu

New Dehli - A genetically engineered variety of potato that will be rich in protein is likely to be available in the market soon. Scientists have already conducted the necessary tests and are ready for field trials.

The new biotech potato assumes importance as the existing varieties have negligible concentration of protein. The new variety, being developed by scientists at the National Center for Plant Genome Research (NCPGR) here, is expected to have a 14 per cent protein content.

Dr. Manju Sharma, Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, said NCPGR scientists were in the final stages of developing techniques for introducing antigens against rabies and cholera into cabbage and tomato respectively, as part of a program to develop what were called edible vaccines.

The NCPGR scientists were studying the genetic structure of chick pea and catharanthus flower, which was the source of raw material for several anti-cancer drugs, with a view to improving their yields, she said.

Meanwhile, the DBT has come out with a compendium of technologies developed under a DBT-sponsored scheme for improvement and generation of planting material in the areas of forestry, horticulture and plantation crops through the modern tissue culture methods.

The compendium was released at a brief function here on Wednesday by the Union Science and Technology Minister, Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi.

USDA: Fed labels won't glorify organic foods

December 8
Fox News

Organic foods are nothing special.

That's the underlying message of soon-to-be released federal standards for organic food labels, according to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman.

After six years of fierce debate, the USDA will make clear that organic foods aren't safer or more nutritious than conventional products.

The rules will be one of Glickman's last acts in office. Less certain is when his department will require nutrition labels on meat, something President Clinton proposed last spring, Glickman said in an interview Wednesday.

The organic rules, which USDA was required to develop under a 1990 law, will replace a hodgepodge of conflicting state standards for organic agriculture.

The food industry has lobbied hard against USDA labels that might suggest organic foods are better than their regular counterparts, grown with the aid of pesticides, irradiation, genetic engineering and sewage sludge.

Large food manufacturers have cited consumer research to support their claim that the special USDA seal that would go on the labels of organic products may lead consumers to believe that the organic products are preferable to food made with conventionally grown ingredients.

The seal the department proposed this spring would include the words: "USDA Certified Organic."

The National Food Processors Association wants the department to add a disclaimer with wording such as: "This symbol does not signify that the food is superior with respect to safety, quality, or nutrition, compared to a food that does not bear the symbol."

Glickman didn't say how he would address the industry's concern, but said the final regulations "will be clear that these rules are not to disparage in any way any other kinds of foods."

Organic food advocates said the USDA's rules wouldn't have much of a negative effect on the growing popularity of organic foods.

Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, said she doesn't think the USDA seal would be misleading, but doesn't think it's that important either.

"I could see USDA perhaps saying we should move away from using the emblem," she said.

The Agriculture Department first proposed a set of national organic standards in 1997, but withdrew them after farmers and others in the $6 billion-a-year organic industry strongly objected to allowing biotech crops, irradiation and sewage sludge.

"It's only the beginning of the National Organic Program," said DiMatteo. "There's much more work that will have to be done on the farm, in the processing facilities and in USDA to make sure there is a viable organic sector in American agriculture."

Canada urged to speed up detection of GM grains

December 5
Reuters

OTTAWA - Rapid detection of genetically modified grains and oilseeds has become an urgent necessity for Canada's agricultural export industry, which sells food around the world, an industry official said Tuesday.

"Canada really needs to make a concerted effort about detection in grains," said William Scowcroft, a director with the Canadian Grain Commission's research laboratory.

"We export C$10 billion ($6.5 billion) worth of grain (a year)," Scowcroft said at a meeting of Canadian grain industry leaders Tuesday.

He encouraged the industry to speed up development of devices to quickly and efficiently detect both imported and exported GM products.

Detection of genetically modified grain and oilseeds will become increasingly necessary as countries, scrambling to regulate the relatively new technology entering their markets, begin to require formal detection.

Canada currently uses detection devices on imports from the U.S. for a certain type of GM corn, which is banned here, Scowcroft said.

He said there were numerous reasons why countries would require detection, including the need for commodity segregation, seed certification, niche marketing and to answer the public's right to know what it is consuming.

"We have to be ready," he said.

Many governments are facing growing pressure from a public worried about possible negative health affects of consuming plants grown from seeds that have been modified genetically to, for example, resist herbicides.

There is a widespread understanding in the industry that GM trade will become increasingly regulated with time, with some countries possibly banning GM imports or wishing to keep out certain GM types to prevent interference with ecosystems.

Scowcroft said a method of GM canola detection could be ready in a short time but the impetus must come from the Canadian industry, which mainly exports to China, Mexico and Japan.

"It requires the industry to say, 'Yes, we're going to do it,"' he said.

The bulk of Canada's canola -- a variant of rapeseed -- is genetically modified. Its import has been banned for years in Europe, where people are more wary of the technology than are North Americans.

Mexico and Japan support labeling of foods made from GM plants.

Scowcroft said detection devices, some of them as simple as a home pregnancy test -- using chemicals to determine if seeds are or are not genetically modified -- exist for types of soybeans, corn and cotton.

About 95 percent of the planted areas of the United States, Canada and Argentina are dedicated to growing GM crops.

Canada has numerous registered varieties of canola, soybeans, corn and potatoes and has been conducting further GM trials in canola, wheat, corn and soybeans.