December, 1999
headlines and summaries

Return to December article index

New findings say genetically altered corn can poison the soil

The warning suggests that pesticides can stay in the ground for months.

December 2
Christian Science Monitor

Researchers are raising warnings about genetically engineered corn that makes its own pesticide, giving new perspective to concerns about a development meant to reduce the need for chemical pesticides.

The corn's toxin is supposed to kill only the pests it's aimed at. But lab tests have shown that the roots exude the poison into the soil where it can remain indefinitely.

Other recent studies have found that the pollen of such genetically altered corn can kill monarch butterfly larvae, and that lacewings - natural predators of insect pests - die when fed corn borer worms raised on the plants. Critics discounted such findings as unnatural laboratory conditions unlikely to prevail on the farm.

The new warning published today in the journal Nature also springs from the test-tube. But this time, the findings identify a phenomenon that can directly affect farmers' fields. It is "very definitely" a concern, says microbiologist Guenther Stotzky of New York University, who reported the discovery along with his colleague Deepak Saxena and Saul Flores of the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Investigations.

The corn produces the active part of an insecticide made by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. The toxin appears in the leaves, stock, pollen, and roots. When it's ingested, caterpillars stop eating and die.

Soil bacteria destroy the toxin if they can get at it. Dr. Stotzky and his colleagues found that the poison binds to clay particles and humic acids found naturally in most soils. Instead of disappearing in about 25 days, it is active for at least 234 days.

The scientists note that pollen falling on the ground and corn stocks plowed back into the soil add to the toxin that roots exude. They don't know if build-up would continue or level off.

Bt corn toxin is different from Bt sprays widely used as an alternative to chemical insecticides, Stotzky explains. The latter are crystals that only become active in the target insects' digestive systems. That's why they don't harm other creatures.

The corn carries a gene that produces the active form of the poison, which puts pressure on soil organisms. No one knows the consequences, Stotzky says, but "we should stop at this point and consider these things."

He may get his wish. The US and other countries use Bt corn widely, but it is falling out of favor with growing consumer resistance to foods derived from crops genetically modified to carry alien genes (so-called GM foods). Some major food companies insist that suppliers segregate GM crops. Non-GM corn now fetches premium prices.

Coalition calls for moratorium on genetically engineered crops

December 1
GREEN (GrassRoots Environmental Effectiveness Network) press release

Seattle, WA GREEN and a coalition of more than 200 organizations from five continents today sent a petition to member nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) calling for an immediate global moratorium on the trade of genetically modified Bt crops such as corn and maize. The petition, a result of an effort led by GREEN, was presented to the WTO at its ministerial conference being held this week in Seattle, Washington. 

The diverse profile of groups signing this petition should encourage the WTO to act on this important issue immediately, said Roger Featherstone, GREEN Director. Environmental, consumer, and farming organizations have joined with scientific, medical, religious and student organizations to demonstrate how vital this issue is to the global community. 

The fact that groups from as far away as Japan, Indonesia, and New Zealand signed on proves that we are united in our effort to stop this harmful farming practice.

Bacillus thuringiensus (Bt) is a naturally occurring soil organism that has been used in powder form by organic farmers for decades as an approved pesticide. The petitioners are concerned that overuse of Bt through genetically modifying plants to exude it constantly will increase pesimmunity over time to this naturally beneficial pesticide and will kill indiscriminately and place soil ecosystems at risk. 

Pest resistance to Bt could mean organic and other farmers will have to rely on increased toxic chemical pesticides in the future. Bt crops gained notoriety earlier this year when scientific research indicated a direct threat to Monarch butterflies. Genetically modified Bt crops aren’t detrimental to just Monarch butterflies, said Scotty Johnson, Rural Outreach Coordinator for GREEN. They potentially threaten other biodiversity and organic farming. There is tremendous uncertainty about these kinds of crops. 

We need much more scientific information about the effects of Bt farming before allowing its continued use. Until leaders commit to invoke the precautionary principle implying first do no harm, a moratorium is urgently needed.

Bt crops are part of a larger debate currently underway about the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This week member nations of the World Trade Organization are meeting to negotiate world trade issues.

To view the letter in its entirety or for background information on Bt crops or the precautionary principle see the letter with footnotes on the web at: http://www.defenders.org/btcorn.html

Documents show officials disagreed on altered food

December 1
New York Times

WASHINGTON -- Several Food and Drug Administration officials have disagreed with the agency's conclusion that genetically engineered foods can be regulated in the same way as conventional food varieties, according to internal agency memorandums read Tuesday at a public hearing. 

One of the memorandums, which were written in the early 1990s,accuses the agency of siding with industry and giving short shrift to consumers. An advocate of labels on genetically modified food, Steven M. . Druker, obtained the documents in a lawsuit and read them at a hearing about the safety and labeling of such foods.

The agency says there is no difference between foods modified by genetics engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices. But it organized a series of three hearings to listen to the public and a range of panelists on the subject.

Druker made public a 1992 memorandum from Dr. Linda Kahl, a compliance officer, to Dr. James Maryanski, the agency's Biotechnology Coordinator, that shows the range of views that existed within the agency itself. 

"The process of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks," Dr. Kahl wrote. "There is no data that addresses the relative magnitude of risk -- for all we know, the risks may be lower for genetically engineered foods than for foods produced by traditional breeding. But the acknowledgment that the risks are different is lost in the attempt to hold to the doctrine that the product and not the process is regulated."

In a separate memorandum, Dr. Louis Pribyl, an F.D.A. microbiologist, commenting on the draft of the Federal Register notice on bioengineered foods, reiterated Dr. Kahl's point and added that an agency document" read very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects." It is "industry's pet idea," he said that "there are no unintended effects that will raise the F.D.A.'s level of concern." But time and again, he said, "there is no data to back up their contention."

Pribyl also said the document "contains very little input from consumers and only a few answers for their concerns." 

Maryanski said in an interview that the concerns of agency scientists were old news and that the comments the scientists made were in response to an agency request for them. 

"Those views were taken into account," he said. The internal documents came to light because of a lawsuit filed against the agency by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, founded by Druker, a lawyer who is the organization's executive director. Druker is conducting a one-man campaign to force the agency to institute mandatory, rigorous safety testing of all genetically engineered food and require labeling. Safety testing and labeling are now voluntary.

Druker, a panelist at the hearing Tuesday, was joined by Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Food Policy Institute of Consumer Federation of America, and Dr. Rebecca Goldberg, a senior scientist with transcendental Defense Fund, in calling for labeling and testing.

Dr. Goldberg said "the agency has not squarely placed the burden of proof on industry to demonstrate the safety of new food, which had historically been required in the past."

Despite rising public sentiment for more information about bioengineered foods, which prompted the public hearings, Maryanski said there was no reason to change the rules covering them. He maintained that as long as developers of these foods "follow the agency's guidelines and do the testing that is recommended," though not required, genetically engineered foods were "as safe as any food on the market."

Until this past year, Americans -- if they thought about genetically engineered food at all, and most did not -- seemed willing to leave these judgments to the agency. But all around the globe, particularly in the European Union, consumers and activists have opposed genetically modified food with such force that American farmers have found those crops banned from some countries.

Now many British supermarkets require labeling of genetically modified products. The furious activity has finally had an effect in this country and many of the questions that were not asked in 1992 are being asked now.

The original decisions on how to regulate genetically altered foods were made by the Bush White House. Vice President Dan Quayle announced details of a government policy for steamlining regulation of food produced through genetic engineering, saying that because the United States "was the world leader in biotechnology," the government wanted "to keep it that way."

Ms. Foreman said in her remarks that the process of regulating bio-engineered food "began under a cloud of political influence peddling and managerial bean counting and the F.D.A. has done nothing to dispel that cloud." She said that both labeling and a mandatory pre-approval process are essential. Several food trade associations have told the agency the same thing. The Food Marketing Institute and  the Grocer Manufacturers of America said they "believe a mandatory consultation process would help ensure continued consumer confidence in the F.D.A.regulatory policy" and that the agency should set up criteria for labeling.

Tighten bio-food rules, consumers tell U.S. FDA

December 1
Reuters

Washington - U.S. regulators need to step up scrutiny of bioengineered foods and require labels on them to avoid the kind of public backlash that occurred in Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was told Tuesday. 

The FDA heard from nearly 100 scientists, farmers, foodmakers, environmentalists and ordinary citizens at a hearing designed to find out what -- if any -- changes are needed in regulating genetically altered foods. 

Outside the federal building where the session took place, about three dozen protesters marched in near-freezing temperatures to demand a halt to any more federal approvals of bioengineered foods until more is known about long-term health and environmental risks. 

A few demonstrators were dressed as orange and black monarch butterflies, in a colorful reference to a Cornell University laboratory study that showed corn engineered with a built-in pesticide killed the monarch larvae.  Scientists have yet to determine if the same corn grown in fields is as risky.

Other demonstrators urged passersbys to avoid chips, candy, sodas and other foods that may contain soybean oil, corn sweeteners or other ingredients from genetically modified crops.

Inside, FDA officials held a panel discussion with critics and supporters of agency regulations.

While several university scientists defended the FDA's regulations as adequate to protect the public, consumer groups said that wasn't good enough.

``People are not confident about the FDA regulatory process,'' said Carol Tucker Foreman, a food safety expert with the Consumer Federation of America. ``Good data and sound science are vital elements of public policy but they are not the only consideration.''

The FDA now requires labels on altered foods only if the nutritional content has been changed or allergens added. Unless the FDA requires companies to submit test data and detailed information about proposed biotech foods, Americans may follow the lead of Europe and reject genetically modified foods, she said. Labels should also be required on foods with bioengineered ingredients to give consumers more information.

``We're in for a long and painful process that could be cut off if you (FDA officials) take some steps to improve consumer confidence,'' Foreman added.

A consumer backlash in the European Union, Japan and other nations has already forced foodmakers there to label biotech products. Some British and EU grocery store chains have gone as far as to ban foods with altered ingredients.

During the past two years, U.S. farmers have lost some $200 million in corn sales to Europe because of the EU's refusal to approve altered varieties.

About half of all U.S. soybeans and one-third of corn harvested this year were grown with altered varieties. Many farmers who eagerly embraced the new crops to reduce pesticide use are now reconsidering whether to plant them next year.

The FDA decided in 1992 to adopt a ``consultative'' approval system that gives companies considerable freedom in testing bioengineered crops for health risks. Firms can choose to share some or all of their data with the agency, and do not have to keep records long-term.

``Our policy has always been (that) our door is open and we encourage companies to come in early and often,'' said James Maryanski, the FDA's biotechnology coordinator.

Several scientists said the FDA should not hold bioengineered crops to a higher standard of safety testing than those from conventional breeding techniques.

``It isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed,'' said Peter Day, director of Rutgers University's biotechnology center, adding there are risks with all food. ``I can't give the critics a 100-percent guarantee of anything...but the comparative risks are relatively low,'' he said.

Terry Etherton, head of Pennsylvania State University's animal science department, said European consumers have balked at bioengineered food due to lax regulations that failed to contain mad cow disease and dioxin-contaminated animal food.

Demonstrators also protested genetically modified food in Seattle, where the World Trade Organization met to launch a new round of talks on farm trade and other issues. Thousands of people protesting everything from food safety to environmental safeguards and labor rights took to the streets and paralyzed the city.

Cargill eyeing non-GM soy for European customers

December 1
Reuters

Paris - U.S. commodities giant Cargill said on Tuesday it is studying whether to adopt a system that would segregate genetically modified (GM) soybeans from non-GM organisms for the purpose of supplying European consumers.

A Cargill spokeswoman said the company was looking at establishing a so-called identity-preserved system that would respond to the demands of European animal feed manufacturers, most of whom rely on soymeal made from imported soybeans.

"In the wider picture of food ingredients, we already have done some identity-preserved supplies. Where we've had strong customer demand for non-GM products, we've put in place a system responding to their needs," Ruth Rawling, a spokeswoman for Cargill in Britain, told Reuters in an interview.

She explained that Cargill currently supplied clients in Britain with non-GM maize products from France such as glucose, starch and corn oil. 

"We are now looking at how we would do the same for soybean meal for the purposes of animal feed," Rawling said.

According to industry newsletter Oil World, the EU imports some 16 million tons of soybeans a year. Almost all of that comes from Brazil, Argentina and the United States, and for shipping purposes the latter two countries make no distinction between GM and non-GM soy. 

Rawling's comments came after Cargill Soja France, the company's French soy division, said it was weighing introducing an identity-preserved system for its customers.

"All systems of this type would necessitate a control of crops, a logistic follow-through and a traceability. These measures would inevitable lead to surcharges proportional to the degree of desired purity," the company added.

Greenpeace threatens imports

The disclosure by Cargill Soja France came as environmental group Greenpeace demanded Cargill, the largest privately held U.S. company, to stop importing GM crops to Europe.

Arnaud Apoteker, a spokesman for Greenpeace France, said activists planned to block ships carrying soy, maize and other products destined for animal consumption from entering the harbour at Brest, the port city in western France that is home to Cargill Soja France's oilseed crushing facility.

"We will block the boats. We are ready to prevent all imports. We have the traditional tools to intervene to block imports of GM organisms," Apoteker said in an interview from the Sirius, a Greenpeace vessel at the port of Brest.

Greenpeace has developed a reputation for using inflatable dinghies to prevent ships from entering or exiting ports in a variety of environmental protests. Rawling said a temporary blockage of the port of Brest would be inconvenient for Cargill, which crushes some 600,000 tons of soy and rapeseed there. But she stressed the company was mainly concerned with the safety of its own employees and of Greenpeace activists. 

"Obviously we have customers to attend to, but we wouldn't want to jeopardize anyone's safety," Rawling said.

WTO 'seizing control of GMO trade'

December 1
BBC

Environmental campaigners say the World Trade Organization is set to undermine agreements on controlling genetically-modified crops.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Friends of the Earth say the WTO is poised to assert control over trade in genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

And they say early discussions at the WTO meeting in Seattle support their fears that it will sideline the protection of the environment.

Before the meeting began, a majority of European Union members said they were opposed to the inclusion of biotechnology in the proposed Millennium Round of WTO trade negotiations.

Pressure

Instead, they said, the subject should be dealt with by the planned United Nations Biosafety Protocol. This would allow countries to restrict the import of GM food and crops on environmental and health grounds.

But now the European Commission - which the WWF says is acting "under sustained pressure from the US" - has proposed the immediate establishment of a WTO working group on biotechnology.

The campaigners say this will effectively transfer negotiations on GMOs from the Biosafety Protocol to the WTO, whose drive to liberalize trade will then take precedence over environmental and health concerns.

And they say exporters of GM products will use the existence of the working group to argue for the suspension of the negotiations on the Protocol until the WTO has clarified its own rules.

No mandate

The head of WWF International's trade and investment unit, Charles Arden-Clarke, said: "Even as political leaders express sympathy for the concerns of protesters in Seattle, proposals are advanced by trade negotiators that fly in the face of those concerns.

"The WTO has neither the mandate, the competence, nor the public trust to work on this controversial issue."

WWF says EU member states should reject the proposed Commission text as an unacceptable compromise.

The US says the establishment of the working group will not "automatically" lead to the inclusion of biotechnology in the WTO's remit.

But Friends of the Earth says representatives of EU governments in Seattle have confirmed to it that the Commission's concession "is a key step in that direction".

Downplaying the environment

WWF is also afraid that WTO members have agreed to put the environment into the hands of a working group that has to deal as well with competition and investment, which it says will "sideline" the issue.

Mr Arden-Clarke said: "Once again WTO negotiators are sacrificing public concerns to narrow economic interests.

"Environment, health and safety are not an optional extra, but a cornerstone of a legitimate trading system.

"Governments must understand that is a key lesson to learn from the protests in Seattle, and move these issues back up the negotiating agenda.