December, 1999
headlines and summaries

Return to December article index

Japan to tighten GMO approval procedures

December 14
Reuters

Tokyo - Japan's health ministry said on Tuesday it would not approve any more genetically modified foods pending the introduction of tighter regulations next April.

Under the new procedures it will be mandatory for suppliers of GM foods to pass the ministry's safety checks and the import of foods containing unapproved genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will be banned.

The rules are being tightened in response to criticism by consumers who say the current system, whereby suppliers seek approval under the ministry's food safety guidelines on a voluntary basis, is too lax.

Genetically modified crops contain a gene from another organism to give plants resistance to a certain herbicide or the ability to produce its own toxin to kill pests. But critics remain skeptical about the safety of the new foods.

The ministry said it had stopped accepting new applications under the current guidelines and had frozen the assessment of three GM crop varieties and one GM food additive until the new procedures were in place.

The types are a high-oleic soybean developed by Optimum Quality Grains of the United States, an insect/virus protection potato developed by U.S. firm Monsanto Co and an insect-protection/herbicide-resistant corn developed by Plant Genetics Systems of Belgium.

The GM food additive is a phytase developed by Novo Nordisk A/S of Denmark. In addition, 29 GM crop varieties and six food additives that have already been approved will be re-examined by the ministry's panel of experts in light of the new rules.

``We have decided to suspend safety assessments (of GMOs) until the new procedures are implemented in April next year,'' Itaru Nishimoto, director general of the ministry's environmental health bureau, told reporters.

``We will change the approval procedures, although the contents of our safety assessment will basically remain unchanged,'' he added. 

Nishimoto was speaking after the ministry decided, on the advice of the experts panel, to ban the import and sale in Japan of unapproved GMOs as from April 2001.

Consumer groups have complained that unapproved GMOs have slipped past the government's safety checks and foind their way into food products in Japan, the world's largest food importer.

Health ministry to mandate GMO labeling

Nishimoto also said GM foods that are confirmed as safe under the new procedures will have to be clearly labeled as such, possibly from April 2001.

He said this step would complement plans by the agriculture to mandate labeling of GM foods from the same date so consumers worried about the safety of GM foods can make an informed choice.

``We need to coordinate with the agriculture ministry. But our decisions on which foods should be labeled, and in what way they should be labeled, may be different from the agriculture ministry's ideas,'' Nishimoto said.

The agriculture ministry decided to label food products in which GM material is one of the top three ingredients and where it accounts for five percent or more of the food weight.

There will be exemptions for animal feed and food in which DNA or protein resulting from gene alteration cannot be detected using existing testing technologies.

Consumer groups are demanding comprehensive labeling of all foods derived from GM crops.

Japan started importing bio-engineered crops in 1996. So far it has approved 29 GM varieties of seven crops -- corn, soybeans, rapeseed, potatoes, cotton, tomatoes and sugar beet -- for import and sale under its food safety guidelines.

European scientists recommend new Food Safety Authority

December 13
Reuters

European Union scientists on Monday proposed setting up a new EU-wide food safety agency to coordinate advice and limit the potential for damaging trade disputes such as the one between Britain and France over beef.

It would also deal with what European Consumer Affairs Commissioner David Byrne called a "wave after wave" of food crises to hit the bloc.

But the scientists stopped short of recommending tough regulatory powers similar to those enjoyed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Byrne is seeking to draw a line under recent health scares -- from the mad cow disease epidemic in the mid-1990s to the Belgian dioxin affair earlier this year -- which have dented consumers' faith in public controls. 

A report he commissioned from three of the EU's most senior scientists recommended setting up a new Food and Public Health Authority with independent powers to hand out advice and analysis as well as anticipate potential food safety problems.

"We've had wave after wave of crises and it's time to put this behind us," Byrne told a news conference.

Advice but no teeth

Byrne, appointed to Romano Prodi's Commission in September, is aiming to publish a White Paper on food safety later this month. It is expected to contain around 80 legislative proposals -- tightening existing laws, filling gaps in legislation and laying out options on a new EU-wide food agency.

Ever since Prodi mentioned a new agency as a major priority in July, debate has focused on whether it should be a U.S.-style FDA with wide ranging advisory and legislative powers or a body which basically groups all the existing EU scientific advisory committees.

A new EFPHA, as envisaged by the scientists, would have no regulatory teeth -- a point endorsed by Byrne, who said he believed it necessary to separate lawmaking responsibilities to retain the body's reputation for independence.

One of the scientists, Professor Gerard Pascal said he believed the authority would have helped resolve the Anglo-French beef crisis in that it would have encouraged increased contacts between scientists at national and EU level.

Pascal is not only the chairman of the EU's Scientific Steering Committee, which in October gave British beef exports a unanimous all clear, but is also President of the scientific council of AFSSA, the French food safety advisory agency.

"We need to step up contacts and discussions. The scientific debate needs to be brought about before the political decisions are taken," he said.

However, Byrne acknowledged that in order to be effective, any new health body would have to gain the public's trust and respect, and raise its own profile through not always focusing on scares and crises. 

"It also will have to tell the good news story and raise publicity. Consumers will then know them (the scientists) and be happy to take their advice," he said.

Survey shows U.S. acceptance of genetically modified foods slipping

December 13
Bridge News

US consumer acceptance of foods made from genetically modified organisms has begun to slip, according to a survey by the International Food Information Council, a Washington-based group funded by the food industry to provide public information on food safety and research.

The IFIC first ran a survey of consumer attitudes on food biotechnology in 1997 and repeated it in February and October 1999. Approximately 1,000 telephone interviews were conducted for each survey. David Schmidt with the IFIC attributed part of the decline in what had been a relatively positive outlook in the US compared with that in the European Union to increased media coverage of those protesting GMO use. The recent World Trade Organization talks, which highlighted the EU's reluctance to discuss the approval process for genetically modified grain, didn't help proponents of GMOs, he said.

Despite all the publicity on bioengineered crops, Schmidt said the public was unaware of their prevalence in food. Speaking at a recent seed industry meeting, he said the survey revealed that only 38% of respondents thought such food was available in supermarkets. Those who did think biotech foods were on grocery shelves thought that the bulk were fruits and vegetables. Only 3% said soy-derived foods came with a biotech link, and just 9% thought corn was produced through biotechnology. 

Asked whether they were likely to buy a food produced through biotechnology, like a tomato, if it tasted better or fresher, 51% said yes in the October survey, down from 62% in February. Those who said they were likely to buy a biotech product, if the technology involved meant fewer pesticides were needed, was 67% in October, dropping from 77% in February. Asked whether they would have a positive or negative response to knowing that cooking oil with reduced saturated fat came from new biotech plants, only 42% said it would have a positive influence on their purchasing decision, compared with 57% in February. 

On the subject of voluntary labeling to indicate GMO or GMO-free content in food, in the October survey 50% agreed with the FDA that such labeling was unnecessary, while 45% agreed with those in favor of voluntary labeling. This showed an increase in those supporting voluntary labeling from the February survey, where 58% were behind the FDA and 37% were in favor of groups critical of the FDA's stance.

Steps to promote GMO acceptance

Schmidt, a supporter of biotechnology in the seed and food industries, said there were several steps proponents could take to promote or at least stabilize acceptance of GMOs. 

"We've got to get away from GMO terminology," he said, using biotechnology or biotech crops instead, because "organism" and "genetically modified" conjure up images of laboratories and toxic chemicals among most consumers. 

He said many consumers thought GMOs were not grown from seed but were raised in laboratories. Biotechnology needs more aggressive public relations, he said, because mainstream consumers are mostly unaware of its nutritional and environmental benefits. They don't know Bt corn looks just like a normal seed and grows into a typical-looking corn stalk. Schmidt said that to develop consumer acceptance of GMOs in the US, industry leaders needed to acknowledge consumer values, respect  public concerns and show that biotechnology is not a revolutionary change but a continuation of current agricultural practices.

Canada: Top chefs want labels on genetically altered food

December 13
CBC

TORONTO - Several prominent chefs from across Canada are demanding that genetically altered foods be clearly identified.

"I know that right now, genetically modified foods are being served at my restaurant but I have no way of telling which ones they are," said Michael Sullivan of Pronto Ristorante in Toronto.

In a campaign organized by Canada's organic farmers, the chefs called for mandatory labelling of all genetically modified food.

"It concerns me that we are now allowing genetically modified foods to enter the mainstream of consumption by Canadians without labelling," said Jaimie Kennedy, the chef at JK ROM in Toronto.

About 60 per cent of processed food in Canada contains ingredients made from more than 40 different genetically modifed crops.

All of the products have been approved by Health Canada as safe for people and the environment.

Mandatory labelling is only required for health and safety reasons so there's nothing forcing the food industry to label genetically modified food.

European Union takes tough stand on GMO trade negotiations

December 13
Reuters

Brussels - European Union environment ministers called on Monday for the rapid conclusion of a tough and binding global pact to regulate trade in genetically modified commodities. 

Ministers approved the EU's negotiating position for talks in Montreal, Canada next month on a long-delayed international Biosafety Protocol under the auspices of the United Nations.

The agreement promises the EU will take a tough line in what is supposed to be the last round of talks, according to a copy of the final text.

``We got very strong backing for a tough negotiating position,'' said Pia Ahrenkilde-Hansen, spokeswoman for EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom. ``Ministers stressed the need for an agreement to be struck now and said this protocol must not be subordinated to World Trade Organization rules.''

A U.N. conference in February in Cartagena, Colombia broke up without agreement after the U.S.-led ``Miami Group'' of countries -- Canada, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia and Chile -- refused to accept demands for labeling of genetically modified bulk commodities.

Europe insists on precise labeling for GM crops and foods derived from them, and has been much slower in approving new GM products than the United States. Growing consumer concern about the safety of GMOs has meant that no new GM crops have been authorized in the EU since April 1998, raising fears of another trade war with the United States, which has been unable to export millions of dollars worth of GM commodities such as maize to Europe. 

Ministers said the protocol should reflect the so-called ``precautionary principle'' -- an idea which the EU has used in the past to ban certain products on the grounds that it has some evidence, not conclusive proof, of potential health risks.

They said the agreement should cover GM products used in food, animal feed and for processing, and must ensure ``adequate procedures concerning the authorizations of transboundary movements'' of GM crops, including a duty to notify importing countries of planned shipments to allow all GM crop movements to be traceable.

The EU will also call for the Protocol to have equal legal status with international trade agreements, including any future WTO accord. In October, Wallstrom said talks in Vienna in September had helped narrow differences between the EU and the Miami Group.

The abortive WTO talks in Seattle earlier this month failed to agree on a U.S. proposal to establish a working group to discuss approval procedures for GMOs.

The EU and the United States have however set up a regular video conference on the issue since a recent visit by Commission President Romano Prodi to Washington.

As hearings conclude, FDA biotech policy should remain science-based, reassure consumers on safety

December 13
Grocery Manufacturers of America press release

The Food and Drug Administration's national hearings on food biotechnology are allowing the agency to more firmly declare the safety of biotechnology and the soundness of its existing regulatory policies, according to the Grocery Manufacturers of America. 

"The Food and Drug Administration has traveled across the country, explaining in detail its science-based policies governing food biotechnology," said Lisa Katic, a registered dietitian and GMA's Director of Scientific and Nutrition Policy. "We urge the FDA to stay on course and continue on its path of remaining a regulatory agency which is guided by science facts, not science fiction."

The FDA is concluding its third and final hearing in a series intended to inform U.S. consumers about its biotech labeling policy and to hear views on the issue from scientists, farmers, consumer groups and others. 

At FDA's first hearing in Chicago, GMA testified in support of the agency's policy on labeling of foods and ingredients derived through biotechnology. Under that policy, labeling is required when there is a significant compositional change in the product, when the food is nutritionally different from its traditional counterpart, or when a potential allergen has been introduced.

"A sound labeling policy can and should recognize the rights of consumers to a safe and nutritious food supply. It also allows for consumer choice based on meaningful information about the product itself," said Katic. "By providing only essential information, allowing voluntary claims about modern biotechnology, and demanding accuracy in all labeling, FDA's existing labeling policy has accomplished this goal."

Katic added that food companies are fully committed to ensuring consumer confidence in the safety and regulation of food biotechnology.

In a letter to FDA Commissioner Dr. Jane Henney, GMA and the Food Marketing Institute urged the agency to consider making mandatory its consultation process for review of foods derived from new plant varieties. While acknowledging the current voluntary process includes a safety evaluation and a labeling review, the letter stated that "a mandatory consultation process would help ensure continued consumer confidence in the FDA regulatory policy."

GMA and FMI also said the agency should establish criteria for labeling claims on non-biotech foods. "FDA criteria or guidelines in this area would explain and reaffirm current U.S. policy to ensure that any claims involving modern biotechnology are accurate and not misleading, while preserving consumers' ability to choose and manufacturers' ability to respond to consumer preferences," the letter said. The associations will also ask the Federal Trade Commission to develop similar guidelines for such claims when used in advertising.

The FDA, said the two groups, should continue to communicate clearly to the public its definition of genetically modified foods or food products, defined in its 1992 policy statement as "'the alteration of the genotype of a plant using any technique, new or traditional.' The consuming public is confused by the variable terminology that is being used in public debate," the letter said.

Brazil state pays farmers to rip out GM soybeans

December 7
Reuters

Sao Paulo - Brazil's southernmost state will launch what may be the world's first-ever crop substitution program aimed at weeding out genetically modified (GM) crops, a top state official said Tuesday.

Treating GM soybeans like drug plants, the state will offer farmers a total of 10 million reais (US$5.37 million) in special low-interest loans if they rip out the lab-enhanced soy -- illegal throughout Brazil -- and replant normal varieties.

"What we are telling them it is better to lose seedlings than lose their entire crop," said Rio Grande do Sul state's agriculture secretary, Jose Hermeto Hoffmann.

Brazil, the world's second-largest soybean producer, is the last major competitor to top grower United States who has not followed the North American country down the transgenic trail. 

But the ban has not been enough to discourage many farmers, especially in Rio Grande do Sul, where growers itching to save money on costly weed killers have fueled a thriving black market for the suped-up seeds.

The Brazilian Association of Seed Producers (Abrasem) estimates that the contraband crop could account for about eight percent of Brazil's upcoming 31.5 million ton crop and a third of production in Rio Grande do Sul.

Hoffmann, however, estimated that GM planting was far lower -- largely due to an aggressive radio and television campaign warning farmers the government will torch illegal crops.

The state has even sponsored a toll-free phone number called "Dial Transgenics" to encourage law-abiding farmers to phone in tip-offs on unusual planting activity.

"Sadly, our initial field inspections showed that transgenic soybeans were grown on 20 farms in five municipalities," Hoffmann said. "While that is disappointing, it represents a small fraction of the 700 tests that we have conducted."

Hoffmann's promise to burn down GM crops has met with fierce resistance in many municipalities, where illegal planting was so widespread that they passed now-stricken laws authorizing GM planting.

A band of 80 angry farmers, fearing their crops could be burned next, surrounded state inspectors last week as they prepared leave their offices to test for illegal soybeans.

"They surrounded the inspectors for 12 hours. Obviously you can see there has been resistance," Hoffmann said.

He added that farmers have until Dec 31, the end of the state's planting season, to apply for the loans -- which carry interest rates 54 percent lower than the market rate.

The crop-substitution scheme met cheers from environmental group Greenpeace, which is leading a campaign to keep Brazil transgenic free. But it said it would prefer if the loans were doled out by U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto Co., which engineered the brand name "Roundup Ready" soybeans.

"These crops are made by companies and these companies should be held responsible. This is product stewardship," said Benni Haerlin, head of the group's worldwide anti-GM campaign.