February headlines

Return to February article index

Talking about the animals

February 10
HealthScout

While public debate rages over genetically modified crops, similar debate about genetically modified livestock has yet to really surface.

"It's definitely an issue," says Shelagh MacDonald, program director of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies in Ottawa.

The concern is not only about how genetically modified animals are treated, but also about whether the modification will stress them or affect them physically, she says. As an example, she points to cows that are modified to have larger udders and produce more milk.

"Obviously that puts more stress on their legs. They may have more leg injuries and problems with their udders and that kind of thing just from the massive volume of what they're producing," MacDonald says.

But while animal rights groups and others are concerned, MacDonald isn't certain the public cares with the same passion and anxiety they've shown for crops.

Many people are concerned about the impact of genetically modified crops on human health, but they don't seem to be alarmed about animals, MacDonald says.

People do care about this kind of issue, says Teri Barnato, national director of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, which opposes genetic manipulation or other forms of artificial development of animals.

Barnato says a number of recent polls show a majority of Americans are concerned about the welfare of livestock, though she says the issue is difficult to bring to the forefront.

"If there's something that contributes to human health problems, there's more interest from the media than there is on the animal welfare issues," Barnato says.

Also, she says public concern about livestock welfare depends on the species. For example, cattle and pigs are more likely to garner sympathy and support than chickens or fish, Barnato says.

"I think the public's going to be aware of this. This is something that, just by its nature of being called genetically modified, is going to raise somebody's scrutiny. It's going to be on somebody's radar screen," says Ted Mashima, a member of the board of directors of Alliance of Veterinarians for the Environment.

He says the response to genetically modified food crops clearly shows the public has concerns about these issues.

Americans are just becoming more informed about the subject, and genetically modified livestock could be a growing issue over the next decade, says Ron DeHaven, a deputy administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

He says Europeans have much greater concern about any type of genetically modified organism.

"Unless there is a health issue or an environmental issue, I don't think it's going to become a hot topic overnight," in the United States, DeHaven says, noting the lack of federal animal welfare legislation for production farm animals.

Frenchman Bove on trial for wrecking genetic rice

February 8
Reuters

Radical French farm leader Jose Bove stood trial on Thursday on charges of raiding a research center and destroying genetically-modified rice plants in the latest action by anti-globalization activists.

The walrus-mustachioed Bove who shot to fame in 1999 when he led an attack on a McDonald's hamburger restaurant in southern France to protest against ``malbouffe'' (lousy food) in general and U.S. tariffs on French cheese and foie gras in particular, was sentenced to three months jail.

On Thursday several hundred militants marched to the court with Bove, who faces up to five years in prison and a fine if convicted of breaking into the Cirad research institute in the southern city of Montpellier in June 1999 and damaging public property.

``Today we do not need to burn our hand in a flame to know that there is a danger, the experiments confirming the danger are more than sufficient,'' Bove, a 47-year-old sheep farmer, told journalists before the trial began.

Several dozen police surrounded the court building where Bove took the dock alongside two other defendants, while sympathizers set up an impromptu market selling rural produce in a nearby square to demonstrate against industrial farming.

Prosecutors appealed against the three-month sentence on Bove as too lenient.

Bove joined poor Brazilian farmers last month in uprooting rows of genetically-modified soybean at an experimental farm in owned by U.S.-based Monsanto on the sidelines of a giant anti-capitalism forum in Porto Allegre in Brazil.

ATTEMPTED INTIMIDATION?

Cirad said it was essential to have a public research organization to provide a unbiased scientific view on genetically-modified foods and provide an alternative to commercial research undertaken by companies.

``The rise of a public debate is an excellent thing for everyone,'' a Cirad spokesman told France Info radio. ``What worries us a great deal is that a systematic attack on all public research is not debate, it's an attempt at intimidation.''

Opponents of GM crops fear they risk spreading modified genes, risking harm to insects and human or the creation of pesticide-resistant superweeds.

Supporters of the technology claim it is needed to develop hardier crop types to help feed the world's poor and grow tastier and more nutritious plants.

Bove, whose fluent English learned during a childhood stay in the United States has helped him preach his message outside France, has shown a sure sense of publicity in planning his appearances.

An estimated 30,000 protesters swamped the southern French town of Millau last June to support Bove when he went on trial for ransacking the McDonald's restaurant there.

Bove, head of the Confederation Paysanne farmers' union, also played a prominent role in protests at the 1999 World Trade Organization trade liberalization talks in the U.S. city of Seattle that were abandoned in the face of violence.

Outrage at lack of GM crop 'safety zones'

February 7
Guardian (UK)

The government decided last night to press ahead with 96 new trials of genetically modified crops this spring but unexpectedly refused to segregate them from conventional crops, leaving farmers and environmentalists outraged.

However, ministers accepted the trials will contaminate conventional crops nearby, leaving themselves open to damage claims from farmers whose crops may be unsaleable as a result.

Pleas by the organic and environmental lobby to leave 3km exclusion zones around GM crops in order to protect conventional varieties were rejected. The ministry of agriculture has increased the maximum margin from 50 to 100 metres. Agriculture minister Baroness Hayman accepted this would contaminate conventional crops but only up to 1%.

This could still render many farmers' crops unsaleable since all major

British supermarkets now refuse to take GM contaminated food - or even produce from animals fed on GM crops.

Organic farmers have warned Michael Meacher, the environment minister, and Baroness Hayman that they could be put out of business unless the field margins were increased to 3km. They reject the ministry's claims that the contamination would be 1% or less - the Scottish Crop Research Institute, in Dundee, says it could easily reach 5%.

The Soil Association, which polices organic farming, had asked for the exclusion zone to avoid members' crops being cross-pollinated by bees or wind-blown pollen.

John Holden, head of the association, said: "Contamination is inevitable."

The government hopes that GM oil seed rape plantings will begin in mid-March, sugar beet from the end of March, and maize from April. The purpose of the research is to check on cross-contamination of crops and the effect of GM crops on weeds and wildlife, including bees.

Monsanto CEO outlines strategy for next year

February 7
Monsanto press release

Citing Monsanto Company's (NYSE: MON) unique capabilities in agriculture, Chief Executive Officer Hendrik A. Verfaillie expressed his confidence that a combination of a strong core business, great upside from biotechnology and genomics, and focused management will produce steadily increasing revenue and income growth for the company. Verfaillie is speaking today at the Goldman, Sachs & Co. Fifth Annual AgChemicals/AgBiotechnology Conference.

"We have a unique business model that combines our herbicides, biotechnology traits, seeds and genomics into integrated solutions for our customers," Verfaillie said. "Our customers win as they can grow their crops at lower cost and higher value. We gain a competitive advantage that allows us to sell seeds, biotech and herbicides as an integrated solution on more crops, on more acres.

"This combination of innovation and margin expansion from our new technology offers us a great opportunity for steady profit growth," he added. Verfaillie noted that Monsanto's management is focused in three areas in 2001:

      -- One, growing sales of Roundup herbicide through brand leadership and volume growth worldwide;

      -- Two, gaining approvals for biotechnology traits and commercializing them globally; and

      -- Three, realizing the full value of the company's research and new product pipeline.

The strategy for growing sales of Roundup herbicide is based on volume growth, brand leadership and a low-cost position. Monsanto is growing volumes through expanded use of Roundup in conservation tillage applications or over the top of Roundup Ready crops, Verfaillie said. Conservation tillage allows farmers to replace plowing with the judicious use of herbicides to control weeds. The result is reduced costs, increased yield potential, and greater environmental benefits. Roundup often is the herbicide of choice in conservation tillage systems. Through 1999, Monsanto has penetrated only one-third of the estimated 750-million-acre opportunity in conservation tillage.

The potential for expansion for Roundup Ready crops also is significant, Verfaillie noted. For example, Roundup Ready corn currently is used on 3 million acres, but the global potential is more than 200 million acres. Roundup Ready soybeans, which have been on the market longer than Roundup Ready corn, are planted on 53 percent of the total soybean acres suitable for the Roundup Ready technology.

Branded Roundup products offer opportunities for growth both in volumes and in sales, as these specially formulated herbicides offer unique benefits and thus garner higher margins. One recently introduced product, Roundup UltraMAX, gives farmers excellent weed control and convenience from a specially formulated version of Roundup that works particularly well with Roundup Ready crops.

Additionally, Monsanto has staked a low-cost position for glyphosate through continued improvements in process technology and with the scale advantages achieved through continued volume growth.

Beyond Roundup, the next largest source of growth for the company is biotechnology traits. Current commercial products include Roundup Ready corn, cotton and soybeans; Bollgard insect-protected cotton; and YieldGard insect- protected corn.

"In the short-term, we are focused on several key regulatory approvals, including Brazilian approval of Roundup Ready soybeans, European approval of Roundup Ready corn, and Indian approval of Bollgard cotton," Verfaillie said. "There are positive signs that the regulatory processes in Brazil and Europe are moving forward, and our Indian submission is currently undergoing regulatory review."

On the horizon for growers are three new products that have been filed for regulatory reviews. These include a new version of Roundup Ready corn; MaxGard insect-protected corn, which protects against corn rootworm; and Bollgard II, a second-generation product for insect protection in cotton.

"We have focused our product pipeline on four platforms -- crop yield and productivity, insect and disease management, weed management, and feed and food products -- in major crops," Verfaillie said. "As a result, our pipeline is well balanced between short- and long-term opportunities and with potential blockbusters."

Verfaillie concluded his comments by noting that Monsanto is a unique investment. "We have a solid business in the short-term based on growth of the core business combined with significant cost management opportunities. We have potential breakthrough growth in the medium-term assuming biotechnology growth re-accelerates and our genomics capabilities accelerate our seed business growth. And we have long-term growth potential from our pipeline of new products," he said.

Monsanto Company, an 85 percent owned subsidiary of Pharmacia Corporation, is a leading global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products that improve farm productivity.

Notes to editors: Roundup, Roundup Ready, Roundup UltraMAX, Bollgard, YieldGard and MaxGard are trademarks owned by Monsanto Company.

Iowa farmers sue over biotech corn

February 6
AP

Des Moines - A class-action lawsuit has been filed in Polk County District Court on behalf of Iowa farmers who believe they lost money because of consumer fears caused when an unapproved biotech corn wound up in the nation's food supply.

The lawsuit filed Monday seeks compensation for farmers who grew other approved varieties of corn, but believe concern over the StarLink mix-up led to lower corn exports and prices last year.

Des Moines attorney Roxanne Conlin said the Iowa court system can provide quicker relief for Iowa farmers than similar lawsuits pending in federal court.

Federal class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of non-StarLink growers nationwide in December against Aventis. One was filed in Cedar Rapids and another in East St. Louis, Ill.

Conlin said the federal courts could move the class-action lawsuits to any federal court location in the country, "and the delay that is endemic to that is not going to help Iowa farmers next summer."

Conlin also contends the state court has jurisdiction because the damage sustained by individual class members was less than $75,000.

An Aventis spokeswoman declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

StarLink, which was genetically engineered to resist European corn borers, was never was approved for human consumption because of unresolved questions about whether a special protein it contains can cause allergic reactions.

In September, StarLink was found in taco shells and other foods, prompting a slew of product recalls. Aventis pulled StarLink from the market.

North Dakota organic farmers worry about contamination

February 6
Cropchoice News

"I don't think gmo (genetically modified organisms) is a good thing at all," says Dewald, who organically grows rye, oats, wheat, flax, and other crops on 2,300 acres in south central North Dakota. He is also president of chapter 1 of the Organic Crop Improvement Association. "I think they should do more research before they go around polluting Mother Nature. The big issue is not what it does, it's what we don't know. That's why I feel there should be nothing less than 25 years of research."

Dewald is one of a growing number of North Dakota organic farmers who are concerned that widespread use of genetically modified organisms will contaminate their crops. Organic varieties aren't allowed to contain this material. If their crops are contaminated, then the growers take a financial hit when they can't market them as organic. North Dakota produced organic grains on 53,000 acres in 1997.

Lucky for him, Dewald hasn't had to worry too much about contamination because he doesn't grow the biotech biggies -- soybeans, corn and canola. In 2000, 55 percent of the U.S. soybean and 25 percent of the corn crop were genetically engineered.

But, his fortunes could change when Monsanto introduces Roundup Ready wheat between 2003 and 2005. "You can bet that within one year, the whole state of North Dakota will be in trouble with gmo contamination," says Dewald, who sells wheat to Japan and Europe. Both have declared that they do not want and will not buy genetically modified wheat.

More people in the agricultural industry are acknowledging the contamination issue.

"The widespread adoption of GM crops in the U.S. makes it difficult to ensure that grain is not being contaminated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as it is handled and transported from the field to the end customer. Industry insiders even question whether the foundation (parent) seed for non-GM varieties can meet a 1% purity level," according to the November 2000 edition of Farmindustrynews.com.

"Our investigations thus far from the 2000 harvest lead us to believe that virtually all of the seed corn in the United states is contaminated with at least a trace of genetically engineered material, and often more," says David Gould, a member of the certification committee of Farm Verified Organics in North Dakota and California Certified Organic Farmers. "Even the organic lots are showing traces of biotech varieties."

He points out the now familiar StarLink corn fiasco. Iowa farmers planted 1 percent of their crop with StarLink. By harvest time, 50 percent registered positive for the genetically engineered variety.

As is the case with conventional soy, corn, and canola, organic crops have tested positive for the presence of genetically modified organisms because of cross-pollination, seed stock contamination, and the inability to segregate genetically modified from organic and conventional crops during harvest, handling, transport and milling.

Barring his preferred option of a ban on genetically engineered crops, Gould favors establishment of a maximum tolerance level for genetically modified organisms in organic crops. Currently, there is no universal standard. In North Dakota, organic crops must contain no more than 1 to 2 percent of foreign genetic material, says Brad Brummond of the North Dakota State University Extension Service.

In the case of corn, Gould says that if certifiers insisted on 0 percent contamination, then "we shouldn't certify any corn."

At the same time, Gould worries that propagating genetically modified crops year after year will lead to the presence of more and more biotech material in organic and conventional varieties. This in turn, would mean raising the tolerance levels. Whether the organic stamp of approval would then become something of a joke is open to debate.

Others disagree that the prevalence of genetically modified crops would mean raising tolerance levels for contamination of organic crops.

Tolerance levels for pesticides and other substances rarely change, so why should it be any different for genetic contamination, says Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association.

"As far as gmos are concerned, the genie has been let out of the bottle," DiMatteo says. "Even if we had a ban today on any further planting of gmo crops, we couldn't say that gmo characteristics won't show up in other crops. Gmos have contaminated the agricultural system. So, to be realistic, we have to set tolerance levels." The Organic Trade Association does favor a ban on genetically modified foods.

Contamination of organic seed stocks is of particular concern to Jeff Dewald.

In the past, he says, seed suppliers often refused to sign affidavits declaring that their seeds contained no genetically engineered material. Only since revising the language on the documents are the companies more willing to put pen to paper. The forms now say: "product name to the buyer, which to the best of my knowledge, is free of genetically modified organisms in the seed, inoculants."

Dewald thinks that farmers will need all the documentation they can get to avoid legal ramifications. This is especially true, he says, for North Dakota farmers who'll have to deal with the arrival of Roundup Ready wheat in a few years.

NC+Organics, a division of NC+Hybrids, requires that its organic seeds contain less than .25 percent genetically modified organisms. To prevent contamination above that level, says Division Manager Maury Johnson, the company tests the seed stock before planting it in areas far from biotech crops, and conditions the seed in a facility that doesn't process genetically modified seed.

Although farmers have talked about litigation down the road if contamination issues were to become constant and unavoidable, says extension agent Brad Brummond, what they'd rather see is a campaign educating growers of genetically modified crops about the importance of planting their crops far away from organic ones. (The debate still rages as to how far is far enough).

Jeff Dewald has a solution: "I think all biotech should be stopped until we have some answers."

Scientists tell Canada to be more cautious on GM food

February 5
Reuters

Toronto - Canada should improve testing of genetically modified food products and ensure the public is more engaged in their regulation, a panel of scientists recommended Monday.

The 15-member panel, created in December 1999 at Ottawa's request, said the attitude of the federal government's health department, Health Canada, towards the new GM industry was not sufficiently cautious and that it was too close to major biotech companies.

"There is a definite lack of transparency in the current process," said Dr. Brian Ellis, co-chair of the Royal Society of Canada panel and professor of biotechnology at the University of British Columbia.

He criticized the secrecy surrounding testing and regulations enacted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which he said also carries out a promotional role for biotech products. "There is a perception of conflict there, and it seems very inappropriate to us," he said in an interview.

The 260-page report recommended creation of an independent review panel to try to ensure that experiments approved by regulatory agencies are meeting scientific standards.

As one of the world's major grain exporters, Canada is already the third most important user of transgenic crops -- after the United States and Argentina -- and Ellis said that half of the processed food in Canada contains extracts of transgenic canola, soybeans and corn.

Ellis underlined the need for a long-term monitoring program and for the public to become more engaged in the process.

Health Canada official Karen Dodds told Reuters the department was examining ways to improve transparency, but was confronted with confidentiality laws that are stronger in Canada than in the United States.

"Health Canada agrees with the intention of being more transparent. It's a matter of how far we can go given current legislation," she said.

Dodds said the government was trying to establish a surveillance system to monitor GM's long-term health effects.

Ellis regretted that Canada has not taken Europe's wait-and-see approach and has approved GM products before having all the data. "Changes are taking place so fast that we don't even have baseline data that we can compare to. We are already playing catch-up."

Scientific doubts about GM corn

February 5
BBC

An investigation by American scientists into the possible impact on human health of a genetically modified corn has found a medium likelihood of it causing allergic reactions.

A food scare involving the corn led to millions of taco shells, one of America's favorite fast foods, being withdrawn from supermarkets and restaurants earlier this year.

A panel of scientists, appointed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, said there were still many unanswered questions about the safety of the corn called Starlink, which is genetically engineered to repel pests.

It's currently approved for use only in animal feed and ethanol production.

Environmentalists say the scientists' findings mean the corn is unlikely to be approved for human consumption.

Scientists point out possibility of Roundup Ready wheat crossing with goatgrass weed

February 5
Cropchoice News

It's a weed called goatgrass.

Goatgrass is a wild relative of wheat, says Norman Ellstrand, a professor of genetics at the University of California at Riverside. He noted a case in which researchers in the Pacific Northwest crossed herbicide resistant wheat (achieved through traditional hybridization) and goatgrass. The resulting wheat-goatgrass hybrid was highly, though NOT totally, sterile.

If some of the children of this now herbicide resistant weed were to backcross with wild goatgrass, Ellstrand says, "we expect that the herbicide resistant gene would spread through the population."

Were the Roundup Ready-resistant gene to show up in goatgrass, he says, wheat growers would have a problem. They couldn't use Roundup. Instead, they'd have to apply more expensive or more environmentally noxious herbicides. What's more, neighboring farmers who are growing a different crop and using Roundup would face problems if the resistant goatgrass spread into their fields.

Tom Nickson, director of Monsanto's Ecological Technology Center, calls this an oversimplified analysis.

The company is working with researchers at the University of Idaho and Oregon State University to understand the likelihood and consequence of gene flow from Roundup Ready wheat to goatgrass, Nickson says.

"Jointed goatgrass is only one-third genetically similar to wheat," he says. "Depending on which chromosome in the wheat the gene (herbicide resistant) is located, the likelihood of that gene becoming part of goatgrass could be effectively zero."