February headlines

Return to February article index

Europe OKs new biotech food rules

February 14
AP

STRASBOURG, France - The European Parliament approved rules on the marketing and production of genetically modified food that may end the EU's 3-year-old moratorium on the licensing of new biotech products as early as next year.

The assembly voted 338-to-52, with 85 abstentions, on Wednesday to endorse what the bill's author, British socialist David Bowe, called ``the toughest GMO legislation in the world.''

The new rules - which still require the endorsement of the 15 EU governments - include stricter labeling and monitoring of genetically altered foods, feeds, seeds and pharmaceutical products.

They include phasing out over eight years implanting antibiotics in plant genes, a practice that could cause allergic reaction in consumers. They also set up a public registry where consumers can trace genetically modified foods.

Green party members abstained from voting because the new rules could lead to lifting the moratorium on the approval of new biotech products.

``The new directive goes along the right lines to protect the environment and human health,'' said Green party leader Paul Lannoye of Belgium. ``However, it should not be seen by member states as an encouragement to lift the ban on new GMO releases.''

The rules approved by the European Parliament must still be endorsed by the EU governments and parliaments, which may take 18 months. Meanwhile, officials said, the moratorium on the licensing of new biotech crops remains in place.

Genetically altered foods are unpopular in Europe. A survey cited by the EU last year found a majority of Europeans see them as a health hazard.

Environmental groups expressed concern the measures as approved by the EU assembly did not go far enough.

``There are key issues missing that will leave the public, consumers and farmers exposed to the risks of GMOs,'' said Gill Lacroix of Friends of the Earth.

He said his group wants the moratorium to remain in place to allow for more risk assessment.

Several EU governments -notably France, Italy and Greece - question the safety of genetically modified foods.

To date, the EU has approved 18 genetically altered products. In the last three years, EU governments have stopped granting licenses in the face of public health and environment concerns.

Companies producing modified foods are awaiting regulatory approval for several products, including genetically altered corn, tomatoes, potatoes and cotton. Some applications date back to 1996.

The European consumers' organization BEUC welcomed the new bill, but said it should be followed up with legislation that makes producers liable for any damage to the environment from biotech crops.

Researchers, producers divided over safety of genetically modified crops

February 14
Canadian Press

Genetically manipulated food is landing on dinner tables after regulatory approval based only on limited private research by companies promoting it, they argued.

"Without proper safety testing first, it's just irresponsible," Bardocz said in an interview.

"It's testing, testing, testing. We require more testing," Pusztai stressed.

"We shouldn't use our fellow human beings as guinea pigs," said Bardocz.

With countries around the world increasingly hostile to genetically modified products, Canada, which produces many such modified foods, is at risk of finding itself under mountains of crops and animals it can't sell, they suggested.

"Where will it all be sold?" Bardocz asked.

Across campus, AGCare, an organization representing agricultural interests, was holding its annual meeting.

Sentiment was decidedly hostile toward the visiting scientists from Aberdeen, with one corn farming representative saying he was pleased the noon lunch was made entirely of genetically modified food.

"We think there's a lot of good possibilities with GMOs," said Bob Bedggood, president of the Christian Farmers Federation, a cash crop farmer from London, Ont.

"The private companies do the developing, but the government does the acceptance," Bedggood said.

Industry will not provide bad data in an attempt to fool the public, Bedggood said. "I just don't think they will."

Pusztai and Bardocz said as former research scientists they believe agri-food companies producing modified food have lots of research under lock and key.

Pusztai was suspended from working on publicly funded research into GMO crop safety, after concluding the immune system of rats was compromised when they were fed GMO potatoes.

In 1999, 19 British Royal Society scientists criticized the research as bad science, though other scientists have come to Pusztai's defense.

Pusztai and Bardocz are lecturing in Canada with the support of the Council of Canadians and Greenpeace.

"Nobody has been able to document any cases of any health problems," said Terry Daynard, Ontario Corn Producers' Association executive vice-president.

Pusztai's research only proves "rats don't like potatoes very well," Daynard said.

"I think what consumers need is more adequate information to help them make their own decisions," said Jennifer Hillard, vice-president of the Consumers' Association of Canada.

"Yes, there's a concern about long-term testing. This is a fairly new technology," Hillard, a guest speaker at the AGCare conference, said.

"You can't brush these concerns under the rug and forget about them," she said.

'Setback' for GM fish

February 14
BBC

Genetically modifying plants may help them to grow better but the technology does not always work as well in fish, according to Canadian research.

Scientists at Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans found that inserting a growth hormone gene into wild trout made the fish grow bigger and fatter.

But it had little impact on commercial species that had been bred to grow quicker.

The researchers conclude that genetic engineering can increase the size and growth rate of wild fish but conventional breeding techniques might be just as effective in producing fish for farming.

In addition the GM trout had deformities not seen in the other fish, they report.

It comes as US regulators decide whether to allow the public to eat GM salmon.

Environmentalists oppose approval because they believe that the modified fish could escape into the wild and wipe out the population there - what they call the "Trojan gene" effect.

Risk assessment

The trout research, which was carried out by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 1994, has just been published in the scientific journal Nature.

The work involved taking a growth hormone gene from salmon and injecting it into the eggs of rainbow trout.

Fisheries and Oceans' Don Noakes told BBC News Online that the purpose was to assess the risks of GM technology: "We were carrying out baseline research to provide us with the knowledge needed for effective regulation.

"Someone might want to use this technology in Canada or for export to Canada," he said.

The environmental group Friends of the Earth (FoE) condemned the research.

"I think that the public would find these experiments with fish vulgar and unnecessary," FoE food campaigner Adrian Bebb told BBC News Online.

Breeding shortcut

Since the beginning of civilization, humans have domesticated a variety of creatures and along the way they have selected the animals which best suited their purposes - the fattest, the hardiest or even the most tasty.

Such breeding means that domesticated animals are usually quite different from their wild relatives.

Genetic engineering is an attempt to speed up this process by directly inserting a desired gene from one species into another.

In this case, it appears that old-fashioned breeding and selection has already produced the best trout.

Scientists rebuke critics of golden rice

Biotech rice can benefit developing world

February 13
Agbioworld press release

TUSKEGEE, AL - The co-developer of a new variety of rice, created to address severe Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries, came forward this week to refute claims by anti-technology activists that the product is useless. Swiss scientist Ingo Potrykus responded to erroneous and misleading claims by environmental organizations -- most recently including Greenpeace -- that have tried to discredit Golden Rice and the motives of its developers. 

Golden Rice was created by Potrykus and German scientist Peter Beyer in a publicly funded research program aimed at meeting the dire nutritional needs of low-income populations in the developing world. According to the United Nations, at least a million children around the world die every year from severe vitamin A deficiency, and nearly half a million more go blind. "We want to provide rice that has enough provitamin A to have a clear beneficial effect on vitamin-A deficient people" wrote Potrykus in a public statement released this week on the AgBioView Listserv (www.agbioworld.org), a web-based forum on biotechnology and sustainable agriculture. 

Activists have claimed that Golden Rice does not include enough provitamin-A to be beneficial. But, as Potrykus notes, their calculations are based on "luxurious recommendations, representing a 'nice to have'-supply." Nutrition experts consulted for the project agree that "the amounts required for the prevention of those severe symptoms of vitamin A deficiency are significantly lower than given by RDA-values." Potrykus added that "Experienced nutritionists tell us that [ours] is a realistic goal, as we are, possibly, already in the 20-40 percent range of the daily allowance." 

Skeptics have also claimed that Golden Rice is a fantasy dreamed up by the biotechnology industry to mute criticism. Dr. Potrykus noted, however, that the research was totally funded by public sector and charitable contributions, and was never intended to boost the reputation of biotech corporations. "The Golden Rice project was started in 1990 when nobody thought that it might help improve acceptability of the technology." 

Professor C.S. Prakash, director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University and president of the AgBioWorld Foundation, questioned activists' reasons for rejecting Golden Rice. "Critics condemned biotechnology as something that is purely for profit, that is being pursued only in the West, and with no benefits to the consumer. Golden Rice proves them wrong, so they need to discredit it any way they can." Prakash is joined in his support for this and other advanced plant breeding developments by more than 3,000 scientists, including five Nobel Prize winners, who have signed a Declaration in Support of Agricultural Biotechnology. 

Scientists, including Potrykus, admit that Golden Rice will not solve the problem of malnutrition by itself. Most also support additional efforts to address the many needs of developing world farmers. Continuing research still needs to be conducted before Golden Rice can be released for widespread cultivation. "We have to be patient for a few years, until this can be verified or falsified," said Potrykus. But "we have good reasons to believe that the approach has a fair chance to be successful." 

Contact Dr. Prakash: prakash@agbioworld.org 

Italy's scientists demand GM freedom

February 13
BBC

More than a thousand Italian scientists and researchers have staged a protest rally in Rome against limitations on their right to research.

The demonstration was in response to a decision last year by the government to place a moratorium on research into genetically modified (GM) crops, but the scientists are also worried about the influence of the Church in limiting developments in biotechnology.

The scientists believe that the current scare regarding BSE is fuelling uninformed and ideological resistance.

In response, the Italian Prime Minister, Giuliano Amato, has announced new guidelines for GM experimentation, but he warned the scientists not to allow their legitimate requests to be politically manipulated.

The theme of the scientists' protest was outlined by one of Italy's most respected figures, 94-year-old Rita Levi Montalcini, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1986.

"Controls always but limitations never", she said. As scientists, she added, they wanted to participate in the decision making process and not be victims of it.

Scientific Cinderella

Other speakers warned that Italy was making life so difficult for its scientists that it risked becoming the Cinderella of Europe, impoverished by an exodus of experts.

Silvio Garattini, director of a Milan pharmacological institute, said not only does Italy spend less than 1% of GDP on research, it restricts experiments unnecessarily.

According to Mr Garattini, the worst enemy is ideology. On one hand there is the environmentalist movement and the Green Party, on the other hand the Catholic parties, he said.

In Italy, research on stem cells of embryos is not permitted, largely because of opposition by the Vatican. And there are strict limits on any work on transgenic food.

Political cracks

The heated debate has revealed cracks in Italy's center-left government, with general elections just few months away.

In a counter-demonstration, the Green Party, which is a member of the coalition government, argued that public health must come before anything else and accused the scientists of behaving like a caste of high priests.

Controversy continues over transgenic produce in Indonesia

February 12
Jakarta Post

Environmental groups, producers and scientists on Friday demanded the government take up a more assertive and active role in resolving the long standing debate over transgenic crops. 

They called on the government to issue strict and comprehensive regulations, as well as conducting proper field tests which could give clarity to the issue. 

Council board member of the National Consortium for Nature and  Forest Conservation (Konphalindo), Hira Jhamtani insisted that the government remain cautious and adopt a precautionary approach to the question of transgenic crops. 

``This is not something that Indonesia has experience with,'' Hira remarked during a discussion on the safety of transgenic products here on Friday.

``We also have the right to know if biosafety tests are being conducted. So, give people the report,'' she added.

Transgenic technology is concerned with ways to create higher quality crops and stocks by inserting genes from other species.

These products are considered Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or biologically engineered products in which genes are inserted to protect the plant from pests or to resist a specific herbicide.

Despite assurances from scientists that it is harmless, some doubts linger as to the safety of genetically modified foods and their effect on health and the environment.

Hira claimed there are some 300 scientists all over the world who have called for caution over the use of transgenic products.

``Even if it is only 300, which is less than those who said that the technology is safe, that might indicate that there may be some danger associated with these products,'' she added.

The onus in adopting a precautionary approach, she said, ``lies with the government.''

While regulations have yet to be issued, Hira added, the government must impose a moratorium on tests or planting of such products.

The most recent case involves agrochemical firm PT Monagro Kimia which has planted transgenic Bt cotton over the last seven months in Bantaeng and Bulukumba regencies, South Sulawesi.

PT Monagro is a subsidiary of the world's second largest seed producing company and third largest agrochemical company, American-based Monsanto. It has developed genetically engineered products like soybean which can resist specific herbicides. The company is now harvesting the crops which were planted in a 500 hectare area.

Monagro's Southeast Asia biotechnology manager Kartika Adiwilaga said that the company has conducted every test needed to ensure that the technology is safe.

``We also need to determine this issue democratically. Give the farmers' a choice. Local farmers were not pressured but insisted on planting such crops as they yield more harvest and thus more income,'' Kartika said in the discussion.

The cotton apparently has higher productivity, with yields of two to three tons per hectare, whereas local cotton only yields 401 kilograms per hectare. 

Deputy Minister for Environmental Management Daniel Murdiarso, meanwhile said that the government is working on the ratification of the Cartagena Protocol about biosafety.

``We're also working on the formulation of biosafety regulations. On Feb. 19 there will be a hearing with House of the Representatives about the matter,'' he said.

The discussion was also attended by Mae-Wan Ho, a geneticist and a biophysicist from the Open University in England.

According to Ho, part of the reason for the whole debate is the lack of transparency and availability of information.

``I suspect that in this example it is a case of abusing statistics. The analogy is that if someone can't be proven guilty, it doesn't mean that they're innocent,'' she said.

Monsanto upbeat on genetically modified seeds

February 12
Financial Times

Monsanto, the US agricultural chemicals and biotechnology group, said on Monday that prospects had improved for approval of its genetically modified seeds in key potential markets.

The Brazilian government created a national regulatory authority for biotechnology issues in December, company officials said. They see this move as a key step to gaining approval for the company's genetically modified soyabean seeds.

Brazil's soyabean market is the second biggest behind the US and it is a key competitor in export markets. Monsanto already sells to Argentina, another big grain producer.

"Seed is planted around the end of the year (in Brazil) and we're working really hard toward that target," said Hugh Grant, chief operating officer.

Monsanto executives also expressed confidence in the eventual use of modified cotton seeds in India. Upon approval, it estimates that seeds made by a local supplier using its licensed technology could account for about half of the country's 22m-25m planted acres of cotton. The company said it expects approval within two years.

In Japan, Monsanto is awaiting approval of its corn seed and the European Commission is close to finishing rule changes that would allow it to start seeking approvals again.

The comments came as Monsanto, 85 per cent owned by US drug-maker Pharmacia, beat Wall Street's expectations for it fourth quarter results.

Monsanto said a new capital structure, cutting $90m in expenses in the year and higher sales, particularly of its Roundup herbicides, helped boost its performance.

Pharmacia bought Monsanto, which included pharmaceuticals, and spun it off last October with only agricultural chemicals and biotechnology using the name.

Excluding charges for restructuring and write downs, underlying profit in the fourth quarter was $31m. Modified seed acreage with Monsanto seeds grew 15 per cent last year.

More cluttered food labels the issue

Bill would require labels for GM foods; Our view: Label the food that's GM free, for those who care

February 11
Rocky Mountain News editorial

Should consumers anxious about eating genetically-engineered food be able to buy food they aren't anxious about?

Sure; if there are enough consumers like them, producers and retailers will be happy to cater to their dietary preferences. The selection may be more limited and the price will probably be higher, but customers happily pay more for products that suit them.

Should a producer be allowed to label its goods "GM-free" or the like in order to capture that market?

Yes indeed.

But should these same consumers be allowed to impose the costs of their preference on all the people who frankly don't care? No. And that's what's wrong a bill by state Sen. Ron Tupa. The Boulder Democrat has introduced SB 146, which sets sweeping conditions for when food offered for retail sale must carry a notice that it is "genetically engineered" or "contained or was produced with a genetically engineered material." Failure to label would be a violation of Colorado's "misbranding" law, a misdemeanor.

Advocates tout the bill as a "right-to-know" measure, although they curiously exempt take-out food and meals eaten in restaurants. In fact, they seem to have other goals beyond merely informing the public.

Indeed, the onerous labeling requirements appear to be designed to force retailers, such as supermarket chains, to put pressure on their suppliers to eliminate GM foods from their products. Though sellers of unpackaged foods like fruits and vegetables could comply with the law by posting a sign in large type, sellers of packaged food - soup, snacks, frozen dinners - would have to repackage most of what they sell. The required notice "shall be set in the same typeface and size as the typeface and size of the print that is used to provide ingredient information" and in the same color and density.

And what if another state passes similar but distinct labeling requirements - a type size one point higher, for example? It would be such a nightmare for producers that they'd go running to Washington for relief. Presumably, that's the point of passing such legislation.

Actually, food produced with the assistance of biotechnology is already common; up to 60 percent of the processed foods in a supermarket, one bill supporter told the News. She seemed to think that was a devastating statistic, one that would induce alarm if only the public knew about it. Maybe so, but what it suggests to us is that most Americans don't share these exaggerated anxieties.

The evolution of the market for "organic" food is instructive. Many people are convinced that organic food is better for their health, and are willing to pay more for it. As demand has increased, the need for a uniform definition has become apparent, and now there are hundreds of pages of federal regulations defining exactly when food can be labeled "organic." But there's no requirement for a "non- organic" label on everything else because most people are indifferent to the distinction.

The cost of separating GM crops throughout the food industry is considerable. It should be borne by those who believe the separation is necessary, not those who don't.

Working with the enemy to feed the world

February 9
San Francisco Business Times column by Richard Bensinger

Workers in union organizing campaigns often have to face the most unprincipled and vicious employer attacks, including personal threats, plant closings and layoffs. As a union organizer, I have been met with the most ruthless opposition from corporate America. You might guess that I don't trust many business leaders.

But I am also a pragmatist. I know that in order for us to effect change on a global scale, we often must set aside politics and prejudice. We must work with people and corporations we would otherwise be fighting. Which is why I am so concerned about the raging controversy over the development of genetically modified foods -- foods that may hold the promise to reduce world hunger.

There are legitimate fears and concerns about the recent dramatic advances in biotechnology. I am the last person to take on faith the self-administered "research" of the multi-national corporations that are developing and selling genetically modified crops for handsome profits. I don't know enough about the issue of genetically modified foods to say they are a panacea. And I know we can't reduce world hunger by increasing food production through biotechnology without first addressing the complicated political issues within countries that have to do with the distribution of wealth and justice of societies.

But ripping down field trials of genetically modified crops makes no sense. They hold the promise of preventing starvation in Third World countries.

The catalyst for much of this campaign against biotechnology research is a growing anti-corporate sentiment. Ironically, this crusade against genetically modified foods is being funded by huge corporations that stand to make tremendous profits if they can turn the public against this new technology.

Whole Foods Markets, which owns several organic businesses, including Fresh Fields, was labeled by Time magazine as "a billion-dollar juggernaut." It is also one of the leading supporters of the fear-marketing campaign against genetically modified foods. (Full disclosure: Whole Foods founder John Mackey was quoted in Forbes magazine calling unions "parasites.")

The reason for the funding is simple. An organic food marketing consultant recently said, "The potential to develop the organic market would be limited if consumers are satisfied with food safety and the furor over genetic modification dies down." Translation: Fear sells.

The problem is that Whole Foods and other organic giants stand to gain a financial windfall from the furor over genetic modification that is being generated by activist organizations that these organic companies are funding.

Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with organic foods. I actually buy organic food. But in their effort to increase sales by frightening people about modern food technology, these organic food giants threaten the lives of the poorest among us -- the people who are most in need worldwide.

People like myself are easily convinced of the evils of behemoth corporations. We hear corporate names like "Monsanto" and "Novartis" and our immediate reaction is to fight. But these businesses do develop products that have the potential to feed millions of hungry people.

The lifesaving potential alone should convince us to stand aside and let the research continue. We simply cannot allow ourselves to be led astray by "fear marketing" campaigns designed to increase sales and profits.

Rich countries vs. poor

I am not alone in my concerns. Former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern is more than the proud embodiment of the Left. He is also currently the American Ambassador to the U.S. Mission of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, Italy.

He, too, has objected to the campaign against the biotechnology that may hold the key to saving lives. In his just published book, "The Third Freedom -- Ending Hunger In Our Time," Sen. McGovern writes, "It is probably true that affluent countries can afford to reject scientific agriculture and pay more for foods produced by the so-called natural methods. But the 800 million poor, chronically hungry people of Asia, Africa and Latin America cannot afford such foods.

"If further efforts to bring the advantages of science to developing countries are thwarted by ill-advised critics, millions of poor people will pay a painful price -- perhaps the ultimate sacrifice, of life itself."

I also understand that the motives of the corporations and their stockholders who profit from modern foods are not to end world hunger. That doesn't matter. Not if you are hungry.

Richard Bensinger, former organizing director for the AFL-CIO, is a consultant on union organizing, living in Virginia.