February headlines

Return to February article index

Biotech firms told: Don't dismiss emotional concerns

February 22
Scripps Howard News Service

Panels composed of scientists, consumer advocates, government and industry representatives, ethicists and communications experts gathered here Sunday and Monday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

A variety of experts cautioned the agricultural biotechnology industry that their reliance on scientific arguments to convince consumers of the desirability of genetically engineered foods is likely to fail.

``The debate is not only or primarily about science at all. It's about trust,'' said Lori Andrews of the Illinois Institute of Technology.

If biotech proponents continue to focus on just science and ignore other issues in the debate, the result could be tougher government regulations, Andrews said. Even those pro-biotech advocates that tout science sometimes make scientifically questionable assertions, she said. And attempting to portray opponents of the technology as uninformed and unscientific is likely to backfire.

``The proponents of biotechnology have to keep their minds open and not close off discussion,'' Andrews said.

Biotechnology companies have taken comfort in the fact that U.S. consumers say in surveys they trust government regulations to protect the food supply. That trust in regulatory bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration would certainly prevent a European-style backlash against genetically modified foods in the United States, biotech promoters said.

But that trust may not rest on a solid foundation, economists warn.

``Consumer confidence here is vulnerable to regulatory and marketing blunders,'' said Katherine Smith of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service.

The biotechnology industry needs to be aware that one disastrous incident will likely lead to increased scrutiny of the industry, Andrews said.

The StarLink corn debacle in September in which a variety of genetically engineered corn intended only for animal consumption got mixed into human food, could be the just the opportunity biotech opponents need to push for tighter regulations on genetically engineered foods, she said.

Concerns over the safety of the food supply and the government's ability to regulate industry have grown in the wake of the spread of mad cow disease in Europe, said Edward Groth of Consumers Union, a consumer advocacy group that publishes the magazine Consumer Reports.

``The public has learned from that, that even if you have somebody minding the store, they're likely to screw up,'' he said.

Consumers who express concerns over possible long-term health effects or environmental consequences of genetically engineered foods resent having their worries dismissed, Groth said.

``The attempt to overwhelm concern with science generates outrage,'' he said.

Scientists are equally frustrated by the difficulty of getting their message about the benefits of biotechnology out to the public. Anti-biotech groups continually stir up controversy and demand answers that scientists simply cannot give, said Susanne Huttner, the vice provost for research for the University of California system.

``We can't prove that there is no risk,'' Huttner said.

Bush may hire biotech coordinator

February 21
Boston Globe

Japan, U.S. to tighten screening of American corn imports for StarLink

February 21
AP

The agreement between Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is intended to tighten a screening system approved by the two countries in November, the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo said in a statement.

Screening efforts so far have failed to prevent StarLink from finding its way into Japanese food, according to Japanese consumers and government officials.

A consumer group complained earlier this month that traces of StarLink were detected in taco shells imported from the United States. Taco shells were pulled from the shelves of American supermarkets last year after StarLink was found among the ingredients.

Developed by Aventis CropScience of Research Triangle Park, N.C., StarLink is approved for animal feed but not human consumption in the United States because of questions about possible allergic reactions. The corn's genes have been altered so that it produces its own pesticide.

Genetically modified corn is banned for all uses in Japan because health officials say they have not finished assessing the associated health risks.

American exports of corn to Japan -- the biggest overseas market for U.S. growers -- tumbled after StarLink was first found in snack foods and animal feed here in October.

Monsanto seeks to ease biotech wheat concerns

February 21
Reuters

Kansas City, Mo. -- Reeling from an international backlash against its plans to introduce the world's first biotech wheat variety, Monsanto Co. is stepping up efforts to win over growers and importers and toning down talk about taking the new wheat to market.

``We are starting to understand we need to do a better job of outreach,'' Monsanto wheat industry affairs manager Michael Doane said Wednesday in a presentation to an annual Wheat Quality Council meeting in Kansas City.

Doane said teams of Monsanto officials were working in key wheat import markets to gain acceptance for the new biotech wheat, known as ``Roundup Ready,'' a herbicide-tolerant spring wheat variety that would help farmers gain production efficiencies.

Doane also declined to attach a time-frame to introduction of the genetically modified (GM) wheat, a turnabout from previous Monsanto comments that it would try to bring the new wheat to market between 2003 and 2005. Instead, Doane stressed Monsanto's desire to assuage concerns surrounding the new wheat, chief among them that export markets would dry up for U.S. producers.

``We want to work with the industry on this,'' Doane said in an interview with Reuters. ``The process of market introduction is always subject to what the industry would want.''

Doane also sought to back off Monsanto's previously stated position that introduction of the new GM wheat would not wait for European Union approval.

The EU is a top market for U.S. spring wheat, and EU countries have been adamant in their opposition to GM wheat, as have other top buyers, including Japan. U.S. industry representatives have been pushing Monsanto not to release a GM wheat until EU acceptance is assured.

A European grain market representative gave the meeting a feel for how deeply sentiments run against bioengineered crops on the Continent.

``We don't want GM wheat,'' said Jim Shine, wheat importer for United Kingdom-based food group Rank Hovis McDougall.

``It's too early to speculate on what will be required to bring this product forward,'' Doane said. ``We've got a lot of time to bring this to market.''

Wheat Quality Council executive director Ben Handcock said Monsanto appeared to be adopting a less aggressive posture on marketing GM wheat and he hoped it would help appease those who are worried that GM wheat will cause the U.S. to lose export markets.

``They sound different,'' Handcock said. ``They appear to be in a conciliatory mood. They probably should. They've taken a lot of heat.''

Wheat industry consultant Bert D'Appolonia said he also sensed a shift in Monsanto's approach.

``Given all that has transpired, they need to be more cautious,'' he said.

Still, D'Appolonia, Handcock and others said they feared Monsanto was not actually shifting its strategy, only its rhetoric.

Indeed, Doane told the Wheat Quality Council gathering that Monsanto would ``likely'' be ready to file applications seeking approval of the GM wheat with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration by the fourth quarter of 2001 or the first quarter of 2002.

And Monsanto spokesman Mark Buckingham said Wednesday that Monsanto has not officially changed its market introduction strategy, including its decision not to wait for EU acceptance. But Buckingham stressed that a roll out was still up to four years out, and said that market acceptance was expected as industry players and consumers become educated on the issue.

``We knew it would be a hot topic,'' Buckingham said. ``Long-term, biotech has a huge potential for wheat. We can't put our heads in the sand.''

Future is bleak without GM food

February 21
Canberra Times column

Former National Party leader Tim Fischer is right to draw the attention of government and the public to the frightening problem of an ever- rising world population and the pressure this places on land resources and food production.

In his new role as chairman of the Crawford Fund, a body concerned with international agricultural research, Fischer has made a plea for increased spending on genetic and other biological research.

The opponents of genetically modified plants and food can talk all they like about 'Frankenstein' foods and scientists playing God, but it is likely that the future will be very bleak for most of the world's population without GM foods.

Some years ago we had the 'green revolution'. The development of higher yielding plants, assisted by more irrigation, fertilizer and insecticides, eased fears of famine. India was one country that turned from being a grain importer to an occasional grain exporter.

According to Tim Fischer, we have been coasting along since then and the challenge to feed the world at a time of great concern about land degradation, the over-use of chemicals and soaring population must shake us out of any complacency.

China's population is well over the billion mark and India joined the billion club recently. Population continues to surge ahead in Latin America and much of Africa. It is dangerous, over the longer term, to build more dams and apply more chemicals to boost food production.

You don't have to look overseas to see the environmental damage being done by land clearance and the intense pressure being put on waterways to provide irrigation. Just look at the appalling state of the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers and the salt-encrusted land that is eroding productivity.

Australia has enormous environmental problems as more land is being brought into production and clear-felled to make farming more profitable. Also in Australia we have the spread of hobby farms that are taking good land out of agriculture and concentrating the industry in drier, more vulnerable, areas.

As bad as things are in Australia, they are much worse in many other countries. If feeding people means we have to rip down more forests, silt up more streams and apply increasing quantities of fertilizers and insecticides the situation will worsen.

It is possible that GM plants and livestock will increase food production substantially using the same resources. Many eminent scientists believe this to be true. It is not just a case of GM research boosting output but by making plants resistant to major pests, viral and fungal diseases, we ensure that harvest losses are kept to a minimum.

When crops are bred to resist disease and insect pests there is a lower use of chemicals, like insecticides. This should please many wary of GM research because the less chemicals used the safer the environment and the less risk to the health of farmers and consumers. Consider for a moment the development of GM technology that not only controls feral pests but also the rats and other vermin that devour large portions of the grain stored in underdeveloped countries.

Vermin are a massive problem. With vermin under control there would be more food available at lower prices in the Third World.

With GM technology food can be made healthier. For example, vitamin A enriched rice would help prevent blindness in Third World children and wheat enriched with protein would build stronger young bodies.

Those in Australia who say, 'Stop all GM research!' do so with the understanding that the developed countries will continue to feed themselves for some time to come. They will not notice the gradual increase in rural degradation. But we must think internationally.

GM could be the next 'green revolution' but a revolution with greater and more lasting benefits.

Organic foods are fine for those who can afford them and for countries that have the space to grow them. However, they are not a solution to world hunger aggravated by a rising population and less arable land.

Nothing is risk-free, but researchers must make GM foods as risk-free as possible and consumers must know what they are eating.

Public confidence is vital if the GM revolution is to fulfill its potential.

Argentine GM crop approval seen buoyed by EU decision

February 20
Reuters

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Argentina could ease its tight restrictions on new genetically modified (GM) crops amid signs the European Union may move toward accepting the controversial products, industry sources say.

Last week's approval by the European Parliament of new rules to test and monitor the safety of GM crops indicated that a loosening of restrictions in Europe -- and therefore in Argentina as well -- may be near.

``The Agriculture Department had been telling us that we had to wait for Europe's actions so markets wouldn't be affected,'' said Carlos Becco, local marketing director for agribusiness giant Monsanto, whose GM seeds are used to plant 90 percent of Argentina's soybean fields.

``But now if Europe is saying (GM crops) are possible, it will be easier for the (Argentine) government to accept them,'' Becco said. ``It's good news for us and for the market as well.''

Argentina, the world's second-largest producer of GM crops, has maintained a policy of not authorizing the sowing of new GM products for fear of risking agriculture exports to its key trading partner -- the European Union.

That link resulted in a de facto freeze in such approvals since the EU has not approved new strains since April 1998, fearing that not enough scientific information is known about GM crops to allow their proliferation.

Despite widespread acceptance of GM products by Argentine producers -- who also cultivate GM cotton and corn -- the Agriculture Department has insisted that its strict regulations have allowed the South American country to conquer new markets.

``The big news is that Europe took its first steps forward in biotechnology. If they're going to keep progressing then we will also be able to, because we'll be able to keep exporting,'' said Juan Kiekebush, head of regulatory affairs at the Latin American unit of Swiss biotech group Novartis .

But a spokesman for Greenpeace said he expected the EU to maintain strict regulations on gene-altered products environmentalists have dubbed ``Frankenstein foods'', forcing Argentina to do the same.

``This is not enough reason for Greenpeace to throw itself out the window nor for Monsanto to pop the champagne corks,'' said Emiliano Ezcurra of Greenpeace.

Only the United States produces more GM crops than Argentina.

Biotechnology in the front line

February 20
BBC

Biotechnology will provide the most effective defense against bioterrorism, military and public health experts have told a major scientific conference in the United States.

The completion of the human genome project, and developments in our understanding of diseases like anthrax and botulism, will help in developing tests and vaccines that will protect society against bioterrorist attacks - as well as natural epidemics.

The annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) heard from Colonel Edward Eitzen, head of the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. He said a release of anthrax bacteria near a city of half a million people would cause up to 90,000 deaths within a week.

Part of the problem would be identifying anthrax as the cause of death, however. Dr Craig Venter, CEO of Celera Genomics, which has just published a version of the human DNA sequence, said new advances in biotechnology could speed up the process of identifying the nature of any attack from several days to just a few hours.

"The way people have detected bacteria in the past is that they have grown them, to see what they look like, smell like, what properties they have," he said. "But with knowledge about the genetic code, we can multiply the amount of DNA in a specific species, so if it's smallpox, if it's meningitis, if it's anthrax, we can find it in a very precise fashion."

This could prevent massive casualties, Dr Venter said.

Internet sourcing

While the conference heard that the potential for bioterrorist attacks was considered unlikely, it could not be dismissed.

Public health expert Dr Margaret Hamburg said lethal agents such as botulism, anthrax and bubonic plague could be purchased illegally over the internet, and might be more appealing to a would-be terrorist than conventional weapons.

"I think there's reason to think that biological weapons are going to be increasingly attractive," she said. "I think that they're definitely cheaper, probably easier to get hold of, they're easier to conceal, there is information about them available on the internet and through other sources, and they are terrifying.

"All of these things together make them a pretty attractive weapon if your goal is to do harm, disrupt society as we know it, and make people afraid of you and the threat you represent."

The chance of biotechnology being abused to engineer new so-called "super-diseases" was dismissed by Dr Hamburg as being too time-consuming and expensive.

She said biotechnology was more likely to be beneficial in defense, for protecting against outbreaks of disease, either from terrorist attacks, but more commonly in naturally occurring, freak epidemics.

New vaccines

Colonel Edward Eitzen said such outbreaks were considered more likely because of increased international travel and global trade.

"I think that there's a lot of concern today about the issue of emerging diseases, new diseases that cross borders and come into our country.

"One of the agents that we worry about is a group of toxins called the botulinum toxins. They're the causative agents of the condition we know as botulism, which normally occurs in humans from contaminated foods.

"However, this is a toxin that really is one of the most lethal toxins known to man, that could be used as a biowarfare or a bioterrorism agent.

"We're currently working on a vaccine that uses biotechnology to take a fragment of the toxin - a non-toxic fragment - and splits it off from the rest of the molecule.

"It creates a good antibody response and it also in animals protects against the lethal effects of the toxin itself. This is very exciting work. We can take a non-toxic fragment of the molecule and produce a safer, but still very effective vaccine that has no toxicity in and of itself."

International law

The meeting also heard from Professor Matthew Meselson, a geneticist at Harvard University.

He said the increased risk of bioweapon attacks suggested the need for new measures under international law to bring individuals suspected of bioterrorism to trial.

"There's a body of international law that covers crimes which are a threat to all - airline hijacking, torture, etc.

"This kind of law permits a country in which an individual is found, who is accused of any of those specific crimes, to exert jurisdiction over that individual whether he is a citizen or not, and regardless of whether the alleged crime has actually been committed.

"We hope that such a treaty could be fashioned for the crime of developing or using biological weapons."

More U.S. consumers expect biotech benefits

Mixed feelings, but not major concern over labeling

February 20
International Food Information Council press release

IFIC’s fifth survey on U.S. consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology indicates consumers are paying attention to the biotechnology issue—or are they?

The new survey, conducted January 19-21, 2001 by Wirthlin Worldwide, includes a few new questions to determine how consumers consider food biotechnology in context with other food safety issues. Fall 2000 media coverage focused on the recall of products containing biotech corn not yet approved for food use and the resulting discussions of regulatory decisions.

How did this media coverage of a corn product recall affect consumer knowledge and attitudes? More consumers correctly identify corn products as foods currently in the supermarket that have been produced using biotechnology, although overall awareness of the presence of biotech foods in grocery stores has actually decreased since May 2000. Only 1 in 4 consumers has heard anything about recalls of foods produced through biotechnology. When StarLink is named, awareness increases to almost half of consumers, yet 95% state that they have not taken any action in the last few months based on concerns regarding biotech foods.

Consumers may have mixed feelings on the labeling issue. When asked, unaided, to identify what information is currently not on food labels that they would like to see added, 74% say "nothing” and only 2% mention "genetically altered". Furthermore, when the current labeling policy is presented to consumers, 70% remain supportive of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy. The survey also presented consumers with the critics' desire to label all foods produced through biotechnology even if the safety and nutritional content are unchanged. When given the critics' view, more than half of consumers agree with them and just over one-third maintain the FDA position. This question represents the most significant shift in the survey, perhaps the result of the Starlink episode. However, when consumers were presented with information resource alternatives to the food label in the next question, 75% affirm that information should be provided through toll-free numbers, brochures, and Web sites "instead of labeling".

Consumers continue to respond positively to the benefits of biotechnology for the foods they eat. More consumers are likely to buy foods enhanced to taste better or fresher (58% versus 54% last year), to contain less saturated fat (46% versus 40%, with 33% stating that this benefit would have no effect on their purchasing decision). And consumer acceptance of foods enhanced to require fewer pesticides has remained stable at 70%.

For the first time since IFIC began its surveys, the number of Americans expecting to benefit from biotechnology in the future increased. Sixty-four percent expect to benefit from biotechnology within the next 5 years. This finding is consistent with a newly released FDA focus group report that also found consumers “remained open-minded and open to future experience with foods produced by biotechnology.” While 79% of those in 1997 expected to benefit, the trend declined to a low of 59% in May 2000 but now appears to be turning upward.

International Food Information Council (IFIC) is a nonprofit organization that communicates sound science-based information on food safety and nutrition topics to health professionals, journalists, government officials and consumers. IFIC’s programs are supported by the broad-based food, beverage and agricultural industries.

IFIC materials can be found online at http://ific.org.