February headlines

Return to February article index

Japanese millers state opposition to GM wheat

February 22
Reuters

Japanese flour millers say that efforts by Monsanto Co. to bring a genetically modified (GM) wheat to market could lead Japan to stop buying U.S. wheat, the U.S. Wheat Associates trade group said on Thursday.

Board members of the Japan Flour Millers Association (JFMA) adopted a position statement at their monthly meeting held on Wednesday that outlined their concerns about GM wheat, according to a report sent by the Wheat Associates' country director in Japan to the group's Washington headquarters.

``Japanese consumers are highly suspicious and skeptical about safety of GM farm products, which may be hazardous to human health and environment,'' the JFMA statement said.

``Under the circumstances, flour millers strongly doubt that any bakery, noodle and confectionary products made of GM wheat or even conventional wheat that may contain GM wheat will be accepted in the Japanese market,'' it said.

``The flour milling industry will not use any raw ingredients that will be unacceptable to consumers,'' it said.

The JFMA is comprised of 36 large flour millers who have more than 90 percent of the total wheat market share in Japan.

U.S. Wheat spokesperson Dawn Forsythe told Reuters that the JFMA statement did not bode well for wheat growers in the U.S.

``They are saying no tolerance, they're saying we don't want it,'' she said.

According to U.S. Wheat Associates, about 1.4 million tons of U.S. wheat will be shipped to Japan in the current marketing year, which ends May 31. At its regular weekly buying tender on Thursday, Japan bought 85,000 tons of U.S. wheat and 40,000 tons of Canadian wheat.

Monsanto, a leading agricultural biotech firm based in St. Louis, Mo., plans to introduce the world's first biotech wheat between 2003-2005 in the form of a ``Roundup Ready'' spring wheat. The GM wheat will be herbicide tolerant.

Monsanto has been working to allay concerns about the GM wheat, and is trying to work with the U.S. wheat industry to gain world acceptance.

Many international markets, including key spring wheat importing countries in the European Union, have expressed opposition to the GM wheat, and U.S. growers fear the loss of export business.

Japan has recently been shaken by biotech grain problems, as the discovery of unapproved genetically modified StarLink corn traces in food and animal feed by a Japanese consumer group in late October prompted the country to cut sharply its purchases of U.S. corn.

Directive to allow controlled release of GMOs

February 22
Irish Times

A new directive on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) approved by the European Parliament last week will allow the "deliberate release" of GM crops into the environment. It also paves the way for their commercial production in the EU.

"It's showing there's more confidence in the safety of these products," Dr Patrick O'Reilly, business manager of Monsanto Ireland, said.

Monsanto, one of the biggest global GM food corporations, is testing GM sugar beet in trials in the Republic. This crop is destroyed at harvest time.

The directive tightens controls on GMO products and imposes strict rules for granting GMO licenses. Six EU states, including France but excluding Ireland, have indicated they will block GMO applications until traceability and labeling rules are significantly improved.

The directive includes mandatory labeling, but only on live GMOs such as the micro-organisms in yogurts. There is still no obligation to label products made with GMO ingredients, such as sugar or starch.

Some Monsanto applications are intended for Ireland, such as GM sugar beet and blight-resistant potato seeds, Dr O'Reilly confirmed. If approved "they would be on the market quite soon".

Environmental groups here have expressed concern at the EU directive. Father Sean McDonagh of Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment (VOICE), said: "The European Commission is basically pushing the agenda of big business."

He added: "The EU's precautionary principle is absolute on CJD, why is it not absolute on genetically engineered foods?" VOICE has joined the Green Party in calling on the Government to use opt-out provisions in the directive to declare Ireland a GMO-free State. GMOs may be prohibited in specified regions to protect ecosystems, environments or geographical areas.

Green Party MEP Ms Patricia McKenna said declaring Ireland a GMO-free State "would increase the demand for Irish products and preserve Ireland's environment from contamination". Green Party spokeswoman Ms Mary White said Ireland had an opportunity to be "at the forefront of safe food production" by banning genetically engineered crops.

She said all a company needed to do now was apply to the Department of Agriculture for permission to plant commercial GE crops. "It is clear that without a specific national ban being in place in Ireland, protection for the Irish public is compromised."

Approval of the new directive defies a recent warning from a prominent panel of scientists. The Royal Society of Canada called for far more caution in approving GM crops that could pose "serious risks to human health, of extensive, irremediable disruption for the natural ecosystems or of serious diminution of biodiversity".

It also said a basic testing standard used by EU countries in licensing was inadequate in protecting public health and should be abandoned immediately.

58 percent of Americans favor biofood labels - industry survey

February 21
Reuters

More than half of American consumers surveyed said genetically modified foods should be routinely labeled as such even though the Food and Drug Administration believes special labels are not needed, according to a food industry group.

The survey of 1,000 adults was prepared by the International Food Information Council Foundation, a group funded by food and beverage companies which generally oppose labels on gene-spliced foods as expensive and raising unnecessary concerns in the minds of shoppers.

The FDA last month decided to maintain its long-standing policy of not requiring special labels for biotech foods unless the nutritional content is changed or an allergen is introduced.

The industry poll also showed many Americans were aware of last autumn's recall of hundreds of foods containing the unapproved variety of biotech corn known as StarLink. Vast amounts of the U.S. corn supply were accidentally contaminated with StarLink, which can be used for animal feed but not human food because of government concerns about possible allergic reactions.

58 PCT AGREE WITH BIOTECH CRITICS

The food foundation said the most surprising results in the survey came from a question about whether consumers agree with the FDA's labeling position or with critics who say all biotech foods should be clearly identified as such.

Some 58 percent of respondents said they agreed with critics, up from 43 percent when a similar question was used in a poll last May.

"This question represents the most significant shift in the survey, perhaps the result of the StarLink episode," the food foundation said in a statement.

"However, when consumers were presented with information resource alternatives to the food label in the next question, 75 percent affirm that information should be provided through toll-free numbers, brochures and Web sites 'instead of labeling'," the foundation added.

The food group said consumers had "mixed feelings" on the labeling issue.

Another question on the survey asked if consumers supported the FDA's current food labeling policy. Some 70 percent of respondents said they did.

The labeling issue is a crucial one for American foodmakers, who already face growing international pressure to identify biotech foods. Japan, South Korea and and European Union members require gene-altered foods to be clearly marked so consumers know what they are buying.

U.S. foodmakers have long maintained that bioengineered foods are safe and no different from conventional foods.

Greenpeace, an environmental group opposed to biotech foods, said the survey showed more Americans are growing wary of genetic tinkering with their food.

"Even industry can't hide the fact that Americans want labels on genetically engineered food," said Charles Margulis, a spokesman for Greenpeace. "Food companies that use genetically altered ingredients are looking for trouble from consumers who want to eat safe, healthy food."

FDA FOCUS GROUPS FAVOR LABELS

The FDA spent much of last year studying how to change its nearly decade-old biotech food approval process. As part of that process, the agency held consumer focus groups in Seattle; Kansas City; Burlington, Vermont; and Calverton, Maryland.

In a report summarizing comments from the focus groups, the FDA said most consumers told interviewers that gene-spliced foods should be labeled.

"Virtually all participants saw value in having 'mere disclosure' labeling. They thought it would allow them to make more informed decisions about whether or not to buy a product," the FDA said in its report, which was recently published on the agency's Internet home page.

The FDA last month said it would issue voluntary guidelines for any companies that wish to use labels on biotech foods, but would not require them.

The agency said that to ease consumer concerns it would ask foodmakers to notify FDA scientists at least 120 days before marketing new bio-foods, a mandatory review that will replace what is now a voluntary consultation. The FDA also plans to publish food companies' biotech safety test results on its Internet site, but it remained unclear whether companies could request that such data be kept secret for competitive reasons.

UC-Berkeley prof advocates alternatives to biotech

February 21
Daily Californian

While most scientists around the world are working on the brink of new technological and genetic advances, a University of California-Berkeley professor is calling researchers to take a step back from the hype of biotechnology and reconsider its possible implications.

Advances in technology, coupled with the demand for more crops at cheaper prices, has led to the widespread popularity of genetically altered, or transgenic, crops in the field of agriculture.

To be more cost efficient, farmers and scientists have genetically developed crops that confer more resistance to disease and, as a result, have a higher degree of productivity.

The melding together of biotechnology with farming has resulted in transgenic crops where specific genes from unrelated species are introduced into the original plant to increase the plant's resistance.

Modified crops, such as Bacillus thuringiensis corn and roundup ready soybeans are grown in more than 40 million hectares worldwide.

According to UC Berkeley professor Miguel Altieri, the modern demand for use of biotechnology in all aspects of life has brought on numerous social and environmental problems.

The mixing of biotechnology and farming, however, produces a level of inequity between those who can afford the new technological farming advances and those who cannot, says Altieri.

To combat what he sees as an unequal divide, Altieri, a professor in the environmental science, policy and management department, is helping to develop an agricultural discipline that takes into a account a culture's social, political and historical background.

The field of study, called acroecology, focuses on creating more sustainable farming systems that ensure food security, protect the environment and avoid inequity.

"It is a scientific approach to developing a more sustainable agriculture system that is based on the ecology of the area and on the farmer's knowledge," he says. "It is a holistic approach, where the understanding of agriculture is derived from considering social, ecological, cultural and political perspective."

The transgenic technology approach to agriculture was created to tackle problems with overpopulation and food scarcity in Third World countries.

Promising mass production yields, the application of transgenic crops has been accompanied by chemical fertilizers and pesticides applied on a large-scale.

To Altieri, however, the short-term benefits may be detrimental in long-term development.

Already environmental concerns have been raised about the impacts of transgenic corn on non-target beneficial organisms and the creation of new weeds.

In addition, economic issues have arisen, especially in countries like Latin American and Africa, where poor farmers cannot afford the new transgenic varieties, says Altieri. He adds that the technology is further promoting differentiation among farmers who can afford new technologies and those who cannot.

Altieri offers a plausible solution to this problem through his work with acroecology.

His farming approach differs from biotechnological farming in that it integrates the local farmer's knowledge with an environmental awareness to develop a technique that is not destructive to the regional culture or environment.

"Agriculture is a coevolutionary process between nature and society, and thus any approach to develop agriculture that is more socially just and environmentally benign must take into consideration farmers' needs and the ecological milieu," says Altieri.

Agroecology merges environment and human communities to develop a model of agriculture that is culturally acceptable and economically viable.

Altieri has been one of the main advocates of the field and has spent much time researching sustainable agricultural systems.

His affiliation with the disadvantaged populations of Latin American dates back to his childhood in Latin America, where he acquired knowledge of small farming and where he developed the passion to solve agriculture problems while empowering poor farmers.

"I was trained in the West, but after studying ancient agricultural systems, I soon realized that Western knowledge is incomplete to deal with the complexities of third-world agriculture," he says.

Agroecologists focus on the local environment of the farmers, analyze their farming techniques, and elicit farmer participation.

"Biotechnology targets rich farmers with good land and capital in order to implement crops that have been modified genetically," says Altieri. "Agroecology provides techniques that are low input and low capital and at the same time that empower farmers to become actors of their own development."

The level of income inequity between poor and rich farmers is not a factor in the development of agroecology because poor farmers can use their own resources, tools and techniques to develop their farms, he explains

Through acroecology, farmers in Latin America and Africa have increased their yields without the aid of chemical fertilizers or transgenic crops.

Two examples of agroecology include the use of soil conservation and organic fertilizers in Honduras, where a group combated the problem of erosion using ditches, rock walls and grass barriers, instead of extensive infrastructures.

In the Andean region of Peru, researchers uncovered the technique of raised fields, which consisted of soil plateaus surrounded by ditches filled with water to combat the problems associated with high altitude farming.

These waru-warus had exhibited a degree of success in the past, and were experimented with as a plausible approach for contemporary farmers. Under the leadership of the organization, Projecto Interinstitucional de Rehabilitacion de Waru-warus, the waru-warus were rebuilt in this region, starting in 1984.

Since then, the agriculture outputs have increased significantly, and at a faster pace than if biotechnological approaches had been adopted.

A better investment might be for Western scientists to attempt to gain a greater understanding of these historical approaches and thus improve them with modern approaches but always consulting the local people, says Altieri.

Along with analyzing the cognitive approaches of these farmers, Altieri says he also discovered that their farming techniques had scientific validity.

"I have found that what farmers have been doing is scientifically correct, we just have to empower them to enhance their systems," says Altieri.

The question remains as to the why this agricultural approach has not reached a greater audience as biotechnology has. While biotechnology has been promoted widely, agroecology continues to struggle to gain name recognition, says Altieri.

"Political and institutional biases exist against agroecology and small farmers," he says. "Policy favors more large-scale agriculture than small scale."

Changes in political and academic opinions are necessary for agroecology to gain prominence in the scientific world, Altieri says.

He adds that he remains hopeful in the belief that consumer pressures and farmers movements will pressure governments to consider shifting policies.

"It is an issue that has to be resolved by social movements including consumers, farmers and environmental groups," Altieri says. "With greater understanding, people will raise key questions."

Such questions include who produces food, how it is produced, for whom, and for what purpose.

"(People will) soon demand for a more healthy type of agriculture," says Altieri. "In Europe, there has been consumer led debate about genetically modified organisms that forced politicians to endorse strong genetically modified organism regulations. We have to get to this point in the United States, and this will be achieved through public debate."

Tokyo govt planning new labels to identify GM food

February 21
Daily Yomiuri

The Tokyo metropolitan government plans to call on manufacturers to add new labels to the genetically modified food to be sold in Tokyo from fiscal 2001, government sources said.

Under the revised Japan Agricultural Standards Law, if such foods as tofu, miso and corn are genetically modified, manufacturers and wholesalers will be obliged to identify such products from April.

However, the law only requires genetically modified products to be identified in the list of ingredients provided for each product.

The metropolitan government has taken action on the issue of GM food labeling as it believes such foods need to be more conspicuously labeled than presently required under the JAS Law.

The guidelines announced Monday call for labeling food products into the following three categories:

-- All raw materials have been genetically modified.

-- Some raw materials have been genetically modified.

-- No raw materials have been genetically modified.

The guidelines also call for the labeling of cloned beef that is currently excluded from the JAS Law.

The metropolitan government plans to seek public comment on the logos before presenting them to the industry.

StarLink troubles growing

February 21
Cedar Rapids Gazette (Iowa)

Two Iowa farmers, including one from Johnson County, have filed suit in U.S. District Court in Cedar Rapids, seeking damages for what they claim is contamination of their own non-biotech crops and of the nation's food supply.

"StarLink corn is present in hundreds of corn food products on America's grocery shelves," according to the suit against Aventis Cropscience filed on behalf of William Furlong of Iowa City.

When StarLink, genetically altered to kill insect pests, was certified for planting in 1998, it was restricted to animal feed and industrial uses such as ethanol production. The restrictions were imposed over questions it could trigger allergic reactions if eaten by people.

Traces of StarLink turned up in Taco Bell taco shells last September, prompting a nationwide recall. Aventis agreed to buy all StarLink corn from its growers, and later settled a suit by 17 states' attorneys general, including Iowa's, paying $100 million to $1 billion to farmers and elevators that handled the crop.

Furlong and HardinCounty farmer Marvin Kramer, who filed a similar suit, seeks class-action status on behalf of all growers of other corn varieties, according to Adam Levitt, the Chicago attorney for both.

Levitt had little more to say about the case.

"I can't comment that way on a case this young," he said. "I think this will be a very interesting case.

"I don't want to get into the legal part of it," he added. "But I'm dismayed by the economic impact of StarLink in the overall market for U.S. corn, particularly export."

An Aventis spokeswoman declined comment.

In a response filed last Friday, Des Moines attorney Richard Sapp claimed Aventis met "all applicable standards" when the corn was marketed.

He also claimed "it is extremely unlikely" that StarLink's insecticidal protein is allergenic.

Furlong's suit claims the recommended 660-foot buffer between StarLink and other corn was insufficient to prevent pollination with other varieties. It also claims StarLink was brought to market without a system to prevent contamination in elevators.

The 660-foot buffer is the standard precaution for farmers growing corn for seed, according to Dale Farnham, Iowa State University Extension agronomist in Ames. But corn pollen can carry farther, he said.

"I'm still unsure, I guess, about what the adequate distance is," Farnham said. "We're just experiencing all the growing pains and the bumps we go through with any new technology."

Rod Williamson, director of research and regulatory affairs for the Iowa Corn Growers Association, is confident the problems will be solved.

"We segregate white corn and other grains, so it can be done," Williamson said. "We just need to have a better system in place to be able to market that grain, so people clearly understand where the markets are for that grain."

Williamson said the growers' group may urge the federal government to withhold certification of biotech crops unless the crop is cleared for all uses. StarLink was the only variety with a ban on human consumption, he said.

Genetically modified animal feed makes its way into the food chain

In the wake of the 'mad cow' scare, consumers are worried by GM products

Since 1996 Greece has had bulk imports of genetically modified soya and corn.

February 21
Kathimerini, Greece's international English language newspaper

A brief stroll round any supermarket reveals that ever since the scandal over meat meal used as animal feed that labels on poultry and meat all underline the pure vegetable diet of the animals, so as to reassure consumers.

Unfortunately, consumers should not be at all reassured. The fear of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), known as "mad cow" disease, suits multinational producers of genetically modified (GM) foods down to the ground. The multinationals that failed to persuade Europeans to eat GM products have found another way of selling them - as animal feed.

GM feed in bulk

Ever since 1996, Greece, like the rest of the European Union, has had bulk imports of genetically modified soya and corn, usually mixed in with conventional crops. Soya and corn are the basic ingredients in the plant-based animal feeds European farmers are now using.

The problem is that the EU does not have legislation stipulating that GM products in animal feed be separated and labeled. Nobody knows the type and quantity of GM products on the market, or where they go, because there is no inspection system. Within the next few months the European Commission will be presenting a draft bill providing for such foods to be labeled, but approval and implementation of the law will take at least another two years, which will not cover the next major import period in November 2001.

Recently Greenpeace prevented an Italian ship from unloading its cargo of 20,000 tons of GM seeds destined for use as animal food in Denmark. "Throughout Europe there are feed producers and retail sellers who do not want GM animal feed and who are committed to providing their customers with clean products. But their efforts are hindered by the lack of legislation," says Dan Hindsgaul, a member of the Danish branch of Greenpeace.

Meanwhile, the very same companies that favor GM products are making extra money out of the situation, demanding bonuses of 30-50 percent for supplying GM animal food. Until last year the suppliers, together with the US Department of Agriculture, claimed that it was impossible to separate GM from conventional products.

Now, all of a sudden, everybody is starting to separate them, when it suits them, and to supply certificates that they are "pure." At the same time increasingly large quantities of GM products are being unloaded in the ASEAN countries (China, Korea and Taiwan) and in Mexico.

New evidence

New research is demonstrating the dangers of importing GM animal feed. The Monsanto corporation, which launched its GM soya four years ago, has recently been forced to admit that the soya contains two hitherto unknown DNA additives.

In November 2000, a court hearing on GM corn in England heard evidence that chickens fed experimentally on GM feed had significantly higher mortality rates than the norm. "As a scientist," says Bob Orskon, head of the International Food Department at Aberdeen, "I wouldn't drink milk from a cow that has been fed on GM feed, given the evidence available so far."

Shanghai builds agricultural gene bank

February 20
People's Daily

Shanghai, China's leading industrial and commercial city, started the construction of an agricultural bio-gene pool, at an investment of 41 million yuan (US$4.93 million).

The gene pool, said to be the largest of its kind in China with a floor space of 3,300 sq m, will store agricultural biological genetic resources including plant seeds, animal germ cells, microbe fungus and plant gene engineering materials.

A series of laboratories and databases will also be built at the same time for conducting evaluations, and exchange and development of idioplasmic resources. The construction of the project is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

Shanghai has launched three campaigns to collect agricultural idioplasmic (substance related to cell of plant and animal) resources since the founding of new China in 1949. The city now boasts a great variety of idioplasmic resources covering food crops, horticultural crops, domestic fungus, pigs and chickens.