Britain's sole Green parliamentarian today warned of an "environmental nightmare" after details of secret research into so-called "Frankenfish" were revealed.

Robin Harper, a Green Member of the Scottish Parliament, demanded a full list of all experiments involving genetic modification being carried out by the government.

He said he was "horrified" at learning genetically modified salmon - which grew at four times the normal rate - were reared in Scotland.

Dr John Reid, Secretary of State for Scotland, revealed details of the secret experiments in a reply to London MP Joan Ruddock. She had tabled a private member's question asking the Government to answer "persistent rumors" about the research.

Dr Reid said the work was carried out three years ago at Otter Ferry Salmon near Loch Fyne in Argyll. The fish were all destroyed after the experiment.

He said: "Copies of a growth hormone gene from taken from Chinook Salmon were introduced into 10,000 Atlantic Salmon eggs. The fish were grown in a land-based containment facility for up to one year. Approximately 50 of the fish grew at four times the normal rate, with no sign of abnormalities."

Ms Ruddock told PA News: "I have now got to the bottom of the persistent rumours that there have been experiments on fish in Scotland. The results were obviously what they were looking for. If you can cut the costs of production and get the fish to market faster, you can maximize profits."

Mr Harper said:" We have only just got details of this experiment, who knows what other experiments are going on at the moment? "I will be tabling a question to the Scottish Executive demanding a full list of all GM experiments being carried out. I know these fish were destroyed, but it could be done again and if huge monsters like this, with huge appetites, escaped into the sea they could devastate our already threatened fish stocks and do untold damage to the environment. It's a nightmare."

Later Mr Harper said there should be a ban on any future GM experiments. "Unlike the experiments going on right now with genetically modified crops which have already been let loose in the countryside, at least the dangers of GM salmon were realized and these fish were contained in tanks," the MSP said.

"However, we should be extremely concerned about genetically modified fish because of the danger that they could escape into the wild. It's a similar, if not even more dangerous threat, to that we are facing with GM plants. If a GM fish escaped or was released accidentally in to the wild it could never be recaptured. This fish could breed with wild populations and devastate the existing natural balance with its modified behavior.

"There can be no doubt as to the huge threat GM fish would be to fish stocks wherever they were released in the World's oceans. This fish if it escaped into the North Atlantic could do untold damage to the ecology both of the north Atlantic and Scottish salmon rivers.

"A big problem now is the knowledge that this technology is available and is in the public domain. Someone else may be tempted to use this technology indiscriminately.

"Experiments on genetically modifying fish should never have taken place and should not be allowed in future. There must be a world-wide agreement that this particular line of inquiry should be declared a dead-end. Scottish producers could lead the world in quality not quantity, the way forward for Scotland is organic salmon not GM salmon."

British scientists grow first GM salmon

July 28
PA News

Scientists carrying out secret research into genetically modified salmon have grown Britain's first "Frankenfish".

Atlantic salmon grew at four times their normal rate during research into GM fish but all were destroyed when the project was terminated. Dr John Reid, Secretary of State for Scotland, revealed details of the secret experiments in a reply to London MP Joan Ruddock this week. She had tabled a private member's question asking the Government to answer "persistent rumors" about the research.

Studies into GM fish have been taking place in the US and Canada and there were unconfirmed reports that such research was taking place here.

Dr Reid said the work was carried out three years ago at Otter Ferry Salmon near Loch Fyne in Argyll.

The fish farming industry is known to be looking at improving yields in salmon.

The "transgenic" salmon grown in the secret tests proved that fish can grow to market size in 12 to 18 months rather than three years. That could double the turnover of salmon raised in tanks -- and potentially double the profit.

Ms Ruddock told PA News: "I have now got to the bottom of the persistent rumors that there have been experiments on fish in Scotland. The results were obviously what they were looking for. If you can cut the costs of production and get the fish to market faster, you can maximize profits.

"That's obviously the route that many companies are trying to go down. It's the same argument for increased yields with genetically modified crops."

The MP added: "We now know quite extraordinary experimentation was going on in Britain in secret on living things when the public were completely unaware and there was very little public debate.

"I will be asking lots more questions about these matters when Parliament resumes."

The revelations are certain to provoke a furious reaction from anti-GM campaigners, who have accused ministers of covering up the scale of experiments into the new biotech industry.

Round-up Ready corn under attack in California's Central Valley

July 28
LodiLopper Cropatistas press release

Lodi, California - In the early morning darkness of California's central valley, two separate actions were taken to fight the deadly scourge of genetic engineering. One group, known as the Lodi Loppers, attacked a commercial crop of DeKalb's Round-up Ready corn, the activists were able to destroy approximately one acre of this heinous bio-hazard.

In a separate action a group known as the Cropatistas laid waste to just over one acre of Seed-Tech's Round-up Ready corn. These actions were taken in order to show the Biotech industry in general, and Monsanto in particular, that these genetically engineered crops are not wanted in the U.S. and that Californians will use any means necessary to eradicate this menace.

Round-Up, manufactured by Monsanto, is the largest selling herbicide in the world. This type of herbicide is one of the most common causes of pesticide-related illness among agricultural workers. Now Monsanto has genetically engineered crops such as corn, cotton, and soy beans to be resistant to huge amounts of this deadly chemical. This technology is a total scam; farmers are told that they will only have to spray their crops once per year but recent research has shown that they are needing to spray three and four times a year. While the Round-Up Ready crops withstand increased applications of this deadly herbicide, non-target species, agricultural workers and the people who eat these crops have no resistance and therefore suffer the dire consequences of this corporate profiteering.

This action was taken to send a solidarity message to the organic farmers around the world who are resisting the genetic monster. Particularly, the millions of Indian farmers who are leading by example with Operation Cremate Monsanto, English activists who started the genetiX snowball campaign, and the Lincolnshire Loppers (distant cousins of the Lodi Loppers). These actions have shown that massive direct action can halt this biotech nightmare.

Being that this was the first commercial genetically engineered crop pull in the United States, it should be made clear that this action was not targeting farmers. In fact, farmers are held hostage by biotech corporations and this action sends a direct message that any genetically engineered organisms released into the environment are a bio-hazard and must be destroyed.

More importantly, this action is meant to show that we can resist corporations and take the power back in our lives. As Americans, we must take responsibility for allowing genetic engineering to grow like it has, since we are in the belly of the biotech beast. By pulling their crops the industry has been put on notice that it can no longer expect "business-as-usual" in the U.S., nor anywhere else in the world.

We'll hold GM trials in secret, ministers warn

July 27
Independent (London)

THE GOVERNMENT warned yesterday that it may be forced to conduct genetically modified crop trials in secret after the destruction of a GM plantation by the environmental group Greenpeace.

Thirty protesters, including Lord Melchett, Greenpeace's executive director, were arrested at around 5.30am yesterday as they staged a dawn raid on a farm-scale trial in Lyng, Norfolk.

The environmentalists said they had "decontaminated" a six-acre plot of GM maize by digging up the plants with a tractor, amidst violent scenes in which bystanders' cars were damaged by a digger.

The protest was the latest in a series of "direct action" raids by environmental groups against the trial crops. Only four of the seven government-backed "farm-scale" trials, which are essential before GM crops can gain approval for commercial growing, are still intact.

Jack Cunningham, the minister responsible for co-ordinating policy on the technology, said that the protests could force the United Kingdom to follow Germany in restricting information about its test sites.

"Hitherto, we have always given detailed information and put into the public domain the specific location of trials and experiments," he said. "But you have to ask yourself the question, if small minorities are determined by illegal methods to impose their minority view on the situation by taking premeditated, reckless action in this way, we may have to reconsider that."

The first "farm-scale" site to be destroyed was in Wiltshire, where last month the landowner ordered the farmer to remove it. The second, in Oxfordshire, was destroyed last week by eco-activists not allied with Greenpeace.

Yesterday, William Brigham, 59, of Walnut Tree Farm, near Lyng, said he woke up to find about 40 people on the site with a tractor with a cutter on the back "trashing the trial".

He said: "They have damaged about a third to a half of the crop, and I believe the trial may not be able to go ahead. They have cut and trampled it down. "This has nothing to do with genetically modified organisms, it's whether we want democratic government in this country or anarchy."

Mr Brigham's brother, John, collapsed in a field, and it was initially feared he had suffered a heart attack, but he was discharged from hospital later yesterday. A family spokeswoman said his collapse was partly due to the stress of events.

The crop was planted in May by the agrochemical company AgrEvo and was due to flower next week.

Biotechnology companies sought a change to rules on revealing GM trial locations last year, when Mr Cunningham was in charge of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. At the time, many smaller GM trial sites were being destroyed by protesters. But the Department of the Environment said that it was obliged to publish details of test sites.

Mr Cunningham said the public wanted the trials to continue to allow them to make an informed choice on GM issues. He attacked the "violent intimidation" and criminal tactics of Greenpeace. "We want to see these trials continue. The problem with these people is that they don't want to sit down and discuss this," he said.

Lord Melchett said: "Now that three out of seven of the government farm-scale trials have been disrupted, the whole programme of commercialisation of GM pollution disguised as science is at risk."

AgrEvo said yesterday that it wanted to conduct future experiments in secret. The alternative is 24-hour security for every trial site, but the Government, biotechnology companies and farmers disagree on who would pay for this.

Jim Thomas, a Greenpeace campaigner, said: "Our disagreement isn't with this farmer or these farm workers; it's with AgrEvo for producing this crop and the Government for letting it be planted."

Des D'Souza, of AgrEvo, said he did not believe the protest was peaceful.

"If trespassing, criminal damage is peaceful and causing anguish to Mr Brigham and his family - his brother had to be taken to hospital, he collapsed in a field today as a result of the stress of all this - if that is peaceful, please someone needs to rewrite the dictionary books for me."

CBS News Eye on America report on GE foods

July 21

(Dan Rather) To the alphabet soup of additives, preservatives, and vitamins A to Z, we can now add these letters: DNA. So, are designer genes tailor made for food a good fit for humans? CBS�s Wyatt Andrews serves you the facts on this.

(view of farmer in field) �If I didn�t believe it was safe, I wouldn�t grow it.�

As a successful farmer in Iowa, Dorin Zumball (sp?) hates it when someone accuses him of growing Frankenstein food. �I think there�s a huge amount of scare tactic involved in this . . . (inaudible). What Zumball is growing is genetically modified food � corn that has been gene-spliced with a different organism, a forced genetic marriage of corn and a bacterium called Bt. �The Bt gene is inserted in the plant.�

The Bt makes the plant itself toxic to this insect, the corn borer, but leaves the corn safe for human consumption and, Zumball argues, is much better for the environment. �Historically, we�ve applied a lot of insecticides to kill corn borers. And, with the Bt gene inserted in the plant, I don�t have to do that.�

And it�s just the beginning of the genetically modified or GM future. Today, it�s pest resistant plants, but soon there will be health foods � soy spliced with the nutrients of olive oil; vegetables with more vitamin A, and potatoes that produce pharmaceutical drugs. American farmers are planting these genetically mixed crops whole hog. Today, half of the soy beans, 40% of the corn, and an increasing number of potatoes, are all being grown with genetically engineered seed.

So you probably don�t know this (there are no labels), but thousands of foods in the store, from corn-raised steak to corn flakes to baby food now come from GM crops. Americans eat this every day. But in Europe, especially England, critics call it �Frankenfood.� Even Prince Charles questions its safety. And at the British Medical Association, Dr. Vivian Nathanson warns, altered DNA in food could produce allergies and other side effects. �The fact that there is no demonstrable effect on human health so far doesn�t actually mean that something is risk free.�

�This is soy bean oil, we have . . . � John Fagan is an American scientist whose lab tests genetic foods for European companies. He too believes GM foods need long term study. Each time you put a gene in, it�s causing mutations to the existing genes of that organism. And therefore there are unexpected side effects that can come out of this process.�

(Wyatt Andrews) When I buy this in my cornflakes, is it safe to eat? �Yes, it is.� Flat out? �Flat out.� Hugh Grant, the President for Agriculture here in St. Louis-based Monsanto, the largest US producer of this seed, calls the fear unfounded. (Andrews) Can it hurt a human being? �No.� How do you know that? �Because that�s been tested extensively, and I think . . .� Has it been tested on mammals, has it been tested on people? �Yes, certainly, and these are proteins that are broken down as you ingest them.�

�And these are some corn plants . . .� Monsanto insists these plants are screened and tested for harmful proteins long before they sell the seeds to farmers. �The government has given them an absolute clean bill of health, and they have sailed through the regulatory system in the US, and have been signed off as safe.�

(shot of large combine in the fields) Still, the speed of this revolution, from nothing four years ago, to tens of millions of acres today, has put some farmers in a bind. They�re growing food some customers won�t buy, customers who don�t trust the altered genetic makeup of the amber waves of grain.

In Coggin, Iowa � Wyatt Andrews for Eye on America

USDA to tighten regulatory oversight on new biotech crops

July 19
Feedstuffs

Steps to strengthen the federal oversight of genetically modified crops -- aimed at shoring up confidence among consumers and U.S. trading partners -- were announced last week by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. In the address, Glickman also issued a sharply worded challenge to biotech companies to toe the line on "corporate citizenship" in their dealings with farmers and consumers.

Nothing Glickman said diminished his long-standing support for agricultural biotechnology. "Biotechnology has enormous potential for all the citizens of the world," he said. It can combat hunger while solving the most "vexing environmental problems," he pointed out.

However, the time to address issues of consumer confidence is now, while "the new technology is in its infancy," Glickman said.

During a nationally televised speech July 13 at the National Press Club, Glickman announced he would ask for "an independent scientific review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's biotech approval process ... . With all biotechnology has to offer, it is nothing if it's not accepted." He emphasized that, "this boils down to a matter of trust -- trust in the science behind the process ... . The (regulatory) process must stay at arm's length from any entity that has a vested interest in the outcome."

The present U.S. regulatory approval process for genetically modified products is three-pronged: USDA evaluates them for their safety to other plants and animals; the Food & Drug Administration handles food safety issues in the approval process, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deals with any products that could be classified as pesticides.

As part of a new initiative to provide long-term monitoring of environmental effects of biotech crops, Glickman proposed establishing regional USDA centers. A recent Cornell University study that found that pollen from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn could harm Monarch butterflies clearly influenced Glickman's call for stepped-up scientific review and monitoring.

"We do not have evidence the heavily publicized Monarch butterfly lab study appears to be happening in the field," he said. However, it "underscored the need to develop a comprehensive approach to evaluating long-term and secondary effects of biotech products."

Glickman also called on biotech companies to "report any unexpected or potentially adverse effects to the Department of Agriculture immediately upon discovery." Glickman unveiled a five-part strategy for U.S. agricultural biotech. In addition to the "arm's length regulatory process" and the issue of "consumer acceptance," he addressed the role the industry must take to provide "fairness to farmers" and to practice "corporate citizenship." The fifth principle he set out was "free and fair trade" for biotech products.

Because biotechnology holds the promise of "revolutionary benefits to society," Glickman said, "the industry needs to be guided by a broader map and not just a compass pointing toward the bottom line."

Glickman also urged the biotech industry to play fair with farmers. Biotech needs to provide farmers with more planting options, not just the options that seed companies want to sell at higher prices, he said.

"We're already hearing concerns from some farmers that to get some of the more highly desirable non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) traits developed over the years, they might have to buy biotechnology seeds," he said. He also noted that farm neighbors who plant biotech crops are being pitted against each other "to protect corporate intellectual property rights."

The concern that genetic resources could be locked up by biotech companies through privatization of genetic resources and proprietary research prompted Glickman to hint at a stronger federal regulatory role."It is not the government who harnesses the power of the airwaves," he said, pointing to the broadcast industry, "but it is the government who regulates it." He added, "that same principle might come to apply to discoveries in nature as well. That debate is just getting started."

Glickman's speech received good marks from several representatives of farm organizations. Rosemarie Watkins and Adam Sharp of the American Farm Bureau Federation applauded the emphasis on fairness to farmers.

"We're hearing those concerns from our members, too, but our farmers are still excited about the technology," Watkins said. She pointed out "the high farmer adoption rate supports the farmer interest in biotech crops."

Sharp, who works with regulatory issues, welcomed Glickman's continued strong support for science-based regulation. Glickman's speech played well with farm groups who had feared his position on GMOs had softened.

Glickman spoke on the same day that the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sent of a petition to EPA asking for planting restrictions on Bt corns. The environmental organizations is asking that "fields of Bt corn be surrounded by 40- to 60-ft. wide borders of non-Bt corn," according to an EDF statement.

Citing results of the Cornell study that showed Bt corn pollen is toxic to Monarch butterflies, EDF said "such borders would dramatically reduce the flow of toxic pollen from Bt corn into butterfly habitats."

EDF is also calling on EPA to consult with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to determine whether any butterflies and moths listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act are harmed by toxic Bt-corn pollen, according to the EDF statement.

UK Minister Tells GM Firms Public Comes First

July 19
Reuters

British Environment Minister Michael Meacher warned genetic food manufacturers Saturday he would not be pressured into "riding rough-shod" over safety procedures designed to protect the public interest.

His latest comments came against growing public calls for tighter controls on the development of GM crops, dubbed "Frankenstein foods" by the British media.

"I am not prepared to ride rough-shod over the regulatory and scientific procedures in order to please Monsanto," he told a conference on the future of the ruling Labour Party, referring to the U.S. company which has borne the brunt of the media backlash.

Meacher said the interests of the public and business did not always coincide.

"The job of government ...is to protect the public interest. We do not believe what is good for Monsanto is good for the world," said the minister.

"I pledge there will be no general planting of GM crops in this country until or if we reach an authoritative conclusion based on the evidence...that GM crops cause no material damage," he added.

One recent media report said Meacher's views were being monitored by American national security agents, leading environmental lobbyist Charles Secrett of Friends of the Earth to conclude that the U.S. government wanted to influence Britain's policy on GM crops and foods.

Britain is currently conducting GM crop trials to assess its safety and has said GM could eventually provide cheaper and better tasting foods. Last month Britain's parliamentary Joint Committee on Statutory Affairs called on the government to demand that stores tell consumers of any GM content in foods on sale.

While restaurants and fast food outlets are compelled by law to tell customers if their meals contain GM products, shops are not required to do so unless specifically asked.

But amid public concern about the long-term safety of GM technology, many supermarket chains have already banned GM products.

Heir to the British throne Prince Charles further stoked public debate in a front-page newspaper article last month, posing the question: "Do we really need GM food in this country? On the basis of what we have seen so far, we don't appear to need it at all."

In contrast, Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for the public to remain open-minded.

"All I can say to people is keep an open mind," he said in the wake of Prince Charles' comments last month.

Blair's government has sought to tread a fine line between public concern and not jeopardizing British commercial interests by scaring GM companies elsewhere and losing out on a potentially lucrative new technology.

Trees that never flower herald a silent spring

July 17
The Daily Telegraph (London)

"TERMINATOR" trees, genetically engineered never to flower, could ensure a silent spring in the forests of the future. Such trees will grow faster than before, but will be devoid of the bees, butterflies, moths, birds and squirrels which depend on pollen, seed and nectar, scientists said yesterday. Under plans set out by the biotechnology company Monsanto and New Zealand's Forest Research Agency, the sterile plantations will be engineered to secrete toxic chemicals through their leaves to kill caterpillars and other leaf-eating insects and to resist herbicides,

allowing ground flora to be eliminated easily. Scientists from companies and regulatory bodies, such as English Nature, agree that before GM trees can be allowed to grow in the open, they must be made sterile to prevent the contamination of wild species with modified DNA. But environmental groups believe that sterile trees will bring a second "silent spring". The first, in Rachel Carson's book of that name, described the advent of synthetic pesticides, such as DDT.

Scientists meeting at the Oxford University Museum this week for an international symposium sponsored by Shell and Monsanto are working on improving the value of trees, by making them grow faster or by producing lignin-free timber to reduce the use of chemicals and energy used in paper-making. They claim that GM trees will have benefits. David Duncan of Monsanto said: "Increasing the productivity of tree plantations safely and sustainably will help meet the world's wood needs without increasing pressure on native forests. "

Dr Amy Brunner of Oregon State University is working on ways to prevent flowering in black cottonwood and is being sponsored by interested companies, including Shell and Monsanto, and the US Department of Energy. She said: "You could argue that non-flowering trees would limit wildlife, but these trees are intended only for specialised plantations. We do not want them to replace native forests, but to be planted on bare marginal land of no agricultural value."

Dr Jeff Skinner, also of Oregon State University, said that exotic trees could be prevented from growing in places where they did not belong. His work, also on black cottonwood, involves attaching a poison-promoting gene to a "promoter" gene responsible for stimulating flowering so that every time a flower cell began to form it poisoned itself and died.

But ecologists are horrified. George McGavin, curator of Entomology at Oxford University Museum, said: "If you replace vast tracts of natural forest with flowerless trees there will be a serious effect on the richness and abundance of insects.

"If you put insect resistance in the leaves as well you will end up with nothing but booklice and earwigs. We are talking about vast tracts of land covered with plants that do not support animal life as a sterile means of culturing wood tissue. That is a pretty unattractive vision of the future and one I want no part of."

Friends of the Earth says that scientists will have little power to determine how their technology is applied in practice.

Sarah Tyack, of Friends of the Earth, said: "The idea that intensively-managed plantations take pressure off natural forests is a myth. What is happening is that natural forest is being cleared to make way for intensive plantations. GM trees will accelerate that process." Hanna Scrase, of the Forestry Stewardship Council, the leading global certification body, said: "Our position is simple. We do not allow GM trees."

Martin Mathers of the World Wide Fund for Nature said: "These trees will support even lower levels of biodiversity than conifer monocultures. At least Sitka spruce has nectar and cones that support insects, red squirrels, cross-bills and other birds."

The private forestry industry is also uneasy about GM trees. Len Yull, chairman of the Timber Growers' Association, said: "I have yet to see anyone put a convincing case that GM technology would create a sufficiently superior product to achieve a real market advantage, and these things are market and profit driven."

Biotech crops a mixed blessing

July 15
Associated Press

Farmers are having mixed success planting crops that are genetically modified to kill insect pests, according to an industry study released today.

While the altered seeds produce better yields, farmers can lose money on the crops when commodity prices and infestations are low, the study found. Corn growers made an extra $72 million by using genetically modified seeds in 1997, but planted three times as much acreage to the crop last year and lost $26 million when grain prices plummeted and infestation levels dropped, according to the report by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, a Washington-based research policy group.

The so-called Bt-corn contains genes from bacteria known as Bacillus thuringiensis. It's resistant to the corn borer but costs more than conventional seed.

``A farmer must incur the costs of the technology before knowing the levels of pest infestation during the growing year or the price that will be received for the crop at the end of the year,'' the study said. ``Thus, it is to be expected that wide variations in actual returns will occur.''

Cotton farmers fared better, saving $92 million last year on their Bt crops. Genetically engineered crops are the source of a growing controversy in the United States and especially in Europe.

Advocates contend that insect-resistant crops reduce the need for heavy doses of pesticides and other chemicals. But some environmental groups say genetically altered seeds can be unhealthy and could harm the food chain if they escape from farms into the wild. They want the government to require genetically modified food to be labeled as such.

While Glickman has defended biotechnology he has discussed the labeling idea with the food industry. Processors oppose the labeling because they think it would give the food a stigma it doesn't deserve.

``An accurate assessment of the contribution of a new pest control technology would require a decade or more of actual field usage,'' the study said.

The study was funded by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, an association of biotechnology companies and research institutions.

Environmental group urges protection for butterflies from engineered corn

July 14
St. Louis Post Dispatch

Until scientists learn more about the risks of corn that has been genetically engineered to resist insects, fields planted with it should be surrounded by wide buffer zones to protect monarch butterflies, an environmental group said Tuesday.

In a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental Defense Fund said buffer zones of up to 60 feet were crucial to shield the monarch butterfly caterpillars from pollen on the Bt corn.

Bt corn is engineered to contain Bacillus thuringiensis, bacteria found in the soil that is toxic to the European corn borer. An estimated 22 million acres of U.S. farmland will be planted this year with Bt corn.

Scientists at Cornell University recently discovered that while Bt corn was safe for humans, its pollen could kill some monarch butterfly larvae. The researchers involved in the study have cautioned that their lab tests did not duplicate real-world conditions, but the data have raised new concerns among environmental groups about the safety of genetically modified crops.

The Environmental Defense Fund, which has about 300,000 members, said buffer zones were the best way to protect butterflies until more is known about the potential risks.

"Planting a buffer zone of Bt-free corn is an effective and practical way of protecting monarchs and other butterflies ... from toxic Bt pollen while additional studies on this newly identified problem are completed," said Rebecca Goldburg, a scientist with the environmental group.

Last month, nine other environmental and consumer groups urged President Bill Clinton's administration to ban Bt corn. An EPA spokeswoman was not immediately available for comment. The EPA and U.S. Agriculture Department have previously said additional studies may be needed to determine if Bt corn poses a threat to beneficial insects like the monarch butterfly.

In the European Union, where consumer groups have been more outspoken against genetically modified crops, regulators are not expected to approve any additional crop varieties until 2002 when new rules are in place. Two kinds of Bt corn made by Monsanto and Novartis have been approved for sale in the EU.

U.S. farmers fear GM crop fallout

July 14
BBC

In the rural idyll of America's agricultural states farmers are getting to know the genetically altered crops they have been told will help them make the most of their land. Their fields are providing the evidence that will tell the world if the ambitious claims for biotechnology in agriculture are coming true.

The whole point of the crops is that they are supposed to help farmers farm more cheaply. Suddenly they are under the spotlight. Consumers outside the US have turned against GM food. The export market is disappearing fast - US corn sales to Europe shrank from 70 million bushels in 1997 to just 3 million last year.

Mood change in the Mid-West

Professor Bill Heffernan of the University of Missouri has spent 30 years tracking rural change across the states. He says people fear GM crops could end up costing them more not less.

"Six months ago we thought that basically these products were going to be accepted in the market - nobody thought otherwise and in fact it was just assumed because nobody was challenging it.

"Now, especially because number one what's happening in Europe and Japan and other major consumer nations that may refuse these products, that's really gotten the farmers attention.

"The farmers are really quite angry about it and they're quite confused about it and many farmers just wish the whole thing would go away, we'd go back the way it was a year ago and forget about all these products."

'Taking a second look'

Doug Doughty is a GM seed dealer . His neighbour, Bill Christison is president of the National Family Farm Coalition, a group that has taken a stand against GM crops. Yet their apparently opposing views seem now to be converging.

Mr Christison says: "I think in the past year especially that some farmers are taking a second look at the increased production costs and the increased yield that was promised them."

Mr Doughty says: " US farmers embrace technology very quickly ,we want the newest thing on the market, the latest thing..i think we're just finding out that maybe this technology wasn't researched as well as it could have been.

"The Europeans were right to go slow on this. We were fed a lot of propaganda that the Europeans were just being difficult, to be against what the US were doing - but I think we're finding out that they're our customers and if they want something we should be able to deliver that."

Farming revolution under scrutiny

One of the most common modified crops is soybeans that can tolerate herbicide - about one third of the soya bean crop in the mid west is genetically modified. The idea is that farmers need not till their land and can control weeds with fewer sprays. The other is pest resistant, or "Bt" corn, with extra genes that produce a toxin to fend off pests.

The message from biotechnology developers has been consistently positive. For the past few decades field tests have been conducted on a wide variety of products that may produce a better answer, may herald the latest revolution in farming technology, products of agricultural biotechnology.

Yet on one of the key claims for these crops - lower herbicide use - local farmers experience doesn't quite match the developers expectations. For example on Monsanto's Round Up-Ready soybeans, the aim was only to spray once. But according to Prof Heffernan many farmers still spray their crops twice.

"You just have too many late weeds coming on and so in that case you spray just as much as you would with any of the other herbicides we've been using in the last few years," he says.

GM yields figures 'confusing'

Last week, the US department of agriculture released the most comprehensive analysis of data on GM crops in the US. As expected, these show a dramatic uptake among farmers - a six-fold increase to 50 million acres in just two years.

Biotechnology companies sold their crops on the promise of fewer chemical treatments and higher yields. The official figures show that overall, the picture is confusing, with regional variations that are so large it is almost impossible to draw general conclusions.

This puts big question marks over the message from biotech companies that GM crops mean automatic advantages for farmers.

On chemical treatments, for 1997, pesticide treatment was about the same for pest resistant and conventional corn. For herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide use went down in some states, but up in others.

On yields pest resistant corn showed big differences in yield advantage - five times higher in the Prairie states than in the main crop-growing states. For herbicide-tolerant soybeans, yields in the Prairie states were about 25% higher, yet in the Eastern states they were down by about 8%.

Yield variations aside, there's no room for argument over the harsh economic reality of selling GM crops into a reluctant market - and some GM farmers are having second thoughts.

Prof Heffernan says: "All of a sudden we're finding some firms are now saying they'll pay 15 to 16 cents a bushel more for Non GMOs."

The result has been that some farmers have tried to return their GM seed for more traditional seed.

Farmers fear cross-contamination

Just as it becomes plain that GM developers were taken by surprise by the strength of reaction against their crops in Europe - another problem is emerging, closer to home, that they also failed to anticipate.

Bill Christison is a conventional farmer selling into a mainstream market, yet he feels GM crops could now threaten his livelihood.

"I have a fear that even though I do not plant GMO crops my corn will be contaminated and therefore not marketable around the world. I think this is an issue that is facing a number of farmers in this country.

"I think that there is no doubt that there will be a rash of lawsuits - farmer against farmer if you will - to determine how they can control this Bt hybrid and keep it on their side of the fence," he says.

Organic farmers angered

Cross contamination is just one practical problem biotechnology companies apparently didn't foresee once farmers started actually growing GM crops. The issue is most acute for organic farmers.

There have already been cases of Europe rejecting American organic produce because it was found to contain GM material although it was supposed to be GM free.

Organic farmer Klaus Martens says: "I'm resentful. I don't know why when someone else is contaminating my land, I should have to bear the financial burden and make all the adjustments.

"I certainly hope that American farmers will wake up and reject these products. It's definitely hurting American farmers. They cost us the European market, they have trapped our domestic markets for our grains and it's very obvious that they're not doing us any good."

GM crops have 'really backfired'

The evidence is mounting that conventional farmers are now are having doubts.

GM seed dealer Doughty says: "There is a lot of feeling that Monsanto and some of the other companies reallly let us down in Europe, tried to stuff if down Europeans throats, and say here it is, you will have to accept it, without going to the countries, to their scientists and researchers and proving it first that everything was OK and it's really backfired on them."

Mr Christenson says: " We are going to supply the land the machinery, the labour, and we are going to get a pittance for our efforts because of GMO seed and this does not set well with myself nor with a great number of farmer."

Where farmers may once have seen Monsanto and others as pioneering saviours, now, as they watch biotech seed prices creep slowly upwards, their mood is changing from a warm welcome to simmering resentment.

Labeling rules prohibit foodmakers from telling what isn't in their products

July 12
Boston Globe

All Ben & Jerry's wanted to do was tell customers what was not in their ice cream.

The all-natural food company had helped lead an unsuccessful fight against a synthetic hormone injected into cows to boost their milk output in 1993. Not only had it won approval, but the US Food and Drug Administration ruled that companies didn't have to tell customers if their cows received bovine growth hormone.

So, Ben & Jerry's wanted their labels to declare that their ice cream, at least, was growth hormone-free.

But it was against the law. Several states interpreted FDA approval of the new drug as banning even implied criticisms of bovine growth hormone. If Ben & Jerry's said they didn't use it, these states reasoned, the company was suggesting there was something wrong with companies that do.

Ben & Jerry's finally sued Illinois to win the right to label their ice cream, but the Vermont company's battle underscores how difficult it has been to tell consumers about the rapid changes in their food.

Virtually none of the many genetically altered foods now on store shelves are labelled. That's because the FDA has concluded that bovine growth hormone and genetically altered seeds are additives that don't affect either the safety or nutritiousness of the food. Only if the additive poses some identifiable threat, such as allergic reactions, does the FDA require a label.

But now, federal policy is increasingly under assault from critics who say the FDA ignores the uncertainty created by genetic changes, and robs consumers of the right to know what's in their food. Activists have submitted 500,000 signatures to the agency demanding labelling of food biotechnology products, and a group called the Alliance for Bio-Ethics has sued to require it.

Steven Druker, executive director of the Iowa-based Alliance, said the FDA ignored its own scientists in concluding that biotechnology products generally required no label. For instance, in a 1991 critique of FDA policy on food biotechnology, Louis Pribyl of the FDA's microbiology group wrote, ''There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document.''

But Druker said the FDA sided with the major producers of food biotechnology products, concluding food biotechnology carried no unique risks. Later, Druker notes, the FDA official in charge of policy development at the time, Michael Taylor, joined Monsanto, maker of bovine growth hormone and other biotechnology products.

FDA officials concede there were disagreements about agency policy on food biotechnology, but they say that's normal in scientific debate. They also point out that a 1994 US General Accounting Office report found no conflict of interest by three employees, including Taylor, who had a role in approving bovine growth hormone.

Still, there are signs the Clinton Administration is softening on requiring labels as a way to quell a growing backlash against food biotechnology. As Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said recently, ''Labelling can be a sensible way of providing information, but we have to make sure that the labeling is responsible.''

Ben & Jerry's has placed a ''responsible'' label on its products, noting that the FDA has found ''no significant difference'' between milk produced with and without bovine growth hormone. But company officials suspect they may yet be proved right: the United Nation's food safety body refused to endorse bovine growth hormone two weeks ago, declaring ''there is no consensus on [bovine growth hormone] safety in the international scientific community.''

You say potato, they say pesticide

July 11
San Francisco Examiner

You're probably already eating in the brave new world of biotech foods.

The popcorn at your movie house could be made from plants designed to fight off a voracious pest called the corn borer.

Your baby's formula could come from soybean plants biologically transformed to withstand the herbicide Roundup.

The bags of potato chips on your grocer's shelves could be sliced from spuds containing a gene that poisons Colorado potato beetles.

A dramatic increase in reliance on genetic engineering may be helping produce bumper crops, but it also is raising concern that labeling laws are weak and that too little is known about potential effects on humans and the environment.

As of last year, growers in the United States, Argentina, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Spain, France and South Africa dedicated 69.5 million acres to genetically modified crops, a 16-fold increase over just two years, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech

Applications, an industry institute to promote new technology. In the United States, which represents three-fourths of the world's agricultural acreage, altered corn accounted for 40 percent of the total crop planted this year, up from 26.5 percent the year before. This year, for the first time, canola farmers planted 300,000 acres of engineered plants.

Acreage devoted to a wide range of engineered crops from papaya to radicchio to squash is expanding.

In opposition, consumer groups are citing a startling Cornell University lab experiment last May in which pollen from a corn plant altered to eradicate corn borers killed Monarch butterfly larvae.

If the butterfly might succumb, they reason, what might happen to humans who consume a lifelong diet of such crops? And what might happen to beneficial insects and wildlife in the environment?

The questions are pitting consumers against the agricultural industry and the U.S. government, which insist that food from genetically modified crops - primarily corn, soy beans, cotton and potatoes - is no different and requires no special tests or labels.

Opposition is swelling in Europe, where the term "Frankenfood" has entered

the lexicon; some major supermarket and fast-food chains have promised to rid themselves of the products; and Italy, Greece, France, Luxembourg and Denmark are blocking authorization of new genetic crops in fields and markets of European Union nations. The resistance may be spreading.

"U.S. consumers, too, are demanding mandatory labeling and mandatory testing for environmental and human health effects," said biologist Michael Hansen, research associate at Consumers Union's Consumer Policy Institute.

The biotechnology industry, led by Monsanto, Novartis, Dow, DuPont, AgrEvo and Zeneca, calls rising criticism in Europe "hysteria and hype" from the food scare over "mad cow" disease in England and dioxin in feed, poultry, beef and butter in Belgium.

The corporations and some universities say the U.S. government is watching over our food supply, the safest in the world. There's no reason to do special tests on food or label genetically engineered ingredients because the crops are virtually unchanged from conventionally bred crops, they argue.

"A tomato is a tomato is a tomato," said Brian Sansoni, senior manager of public policy communications for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, some of whose largest corporate members are biotech companies. "A tomato that is produced conventionally or a tomato that is developed through biotechnology, the product is the same. Both products are safe."

Genetic engineering has come into practice over the last 20 years. Most commonly, bacteria, viruses, and genes from tobacco or petunia plants are inserted into soy, corn, cotton and canola so that plants can survive field applications of weed killers. Or a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, a bacteria found in soil, is inserted into corn, cotton and potatoes to produce a protein toxic to pests that feed on them.

Numerous polls over the past four years have revealed consumer demand for labeling of genetically modified foods, a step the industry is fighting.

The last survey by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, conducted on 604 New Jersey residents in 1995, found that 84 percent of those polled wanted mandatory labeling of engineered fruits and vegetables.

In interviews, major food companies Frito-Lay, General Mills, Gerber, Heinz, Kraft, Nabisco, Pillsbury, Procter & Gamble, Quaker and Ross Products Division of Abbott Laboratories said they accepted genetically engineered ingredients for their food products. But consumers can't go into stores or call industry trade groups to secure a list of engineered brands, complains GeneWatch, a bulletin of the Council for Responsible Genetics, a Cambridge, Mass., nonprofit organization.

"People have a right to know what they're buying in a transaction," said Philip Bereano, a professor of technical communication at the University of Washington who writes for GeneWatch. "They have a right to spend their dollars in accordance with their preferences, even if their preferences were irrational," Bereano said.

The companies have lobbied successfully against labels before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulates food additives, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides.

Val Giddings, vice president for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said, "We've worked for a long time to come up with a labeling policy that we know will convey useful information about nutrition and health.

"For the government to require labeling (of genetically engineered products) would be to suggest a safety or health difference where there isn't one. There's no good reason to do it."

Gathering and providing a list of altered foods would be impractical, said Sansoni of the Grocery Manufacturers.

"The list would be too long," Sansoni said. "About 25 percent of corn, 38 percent of soybeans, 35 percent of canola and 45 percent of cotton crops are derived from biotechnology."

"In the U.S., companies aren't really set up for segregation," Sansoni said. "It would be enormously expensive. The products are mixed in with products that contain ingredients that are not genetically enhanced."

In May 1992, then-Vice President Dan Quayle announced a long-awaited U.S. policy: Genetically engineered crops, judged by government scientists to be no different from plants bred traditionally, would need no extra government scrutiny. The processed food made from the crops wouldn't require labeling or special testing before going to market.

The FDA doesn't test bio-engineered foods before they go to the public, deeming them not "materially" different from other foods. If the foods later pose a risk to public health, the FDA has the authority to remove them from the marketplace. FDA representatives say they would require labeling only if genes from plants that could cause allergies were engineered into a crop.

"The only way to be assured of not consuming genetically engineered food is to only buy food that is certified with an organic labeling," Bereano said. Some foods, such as Monsanto's New Leaf potato, are actually registered with the EPA as a pesticide - every part of it can kill a Colorado potato beetle.

As a result, it comes under the regulatory jurisdiction of the EPA, not the Food and Drug Administration.

Kathleen Knox, deputy director of EPA's Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, said the agency "regulates biopesticides as we regulate other pesticides. We do the equivalent that we do for any other pesticides."

In the case of the bacterium Bt, she said, "We believe it's safe in the food supply. We certainly have looked at many factors, and we make sure things are adequately tested, particularly the things we've registered so far. We've collected data, done risk assessments. We continue to monitor what's going on in the field."

Hansen, of the Consumer Policy Institute, said neither the EPA, the FDA nor the USDA required adequate testing.

"If you look at the FDA requirements carefully, you'll see that the industry is on the honor system," Hansen said. "There is no mandatory safety testing of food before it's put on the market. Bt crops aren't even regulated by the FDA. Legally, those crops aren't considered food but pesticides, which are regulated by the EPA."

But the EPA doesn't test the safety of the engineered plant itself - the potato with Bt in it, Hansen said. The EPA tests Bt in isolation. Further, the studies are flawed because they don't use Bt toxin produced by the plant but use the Bt toxin produced by engineered bacteria, which is different, he said.

While proponents of genetic crop engineering say the selection of genes is precise, critics say inserting a gene into a living cell is highly imprecise, with no control over where in the DNA the new gene is implanted.

This can disrupt the natural genetic information encoded in the DNA of a new plant, leading to unexpected and unwanted effects, including potentially increasing toxin levels, changing nutritional values or introducing allergy-causing properties.

"When you insert a gene into a DNA by using genetic modification, you have no idea where the gene goes - it's absolutely a shot in the dark," said molecular biologist John Fagan, founder of Genetic ID Inc., a Fairfield, Iowa, laboratory.

The lab tests foods for the presence of genetically engineered materials. His clients include many large food retailers in Europe that have promised to start weeding out modified foods.

"These random mutagenic events can cause plants or crops to produce new toxins, new allergens or they can reduce the nutritional value of the food," Fagan said.

Because the toxins or other properties may be new, he said, there's no way to predict their effects.

"The only way to detect them will be actual feeding studies with paid human volunteers," he said. "They do this for drugs and new food additives, and yet these tests are not required of the agricultural biotechnology industry. The FDA's own scientists have expressed serious concerns about this."

New studies are raising questions, said Fagan, who for nearly 20 years, including seven years at the National Institutes of Health, has used genetic engineering techniques in basic research.

A preliminary study by the Center for Ethics and Toxics in the North Coast town of Gualala, published July 1 in the Journal of Medicinal Food, found that soybeans altered to withstand Roundup might be nutritionally inferior to conventional soybeans. The altered soybeans contain reduced levels of phytoestrogens, substances in plants that are credited with guarding against heart disease and cancer, among other health benefits.

In a 1998 preliminary study at Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, rats fed genetically modified potatoes suffered damaged organs and stunted growth compared with rats eating normal potatoes.

A review panel formed by the Royal Society, a scientific body, challenged the research. Researcher Arpad Pusztai has said the panel hadn't looked at his recent data.

Critics complain there is little study on the environmental effects of genetically altered plants. The Cornell University experiment was an exception.

"That tiny little Monarch butterfly experiment, one that any high school student could have done? Well, those studies weren't being done," said Ignacio Chapela, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at UC-Berkeley.

Researchers report that two beneficial insects that attack pests - ladybugs and green lacewings - also might be victims of the crops designed to kill the corn borer and the Colorado potato beetle.

The Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture found in 1998 that green lacewings suffered a two-thirds increase in death rate when they fed on army worms eating corn engineered to contain a bacteria toxic to crop pests.

The Scottish Crop Research Institute in Dundee concluded the same year that female ladybugs that ate aphids that had fed on genetically modified potatoes laid fewer eggs and lived only half as long as the average ladybugs.

In May, the British Medical Association warned that it was far too early to know whether genetically modified foods were safe. It opposed rapid introduction of the crops into Great Britain and advised a ban on imported foods if they weren't clearly labeled.

"We should follow the old public health tradition now being used in Europe, called the precautionary principle, which embodies the age-old wisdom of "look before you leap,' " said Bereano, of GeneWatch. "If there's a lot of uncertainty, the prudent course of action is to assess the product before sending it out for mass consumption.

"The burden of proof should rest on the proponent of the new technology."

Famine solution claims by GM firms exposed

July 8
Daily Mail

CLAIMS that genetically modified plants will produce more abundant crops and cut the need for pestkilling chemicals have been shown to be a sham. Findings by the U.S. Department of Agriculture demonstrate that such crops do not produce a higher yield and fail to reduce the use of pesticides.

American experts studied GM soya beans, maize and cotton being grown across huge tracts of the U.S. farming belt. In a devastating blow to the giant biotech companies, such as Monsanto and Astra Zeneca, they found no increase in yields from crops in 12 of 18 areas.

The findings shoot down arguments that Frankenstein foods could help stop hunger in the Third World. They also disprove claims that the plants, engineered to include their own pesticide, would need to be sprayed less often with chemicals.

Farmers in seven of 12 areas studied used the same amount of pesticide as those growing traditional crops. The findings support critics who argue that GM crops offer no benefits.

A report in today's New Scientist magazine says U.S. officials 'admit that at face value the figures don't provide much support for those who argue that genetic engineering will bring about a revolution in agriculture'.

GM critic Mark Griffi ths, a chartered surveyor and British rural land agent, said the latest figures confirmed other independent research. 'Where there are controlled trials, particularly in relation to soya, oilseed rape and sugar beet, they show that GM crops produce a consistently poorer yield compared to the unmodified varieties,' he said.

'Details of the problems are only becoming public now because previously the biotech companies have bypassed independent assessment of their crops. Only now are researchers at universities in the U.S. being able to run their own trials, and only now is the truth beginning to come out.'

Jonathan Matthews, of the Genetic Information Network which is opposed to GM technology, said: 'If yields are poorer and chemical use is largely no different there can be no reason to pursue this tainted technology.'

GM farms use more pesticides

July 8
London Times

A key justification for genetically modified crops has been thrown into doubt by new American Government research, the London Times reports.

Many farmers who have converted to GM production are using just as much pesticide as their counterparts who have stuck with conventional crops, and some farmers are even using more than they did before, according to figures published in New Scientist.

The US Department of Agriculture research also revealed that yields of GM crops were in most cases no better than traditional ones. The figures challenge biotechnology companies' insistence that GM crops assist farming efficiency and reduce the need for pesticides.

The department split America into regions and studied the performance of cotton, maize and soya beans which had been engineered to be resistant to insect pests or to the herbicide glyphosate.

It discovered that in seven of the 12 categories farmers using GM crops had to add the same quantities of pesticides to their fields as those growing non-modified crops.

The research, which used figures for 1997 and 1998, also found that after dividing the US into 18 regions, yields were no better in 12 of them.

Department officials admit that, at face value, the figures do not provide much support for those who argue genetic engineering will bring about a revolution in agriculture. Friends of the Earth claimed the research undermined the arguments of the biotechnology industry.

But Ralph Heimlich, an economic analyst, said that the study could be misleading, since farmers who have embraced GM crops might have had worse problems with pests to begin with.

There were also some success stories: insect-resistant GM maize in America's midwest produced a 30 per cent greater yield than ordinary crops.

Bt-treated crops may induce allergies

July 3
Science News

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a moth-killing bacterium that farmers use as an insecticide has been considered non-toxic to all but a few types of insect larvae. It may pose some health risk for people, however.

A new study of Ohio crop pickers and handlers finds that Bt can provoke immunological changes indicative of a developing allergy. With long-term exposure, affected individuals might develop asthma or other serious allergic reactions, notes study leader I. Leonard Bernstein of the U. of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

During more than 30 years of use, Bt has exhibited little human toxicity. However, "Its potential allergenicity had never been carefully addressed," Bernstein says. So, he studied farm workers before and after fields were sprayed.

In the July ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, his team demonstrates Bt's allergenicity. Before the pesticide's application, 4 of 48 crop pickers, about 8 %, had a positive skin test to Bt, indicating a sensitivity that can lead to an allergy. One month after harvesting BT-sprayed celery, parsley, cabbage, kale, spinach, and strawberries, half the pickers tested positive. That share climbed to 70% within another 3 months.

Workers with less direct exposure proved less likely to develop Bt sensitivity. Of 35 packers who washed and crated Bt-treated crops, just 5, or 15%, had positive skin tests after the spraying. Among 44 field hands working 3 miles away from Bt-sprayed fields only 5, or 11 % tested positive.

Blood tests confirmed that many workers who tested positive also had immunoglobulin E antibodies to the strain of Bt sprayed. These antibodies can signal a developing allergy. Hay fever sufferers, for instance, often produce such antibodies 4 or 5 years before symptoms such as sneezing develop.

"We'll take a look at this study," notes Chris Klose of American Crop Protection Association in Washington DC. If the new study's findings are confirmed, "the (pesticides) industry would be concerned."

"In terms of consumer safety, there is probably also reason for concern," says Brian Baker of the Organic Materials Review Institute in Eugene, Or. Gardeners and others "should remember Bt is a pesticide and show it the same respect they would other pesticides," he adds.

Though data show that Bt "has the potential to elicit allergic responses,"the pesticide was "not horribly allergenic" observes coauthor Mary Jane K.Selgrade of the Environmental Protection Agency in Research Triangle Prk, NC.

However, the new data are prodding the agency to develop standardized assays so that microbial-pesticide developers can rank the relative allergenicity of their products. Indeed, Selgrade notes, if what makes Bt allergenic is not what makes it pesticidal, developers might one day genetically manipulate Bt to make it less worrisome.

Bt is a selective insecticide used sparingly by organic gardeners. There is concern that its widespread use will result in new generations of resistant insects.