July headlines and summaries

Return to July article index

Tried and tested: why the consumer should trust GM cornflakes

July 26
Sydney Morning Herald column by Dr. David Tribe

It is an ill wind that blows no good, the adage goes. In the case of genetically modified foods, the intense criticism of the technology by lobby groups has meant GM crops are the most scrutinized breeds of crops ever offered to the marketplace.

This sometimes clamorous public debate has been very beneficial to the consumer. Political pressure gets the attention of government so GM foods have been put through a very public government-sponsored scrutiny and pronounced safe by regulatory agencies.

Most GM foods in Australia are imported processed foods - soybeans, corn, canola oil, sugar and potato; cottonseed oil is the only GM food currently produced in Australia, and there are no whole fruits and vegetables of the GM variety sold here.

Before dealing with the circumstances under which the consumer might feel confident that these and other GM foods are safe, it is worth asking what exactly GM food is.

GM started out life as an abbreviation for the method - "genetic modification by modern DNA-based techniques" - used in breeding new varieties of food crop.

It does not refer to any distinguishing characteristic of the food or crop, but only to the method used to breed it.

Since it is the properties and composition of the crop, not the techniques used in breeding it, that primarily influence its nutritional and safety properties, the logical connection of the GM tag with food safety can be tenuous.

For example, if GM methods are used to create a crop that is identical to a conventionally bred crop, the GM label is no indication of degree of hazard, as both crops would pose the same hazards.

Conventionally bred "non-GM" herbicide-tolerant crops are an example of this point and they are not subject to special regulations as they are regarded as "natural".

No food, GM or not, is ever completely risk-free. Celery, for instance, contains the chemical psoralen that can cause skin cancer, and green potatoes can be quite toxic.

We live quite well taking these risks.

What the GM tag does mean is that the food has been subject to special government safety assessments not required of conventional foods.

This is why consumers should feel reassured. The GM tag means that the product has been officially scrutinized by a State and Federal Government agency, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority.

The ANZFA is an independent food regulation body with the job of ensuring GM foods are safe for consumption.

It comprises a team of scientists and specialists who have scrutinized thousands of pages of detailed scientific reports on each of the registered GM foods being sold in this country.

The ANZFA describes in detail how it goes about this in a new booklet, GM Foods and the Consumer, available on the Internet - on www.anzfa.gov.au. GM foods passing through the ANZFA's scrutiny have undergone much more intense safety and nutritional testing than any conventional food.

However, despite all this careful assessment of safety, some consumers may not be adequately assured and it is important that these people have the right to avoid such foods.

That is why the expected labeling regulations being considered by the Commonwealth Government are such a sound idea, provided they don't impose unnecessary costs on the consumer.

It is expected that the Government will mandate labeling of any products that contain significant amounts of components from GM crops with rules that are consistent with those developed by the European Union.

It is still not widely known that some GM foods have recently been shown to offer safety improvements over conventional foods. GM corn contains less cancer-causing natural toxin from mould fungi than conventional corn.

Quite clearly, consumers will eventually prefer cornflakes with a GM logo when they fully understand the lower toxicity hazards of this product.

The corn in question, Bt corn, is a type of GM cereal grown widely in the United States which is protected against insect attack by the Bt protein.

Bt is a natural insecticide present in several GM crops. Bt corn has also been found to have less insect damage in the field than conventional grain.

Fungi tend to attack grain at the parts nibbled by insects, and mouldy grain is bad for you because of natural fungal toxins, known as mycotoxins, which are proven cancer-causing agents.

Another safety advantage in many GM foods is that levels of synthetic pesticide chemicals will be lower because of the adoption of GM technology by crop growers. Herbicide-tolerant crops, for example, allow greater flexibility to farmers in the way they manage weeds, and this flexibility translates into more environmentally responsible use of herbicide.

Reports by the US Department of Agriculture last week confirm earlier assessments that GM crops are associated with reductions of synthetic pesticide treatments over wide areas of the US.

For consumers, there are two other important advantages of GM foods still to come - lower prices, and decreased demand for farmland. Without GM, we will see rises in food costs, which will disadvantage less affluent people, and with population increases we will also see much expansion of farmed area, putting extra pressure on national park and wilderness areas.

To my mind it is important to get the safety issue behind us, so that these crucial other matters connected to the GM debate can be better understood by the public.

Dr David Tribe teaches biotechnology at the University of Melbourne, and serves pro bono on the national board of the Australian Biotechnology Association.

Vandals destroy hybrid trees

July 24
Bangor News

The vandals, who cut down about 3,000 small trees during the weekend attack at Dorman Farms, left their message loud and clear:

‘‘NO GE [genetically engineered] TREES!’’ read the spray-painted words on the side of a pickup truck on the property, with ‘‘WE’LL BE BACK!’’ scrawled on the truck’s other side.

There’s only one problem.

What the vandals apparently believed to be genetically altered trees were hybrids — trees cloned by conventional methods with no foreign genes, according to officials from the Mead Corp., a forest products company that leases the land from Dorman Farms.

‘‘We’re puzzled,’’ said Susan Parrella, communications manager for the Mead Corp., a $3.8 billion company with a paper mill in Rumford. ‘‘There is no gene splicing and no gene manipulation here. We are using tried-and-true farming techniques.’’

Parrella, who said the financial damage to the company was minimal, likened the farming technique to cloning a plant by repotting a clipping from its parent.

Genetically engineered plants differ from conventional plants in that they contain additional genes, which are spliced into the plant’s DNA. The additions may increase the plant’s size or resistance to pests or herbicides.

Brent Dorman, manager of the experimental tree farm, said researchers there had been testing the young trees for herbicide resistance and with a variety of fertilizers to develop a healthier strain of tree.

‘‘I suppose if they were trying to send a message, they did it,’’ said Dorman of the vandals, who also spray-painted the message ‘‘NO GE’’ on the farm’s fertilizer tanks. ‘‘But what they’ve really done is destroy about three years of research.’’

Dorman said the farm, which has been operating for four years, is conducting about 15 experiments on its 70 acres, all of which are leased by the Mead Corp.

The vandalism is reminiscent of the destruction of genetically engineered corn at the University of Maine-owned Rogers Farm in Old Town last August. There, vandals used machetes to hack about a half-acre of corn, the genetic makeup of which had been altered by university researchers to resist pesticides.

A group calling itself ‘‘Seeds of Resistance’’ later claimed responsibility for the damage. No arrests have been made in the case, which remains under investigation.

Although no group has yet claimed responsibility for the Milo act, the initials ‘‘C.M.C.’’ also were painted on the pickup truck, prompting authorities to focus their probe on finding a group of environmental activists.

Environmentalists have targeted genetically engineered crops throughout the world, citing the practice’s potential to alter the ecosystem.

The Milo act does not mark the first time a natural crop was mistakenly targeted by ecovandals. Last September, a group calling itself ‘‘Reclaim the Seeds’’ knocked down about 1.5 acres of conventional corn and sugar beets at the University of California at Davis.

In Milo, the vandals, who reportedly left several different sets of footprints at the scene, apparently entered the area by cutting out a section of a 12-foot-high wire gate that surrounds the tree farm, Dorman said. From there, the group evidently used machetes, axes and handsaws to level the trees, most of which were between 2 inches and 3 inches in diameter.

‘‘It was a highly organized attack,’’ said Dorman, who discovered the damage Monday morning when going out to water the crop. ‘‘It was more like a military action.’’

While dismayed that the vandals may have targeted a natural crop, environmental activist and Maine Senate candidate Nancy Oden of Jonesboro said the threat of genetically engineered plants is real. She called for corporations to keep the public apprised of their genetic research.

‘‘I think it just demonstrates the anger some people feel about these corporations thinking they have the right to change the earth’s gene pool to make an extra dollar or two,’’ said Oden when learning of the vandalism Monday afternoon. ‘‘It just proves the point that companies should involve the public before conducting this type of research.’’

The Milo crop was to be used for paper fiber, according to company officials.

Restaurants urged to use GM food labeling

July 24
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

State and territory health ministers are being urged to include restaurants and cafes in any labeling system for genetically modified (GM) foods.

The ministers are meeting in New Zealand on Friday to decide on a labeling regime.

Under guidelines proposed by the Prime Minister, restaurants would not have to identify meals made with GM foods.

Scott Kinnear, a representative for organic food producers, says people have a right to know if they are eating GM food, regardless of where they do it.

"Up to one third of meals are eaten in restaurants and cafes, so it's essential that they are included in the decision on Friday," Mr Kinnear said.

G8 meeting: Clinton attacks Europe for moving to slowly over 'safe' GM food

July 24
The Independent (UK)

PRESIDENT BILL Clinton criticized European leaders for moving too slowly on the promotion of genetically modified foods yesterday, after three days of talks among the Group of Eight leaders failed to overcome intense trans -Atlantic differences over the future of biotechnology.

"You know that I believe that," he said, when asked if he thought Europe is being too cautious on GM foods. "If we could get more of this golden rice, which is a genetically modified strain of rice, especially rich in vitamin A, out to the developing world, it could save 40,000 lives a day, people that are malnourished and dying."

"If it's safe - that's the big issue," he said, at a press conference with Tony Blair. "All the evidence that I've seen convinces me, based on what all the scientists know now, that it is."

Despite a determination to present a harmonious front at the end of the three -day summit of the G8 in the Japanese island of Okinawa, the leaders made little attempt to disguise their dispute over GM foods.

"There is the thesis supported by Jean Chretien (the Canadian Prime Minister) and Bill Clinton that GM foods aren't dangerous," said Jacques Chirac, the French President. "Then there is the other school, that of Europe and Japan, that considers the potential consequences for health and environment require precaution and scientific certitude."

Both France and the United States have powerful farming lobbies. Hundreds of US farmers who are growing GM crops, produced by companies such as Monsanto, have found their markets disappearing through a widespread refusal to buy them.

New US government figures show that the planting of GM corn and soya is decreasing, after years of rapid expansion, and even US shoppers are turning against the foods.

The European policy of "precaution," meanwhile, means GM foods are assumed to be unsafe until proven otherwise. "You have all of Europe stressing the principle of precaution," the European Commission President Romano Prodi said after the summit.

Japan's Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori said the leaders were considering setting up an independent panel to promote further discussion of the issue. 

The leaders, however, did not immediately endorse such an organization.

The final communique issued at the end of the summit made no direct mention of biotechnology as an area of concern, but referred to the "potential risks associated with food" in general.

Highlighting the different points of view expressed, it also called for helping the "capacity building (of developing countries) to harness the potentials of biotechnology," in a nod to the US position.

The statement said the G8 would explore how to "integrate the best scientific knowledge available into the global process of consensus building on biotechnology and other aspects of food and crop safety."

"This whole science of biotechnology is perhaps going to be for the first half of the 21st century what information technology was to the last half of the 20th century," said Mr Blair. "There are intensely held views on both sides, but the most important thing is that we get access to the best scientific evidence."

There was more consensus among the leaders concerning the nearly complete mapping of the human genome.

The communique praised the breakthrough as a "dramatic and welcome step" and urged fair intellectual property protection. On the genome, "there was no problem, no difficulty and no disagreement," Mr Chirac said.

G8 leaders find GM food accord hard to swallow

July 23
Reuters

OKINAWA - World leaders failed on Saturday to find common ground on an issue that will affect the lives of almost everyone on earth -- the vexed question of how to proceed on trade in genetically modified (GM) food.

The Group of Eight (G8) powerful nations, which had to call for expert advice after failing to agree at their annual meeting last year, only agreed in principle to set up a new panel to tackle problems linked to GM foods, Japanese officials said.

But the leaders still appeared unable to narrow gaps on how to proceed with discussions on health and environmental risks, an issue more divisive than ever thanks to a rising tide of public concern following several high-profile food safety mishaps.

``There are still big gaps between various countries' positions,'' a Japanese official said.

The talks were heated, Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato said, but he hinted Europe may have got its way over the United States with a mention in the final communique to be issued on Sunday of the ``precautionary principle'' that allows countries to block GM imports whose safety they doubt.

``It is very probable,'' he told reporters.

Few had expected the G8 -- the United States, Japan, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Russia -- to reach agreement on genetically modified food during this three-day meeting on the southerly Japanese island of Okinawa.

But the discussion on GM food, which contains a gene from a different organism to give plants resistance to herbicides or disease, exposed deep rifts among the participants.

U.S. bio-tech firms are already smarting from the adoption this year of the Biosafety Protocol, the first agreement regulating GM trade, that includes the precautionary principle.

Splits over focus for future work

Some leaders wanted to focus on the scientific guidelines in a new panel and others to concentrate on consumer and social matters, Japanese officials said. Domestic media said the issue virtually dominated their Saturday afternoon session.

It was unclear whether the panel would meet pre-summit ambitions to coordinate research and study based on the findings of a report last year's summit asked the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to draw up.

The United States, the world's biggest GM producer and home to a $4 billion a year GM food industry, is concerned coordinating further research could be just another way of delaying acceptance of the technology.

However, some experts say the United States may have to soften its stance in the face of European and Japanese demands for more stringent checks as there is growing acceptance that public concern is the biggest single barrier to GM trade.

French President Jacques Chirac told the session there should be an international dialogue among officials, scientists and civil society to reassure people globalization ``is not synonymous with increased risks.''

Disputes over GM food safety

The OECD report's assertion that governments are confident in the safety of GM products they have already approved has stirred up controversy.

Activists say the OECD has excluded anti-GM opinion from the process while favoring the biotech industry and scientists keen to promote GM research. Nor does its report provide definitive answers on some of the murkier scientific and ethical problems posed by GM food.

Some believe the jury is still out on other health and environment worries, prompting consumer groups to call on the G8 earlier this week to impose a moratorium on GM food development.

The United States has already lost millions of dollars in export earnings due to disagreements over what qualifies as safe and wants a clear set of science-based rules set up quickly.

Japan has tried to take a more neutral stance, but it too has been wary of the technology and a recent string of domestic food safety scares will hardly reassure nervous consumers.

Politicians in North America, where huge swathes of land have been planted with GM crops, accuse Europe and Japan of using safety worries as a pretext for trade protectionism.

GM food fight mars finale of G8 Okinawa summit

July 22
Reuters

Leaders of the eight most powerful nations wrap up their annual summit on Sunday fresh from drawing up ambitious plans to help poor countries reduce their debts and join the information technology (IT) revolution.

They have worked briskly through an array of long-term issues, from combating AIDS to the aging of their societies, but failed to find common ground on Saturday on the vexed issue of how to handle trade in genetically modified (GM) food.

The GM argument broadly pits European nations worried about the safety of GM foods and the United States, which says European concerns amount to protectionism in disguise, said Catherine Colonna, a spokeswoman for French President Jacques Chirac.

``The issue isn't settled this evening so we'll see tomorrow what's in the G8 communique,'' she told a French radio station. ''There are some pretty intense discussions going on.''

Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato said the talks were heated but hinted that Europe might get its way with a mention in a communique to be issued on Sunday of the precautionary principle that lets countries block GM imports on safety grounds.

``It is very probable,'' Amato told reporters.

In contrast to their disagreement over GM food, the leaders of the Eight -- the United States, Japan, France, Italy, Britain, Germany, Canada and Russia -- sang from the same hymn sheet on the desirability of launching a new round of world trade talks before the end of the year.

Many diplomats are skeptical new talks can be launched so soon after the acrimonious failure of an agenda-setting meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle last December, which was disrupted by rampaging anti-globalization protesters.

But the leaders said they were determined to try.

``I think there is a desire by everybody who was around the table to make sure that we resume the negotiations of the WTO before the end of the year,'' Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said.

India to test GM cotton

July 20
BBC

India's environment ministry has for the first time cleared the testing of genetically-modified cotton.

However, environmental campaigners say they will organize protests against the trials, which they say are illegal and unscientific.

A Bombay-based seed company, Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco), has been permitted to begin planting a form of pest-resistant cotton.

The cotton contains a special gene which makes it resistant to the common bollworm pest, which inflicts heavy damage on the crop.

The American bio-technology firm, Monsanto, owns the rights to the modified gene found in the seeds.

Mahyco will now undertake field trials over 85 hectares of land.

The seeds will not be used for commercial sales.

Protest campaign

Small-scale trials of genetically modified crops began in India in 1998 and have met with stiff resistance from environmental campaigners and several non-governmental organizations.

Environmental activist Vandana Shiva, who has been at the forefront of the protests, says the trials are illegal and unscientific.

Ms Shiva says a court case is continuing against the trials.

She accused the government of ignoring public opposition and illegally allowing the trials to go ahead.

She says several non-governmental organizations will organize a series of public debates on the issue in the southern city of Bangalore in September, as part of a program to mobilize support for the anti-GM campaign.

But the government has defended its decision by saying it sympathizes with public concern about genetically modified crops and food, but that it also recognizes the significance of genetic engineering.

The government says it has set the highest safety standards in the trials to ensure environmental protection.