July headlines

Return to July article index

Human cloning 'will never be safe'

July 6
Independent (UK)

Scientists have found potentially definitive evidence that cloning is far too unsafe to be used in human reproduction, should it ever be viewed as ethically acceptable in the future.

Hidden genetic defects were found in otherwise healthy cloned animals in a study that could fatally undermine the arguments for loosening controls on the most controversial area of reproductive technology.

The research could explain why a huge proportion of cloned animals are either stillborn or suffer from congenital defects, and points to the presence of an underlying genetic flaw in all clones. Professor Ian Wilmut, the British scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep, said last night that the research represented a serious blow to people such as Sevorino Antinori, the Italian doctor who has said that he wants to clone a baby.

"It surely adds yet more evidence that there should be a moratorium against copying people. How can anybody take the risk of cloning a baby when the outcome is unpredictable?" Professor Wilmut said.

The study was done by scientists drawn from two leading laboratories in America. They found that cloned mice that were healthy in all outward respects carried a high "burden" of genetic abnormalities, which could shorten their lives.

The cloning process has also been shown to cause a higher-than-normal incidence of birth defects. Other lambs cloned with Dolly, for example, either died in the womb or were born with serious imperfections.

Now, a team led by Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has found that healthy, cloned mice possess a hidden "instability" of their genes, which is not present in normal mice. The instability causes some genes to work, or to be "expressed", at abnormal levels, probably as a result of the cloning process bypassing the normal way that chromosomes from two parents work together when a sexually produced embryo is created by the fusion of sperm and egg.

Despite this instability, many of the cloned embryos survived to adulthood suggesting that mice and other mammals – including humans – are surprisingly tolerant of such genetic aberrations.

"This suggests that even apparently normal clones may have subtle aberrations of gene expression that are not easily detected in the cloned animal," Professor Jaenisch said.

The study, published in the journal Science, suggests that reproductive cloning causes unavoidable fundamental flaws, a finding that has surprised the researchers themselves, who included Ryuzo Yanagimachi of the University of Hawaii, the first person to clone adult mice.

David Humpherys, a member of the research team, said that by tagging certain genes, the scientists found that cloning appeared to upset a phenomenon known as "genomic imprinting", where the genes on the chromosomes from one of the parents are switched on or off.

"The big concern is that there would be some underlying problem that you can't see at birth or that there are other problems you can't even assess in mice, such as cognitive problems," Mr Humpherys said. "It seems very unwise to attempt this sort of cloning on humans."

Dr Yanagimachi was hailed in 1998 when he led a team of American, Japanese, Italian and British scientists who succeeded in producing a colony of 22 cloned mice.

The achievement, which some scientists believed was a biological impossibility, was expected to lead to new cancer therapies, improvements in agriculture and in the production of pharmaceutical drugs.

UN to set modified food guidelines

July 6
AP

Geneva -- The top U.N. food standards body agreed Friday to draw up global guidelines to ensure the safety of genetically modified food on supermarket shelves.

The 165 member states of the Codex Alimentarius Commission agreed that foods containing genetically modified organisms should be tested, in particular for their potential to cause allergic reactions - and should be labeled if they do. They were unable to agree whether labels saying food has been modified should be mandatory.

``This is the first global step toward the safety assessment of genetically modified foods,'' said Gro Harlem Brundtland, director-general of the World Health Organization. ``International agreement on how to perform risk assessment of genetically modified food will help all countries.''

Supporters of genetically modified food have said manipulating plants can make them more resistant to disease and reduce the use of pesticides that can harm the environment. But opponents maintain not enough is known about the health effects on consumers.

Some countries, especially in Europe, strongly favor measures making it possible to trace all foods and their components to their point of origin. Others, including the United States, argue such a system would be unworkable.

``We have to ensure consumers are not deceived by what they buy,'' said Alan Randell, secretary of the Codex commission. ``But we have also to ensure that a tracing system doesn't create extensive costs.''

A Codex commission task force hopes to have draft guidelines ready by 2003, when the body next meets, Randell said.

The Codex commission, established in 1961, is a joint body of the World Health Organization and the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization.

At the meeting in Geneva, which ends Saturday, it failed to agree on a mandatory ban on the use of bone and meat meal in animal feed.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, is believed to have been caused by contaminated feed prepared from animal carcasses.

A human form of the lethal brain disease, called new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, has claimed victims in Britain and other European countries, and is believed to be linked to the consumption of infected meat.

Frito-Lay says no StarLink in white corn chips

July 5
Reuters

Chicago -- Snack-food giant Frito-Lay Inc. said Thursday it was confident its white corn products did not carry traces of StarLink yellow corn after reports the genetically modified variety was found in white corn chips.

``We test all our corn when it leaves our farmers' farms and before it comes into our processing plants,'' said Lynn Marklay, spokeswoman for Frito-Lay, an $11 billion snack food division of PepsiCo Inc.

Marklay said the company contracts privately with farmers to grow the corn used in their snack-food products. ``The seed is provided and we strip test every load that comes into our plants,'' she said.

This has been a common practice at Plano, Texas-based Frito-Lay since last fall when StarLink was first discovered in food products.

More than 300 types of U.S. foods were recalled last year because the StarLink variety, approved only for industrial use and livestock -- but not for human consumption -- found its way into the food chain. StarLink carries the Cry9C protein that might cause allergic reactions.

Recent concerns about the presence of StarLink corn in the food supply resurfaced this week after reports that StarLink DNA was discovered for the first time in white corn chips. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration) said it found the genetic material from StarLink corn in Kash n' Karry White Corn Tortilla Chips from Florida -- one of 17 cases it tested last month.

The FDA, which analyzed the chips, found traces of Cry9C DNA but not the Cry9C protein. Additionally, the government report said the 17 people tested, who complained of possible allergy attacks, failed to show any signs of antibodies to StarLink's key component.

The National Corn Growers Association said the most recent discovery of StarLink corn in white corn products underscores the need for acceptable tolerance levels for StarLink in food products. Aventis SA the Franco-German pharmaceutical group that made StarLink, estimated this spring that more than 430 million bushels of U.S. corn supply was tainted with sample amounts of its StarLink altered corn.

According to industry sources, it is possible for a trace amount of StarLink corn to contaminate an entire railcar or barge filled with U.S. corn.

``It continues to be important that there are tolerances for products proven to be safe. Currently, we don't have any tolerance for the protein,'' said Tom Slunecka, director of industry relations for the National Corn Growers Association.

``One hundred percent purity is nearly impossible to meet for today's food supply,'' Slunecka said.

FDA alerts stores over white biocorn

July 4
AP

Food Lion and Kash n' Karry grocery chains pulled their store brand white corn tortilla chips from shelves Tuesday in response to concerns raised by the Food and Drug Administration about StarLink genetically modified corn used in the chips.

The recall marks the first time the FDA has identified a white corn product as containing StarLink. Detection of the yellow variety of the corn prompted widespread recalls last fall of tortillas, taco shells and other products that contained it.

Aventis CropSciences genetically engineered StarLink to contain a pesticide protein. The corn has been approved for animal feed but not for human consumption due to concern that the protein might cause allergic reactions.

Lawrence Bachorik, a spokesman for the FDA, said the agency contacted Kash n' Karry on June 26 to alert it that tests it ran on the chain's brand chips that expired on June 23 contained genetic material from StarLink but not the protein itself. Bachorik said the agency is continuing to monitor the situation.

Wise Chips, the manufacturer of the chips, has also been contacted by the FDA.

Kinzey said the FDA has not issued a recall and has not contacted Food Lion about the StarLink white corn. Both chains, which are owned by the Delhaize Group, have decided to pull the brand of white corn chips indefinitely. The group has notified food chains it owns in Belgium, Greece and the Czech Republic.

Following the recall of StarLink yellow corn products last fall, many tortilla makers switched to white corn, which represents only a small fraction of the American corn market.

Wine producers should be wary of genetic engineering efforts

July 4
newsroom.co.nz

Marlborough-based Green MP Ian Ewen-Street today said New Zealand wine producers should be wary of international efforts to genetically engineer grape vines.

"New Zealand wine makers, such as those in Marlborough and Hawkes Bay, should be particularly concerned at moves to genetically engineer grape vines, as such moves are at odds with the crucial clean, green reputation of New Zealand wine," said Mr Ewen-Street.

Mr Ewen-Street said although there were no plans to genetically engineer grape vines in New Zealand, the use of genetic engineering in viticulture was an issue that New Zealand wine producers were going to have to address and take a position on at some time or other.

"While the promises of genetic engineers are designed to appeal to the producers of food and wine, the reality is that the overwhelming consumer opposition to genetically engineered products means they are virtually unsaleable," he said.

"Moves abroad to genetically engineer grape vines show that nothing is sacred. We hope the Royal Commission into Genetic Modification will recommend that our crops, our animals and our environment stay GE-Free and, in doing so, protect the clean green image that we trade upon so heavily," he said.

Mr Ewen-Street said genetically engineering crops for food had been disastrous for producers as consumers around the world did not want to eat genetically engineered foods.

"I am sure the same will be true for wine," he said.

"Wineries in New Zealand should keep a close eye on what is happening in this area overseas, especially given the scale of investment in wine in New Zealand.

"The Greens believe moves to genetically engineer grape vines is bad news for the global wine industry and we hope wineries across New Zealand take a firm position opposing the use of this technology in their industry."

Eating GM food is safe: expert

July 4
The Age (Australia)

There is no evidence to suggest that eating genetically modified foods is harmful to human health, a Melbourne University biotechnology professor said last night.

More than 300 million people worldwide have been eating genetically modified foods for the past five years and there have been no reports of related illness, Victoria's ambassador for biotechnology, Adrienne Clarke, said in an address at the Australian National University in Canberra.

By contrast, more than 7000 people in the United States die, and a further 300,000 are admitted to hospital each year from food poisoning caused by bacteria such as salmonella and E.coli.

"There is no reason to expect adverse health effects (from eating GM foods) because we eat foreign DNA every day," Professor Clarke said. "There's never been any evidence that foreign DNA gets incorporated into the human genome."

Professor Clarke said genetically modified foods underwent far more vigorous testing than conventional crops and it was often overlooked that organically grown crops contained high levels of bacteria after the application of manure.

GM foods require fewer chemical pesticides and herbicides than conventional crops and in the US $200 million had been saved by the decreased use of herbicides, Professor Clarke said.

Since 1996, 44.2 million hectares of land worldwide has been planted with GM crops, with Australia accounting for 150,000 hectares. The US has 30.3 million hectares planted with GM crops, followed by Argentina with 10 million hectares.

Australia's gene technology regulations came into effect last month, with the aim to make biotech companies conducting GM trials more accountable.

In rural Australia, concerns are growing that GM crops have already contaminated conventional crops and the environment.

Professor Clarke said the regulation of GM crops should be left to scientists.

Thailand: FDA decides GM food must be labeled

Focus on corn and soybean initially

July 4
Bangkok Post

Food products containing more than 3-5% of genetically modified corn or soybean will be required to have labels, the Food and Drug Administration said yesterday.

Speaking after a meeting to draft a ministerial announcement on GM food products, FDA secretary-general Vichai Chokewiwat said only two products would be covered in the initial stage.

The FDA had to make sure it had the capacity to test all products made from the two substances. There were thousands of products made from genetically modified corn and soybean, Dr Vichai said.

The committee also decided that only final products ready for consumers should be tested for GM content before they are labeled.

"It would be very costly and complicated to require testing of the raw materials used to make the products, for this would mean all packaging of the raw materials used would have to be tested for GM content," Dr Vichai said The Thai-language label must be clearly shown, with the lettering not smaller than 2mm in size.

It should specify that the product is "made from genetically modified corn" or "made from genetically modified soybean".

The committee comprising representatives from both government and non-government organizations also hotly debated on the color in which the statement should be printed, and eventually decided against the use of red color.

"Red color is usually used for warnings, but in this case we're not saying that the product is dangerous. We only want to inform consumers that the product contains GMOs," Dr Vichai said.

He stressed the labeling was being enforced only to inform the public, and that it was not a warning the product was not recommended for consumption. The announcement is to be issued in December, and will allow manufacturers 180 days to clear their stocks from the market, before the announcement takes effect.

Another committee will decide next month whether products with less than 3-5% of GM content require labeling.

GMOs: French regional government to subsidize buying non-GM soymeal

July 3
BridgeNews

Paris -- The government of the Aquitaine region in southwest France is launching a 4-million-franc plan to help cattle farmers buy local non-genetically modified soymeal for feed, a spokeswoman said Tuesday. The council estimated the farmers pay 800 francs per ton more to buy local soymeal than they would pay for imported soymeal, and the aid would cover half of that additional cost.

The main advantage for farmers to buy local soymeal is that the product is fully traceable and GM-free, a council spokesman said.

The expected cost of 4 million francs is based on the region's cattle population of around 20,000.

The measure complements a 15-million-franc aid plan launched in February to help cattle farmers in the Aquitaine region recover from the economic costs of the mad cow disease crisis.  

The threat of green fascism

July 1
Times of India column by Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar

Humans love horror stories, which is why R.L. Stine is a best-selling author. So I am not surprised by the popularity of horror stories being invented about genetically modified (GM) foods and cotton.

A recent news item says, in apocalyptic tones, that unknowing Indians may already have consumed some GM foods. Surprise surprise, no Indians have suddenly sprouted horns or 11 toes. Nor have Americans who have eaten GM foods for a decade.

But horror stories attract large audiences, and R.L. Stine today has rivals in Greenpeace, various Indian organizations, and green fundamentalists in general. They have succeeded in blocking the release of bio-engineered cotton in India.

Many Indian scientists and farmers have pointed out that biotechnology holds the key to greater agricultural prosperity, freedom from hunger, and reduced pollution from pesticides and fertilizers. Yet green horror books say that genetically modified (GM) foods and cotton are potential monsters. Don't be impressed by the long list of technical arguments they put forward. These are based on fundamentalist notions of genetic correctness which are almost fascist.

Nothing is commoner in agriculture than cross breeding. The green revolution was created by genetic engineering. Ah, say the fundamentalists, but that is cross-breeding within certain racial limits, which is okay. But GM foods represent the mixing of genes across different genomes akin to different races--and we must oppose that since it could create monsters.

The argument is eerily Hitlerian. Green fundamentalists are whipping up public hysteria against a particular set of plants just as Hitler whipped up hysteria against Jews. Hitler approved of the crossing of genes between white races, but was absolutely horrified at the prospect of Aryan genes being polluted by Jewish or negroid genes.

Similarly, the green fascists approve of conventional cross-breeding within a genome, but are horrified by crosses across genomes. Hitler demonized breeding across races as a genetic threat to pure Aryans, whom he regarded as obviously superior and so ordained by god. Green fundamentalists demonize GM foods as genetic threats to what they claim to be superior, God-given varieties.

Prince Charles of England, a prominent green fundamentalist, says genetic engineering amounts to disturbing Gods rules. I am not aware that Prince Charles has special access to God, any more than Hitler did. Scientists who are atheists must find hilarious the accusation that they want to play God. Price Charles does not inform us whether he is in touch with a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or some other God. As a scion of an empire on which, in colonial times, the sun never set, he possibly believes that he can claim sovereignty over all Gods.

Fundamentalists protest that crosses across genomes are very different from crosses between human races. Some liken GM foods to crossing a human being with a pig to produce a monster. Really? Does genetically engineered corn or cotton look like a donkey-human cross?

Hitler looked on a cross with Jews as no better than a cross with pigs. Hindu fundamentalists regard miscegenation with Muslims with the same horror. Green genetic prejudice is simply a new form of such age-old prejudices.

The fundamentalist argument, that plants created by God are distinct from plants created by man, is bogus. If God did not want humans to make crosses across genomes, he would have arranged accordingly. The very fact that he made it possible surely proves that it part of his Great Plan. If indeed there is a God, and if indeed there is a Great Plan.

As for those who swear by nature rather than God, the fact is that man is part and parcel of nature, not an alien from outer space. Anything animals, bacteria or birds do is part of nature. So is anything done by man.

In any case, crosses across genomes are part and parcel of nature. The whole history of evolution is full of crosses across genomes. The horror of fundamentalists that genetic engineering will create unprecedented crosses is rather like the horror some dinosaurs might have felt a million years ago if told that they would evolve into human beings.

Beware of notions of genetic correctness. All are fundamentalist. Bal Thackerays gut horror of Muslims is not dissimilar. During the Babri Masjid agitation, Hindu fundamentalists sneered that Muslims were Babar ke aulad (children of Babar). For green fundamentalists, GM foods and cotton are the aulad of another Babar. Its genetic communalism in another guise.

What then should we call the struggle of green fundamentalists against bio-engineering? Mein Kampf? Towards a Green Ram mandir?

It is with some reluctance that I find myself using the expression green fascism. Greenpeace and various Indian organizations have done lots of good work in improving environmental awareness. But their attitude to biotechnology is too Hitlerian for comfort.

They will protest that they are not asking for gas chambers, they are merely asking for extensive testing of GM varieties to ensure that there are no dangers. This is mendacity. Most of them simply do not want GM foods, and so have hit on the ploy of demanding ever-new tests about ever-new dangers. They will be happy to keep enunciating new possible dangers and keep demanding additional tests forever. One of the tests they have demanded for bio-engineered cotton could take 20 years. This amounts to ensuring genetic purity through never-ending tests rather than gas chambers. An improvement in procedure, no doubt, but not in philosophy.

I once read a piece by David Melchett of Greenpeace protesting about even field tests of GM varieties. Do you realize, he said, that winds could carry pollen from the GM test sites to others, polluting ordinary plants? It did not bother him that the winds could equally well carry pollen from ordinary plants to GM ones, polluting them.

He implicitly believed his preferred varieties to be genetically superior, and so worried only about the pollution of what he considered superior by what he considered inferior.

This reminded me of the British Raj, when whites were horrified at the prospect of any white woman bearing a black child, but had no qualms about fathering children by fornicating with Indian women. Some actually believed that they were infusing Indian women with superior genes. The Raj is dead but Greenpeace lives on.