July headlines

Return to July article index

Biotech corn maker expands agreement to compensate growers

July 25
AP

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. -- The creator of a genetically modified corn that mistakenly ended up in the food supply will expand its agreement to compensate farmers.

Growers who found their crop contaminated with the biotech product by cross-pollination now are included in the agreement.

Aventis CropScience reached a supplemental agreement with 17 state attorneys general acting on behalf of growers who may suffer losses due to infiltration of StarLink biotech corn into their crop, a company spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday. The attorneys general announced the deal Tuesday.

The corn was approved for industrial use and as animal feed but never licensed for human consumption because of questions about whether it can cause allergic reactions. Some of it was mixed with other varieties of corn in 1999 and again last year. Many farmers and grain elevators have been unable to sell their corn because of fears it may contain StarLink.

Taco shells were recalled nationwide and the Aventis product was withdrawn from the market last fall.

The four-year agreement announced in January between Aventis and the states, mainly in the Midwest, called for the company to pay farmers up to 25 cents per bushel for tainted corn and reimburse them for other losses.

The new agreement expands the offer to virtually all growers who can prove they were inadvertently supplied StarLink corn seed or that their corn was contaminated after being pollinated by StarLink corn.

``I think Aventis is working hard to correct the situation and make it right for farmers and elevators. They have mobilized to get the corn out of the grain chain and set up procedures and terms to pay producers and elevators whose grain may have lost value because of StarLink corn,'' Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran said.

The states involved with both agreements are: Iowa, Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wisconsin. The states represent more than 90 percent of the acreage planted with StarLink corn last year.

A National Institutes of Health panel held hearings earlier this month to determine whether StarLink should be allowed into the food supply. Aventis is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to allow a minimal amount in the food supply to avoid further recalls.

French pharmaceutical firm Aventis and Schering AG of Germany are in talks to sell their Aventis CropScience agrochemicals business to Germany's Bayer AG.

Brazil passes liberal law for labels on food with genetically changed ingredients

July 24
Knight Ridder/Tribune

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- Brazil might be about to permit genetically modified crops after the government issued a relatively permissive labeling requirement last week for food that contains genetically modified ingredients.

Allowing genetically modified crops in Brazil would mark an important step in the global battle over these foods. Brazil is the world's second-largest exporter of soybeans, a commodity used in a huge variety of food products across the globe.

President Fernando Henrique Cardoso issued a decree in Brazil's federal register July 18 announcing that as of Dec. 31, products with genetically modified content must say so for every ingredient that surpasses 4 percent of the product's volume.

The decision was a blow to environmental and consumer groups hoping for an outright prohibition or at least a European Union-like requirement to label food products that contain 1 percent or more of genetically modified organisms.

Supporters say genetic modification creates crops that resist disease and pests, reducing farmers' costs and requiring fewer pesticides and other chemicals. Opponents argue that not enough is known about possible risks to humans from consuming genetically modified foods and that consumers are dangerously unaware of what they are eating.

Cardoso's decree "is a political document more than anything, and it is scandalous," said Mariana Paolli, Greenpeace Brazil's chief of efforts against genetically modified foods. Paolli threatened a legal challenge.

Paolli and others who oppose genetically modified foods fear the product-labeling decision is an omen for a long-awaited decision on whether the government will allow farmers to grow genetically modified crops. Such crops are prohibited in Brazil but are under study. The government has allowed some imports of genetically modified corn.

Farmers and food manufacturers hope Brazil will follow the United States, the world's biggest soy exporter, and neighbor Argentina, the world's number-three exporter, in allowing genetically modified crops.

In the United States, most food products that use corn or soy ingredients may contain some measure of genetically modified crops. Livestock and poultry also are fed genetically modified feed.

Brazilian environmental and consumer groups had convinced some state and local governments to prohibit retail sales of products that contain genetically modified ingredients, but last week's decree overrides those regulations.

"We didn't have a federal ruling that could eliminate the multiplicity of rulings. We are very thankful," said Edmundo Klotz, president of the Brazilian Food Industry Association. The decree, he said, recognizes that genetically modified ingredients exist to some degree in most retail food products or would be impossible to detect and eliminate.

Brazil's roughly 35,000 companies that grow or manufacture food products and their ingredients take last week's decree as a green light to invest in biotechnology research, said Klotz.

"From now on we can be open to it and begin solving more problems," he said, noting that tomato growers hope genetic modification will allow for a more disease-resistant plant and banana growers are looking for ways to slow the blackening of their fruit.

Consumer groups complain that Brazilian regulators are too quick to follow the lead of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If the United States allows genetically modified crops, then the Brazilian government - under pressure from industry - will follow suit, they say.

"People are consuming genetically modified organisms without knowing it and that will not change" with the Brazilian decree's 4 percent threshold to trigger a label, said Greenpeace's Paolli.

In the United States and Brazil, the overwhelming majority of consumers appear indifferent to the presence of genetically modified ingredients in food products. Not so in the European Union, whose members collectively represent the world's largest soy importer.

Forbidding genetically modified crops would give Brazil an advantage against the United States in sales to Europe. But a broad stance against genetically modified crops for domestic and export sales would appear inconsistent with Brazil's acceptance of bulk imports of corn and rice that are likely to include genetically modified products.

Researchers use markers to avoid concerns over genetically modified food

July 24
Knight Ridder/Tribune

Suppose you could develop new varieties of corn or wheat in six or seven years instead of 10 or 12 years.

Suppose you could analyze soybean seedlings that are only a few days old, rather than waiting until the beans are ready to harvest, and could tell which plants would grow beans with lower fat content.

Suppose when you crossed a high-yield variety of a cash crop with a drought-resistant wild cousin, you could transfer only the drought-resistance trait, leaving behind the weedlike traits in two plant generations instead of four or six.

Suppose you could do all that now without modifying the genes of plants and arousing consumer wariness or unsettling export markets.

Researchers are doing so with techniques that use genetic markers, which are strands of synthetic DNA that they mix with plant material in the lab to identify a part of the plant's genetic structure, or DNA, without changing it. It's a technique that uses chemistry to guide agriculture.

"Markers have become profoundly important tools over the last two decades," said Marlin Edwards, the global lead scientist for the molecular breeding program at Monsanto Co.

Markers work at the cellular or molecular level, acting as signposts to DNA, he said. "They allow us to recognize unique stretches of DNA and thus allow us to characterize one individual versus another and determine whether they're similar or dissimilar for that particular stretch of DNA," he said.

In general, it's the same technology used in court cases to determine paternity or to identify crime suspects from a strand of hair or a drop of blood.

The techniques are being used by researchers in large corporations like Monsanto, in research centers like the Danforth Plant Science Center, in academic labs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the United Soybean Board and in small startups such as Orion Genomics at the Center for Emerging Technologies in St. Louis.

It's a marriage of technology and nature, using the latest in genetic research and the fastest computer technology to bring out the best that resides in plants.

Researchers are working with "naturally variable traits," Edwards said, specifically those that increase yield, resist disease or improve the quality of grain. "We're using markers to identify existing native, natural genes and then controlling those traits" with conventional breeding in most cases, he said.

Prakash Arelli, a professor of agronomy at the University of Missouri, believes technology that works with plants at the genetic or molecular level offers great promise.

"Traditional technology depends mostly on gambling and guessing games," Arelli said. "Molecular technology is pinpoint accurate and sharp." Researchers using markers "can do in the lab within two or three weeks the same kind of identification that might take a year or two using traditional techniques."

Researchers use genetic markers for a variety of tasks:

-- Mapping and sequencing plant genomes. Late last year, they completed the genome of arabidopsis. The small, weedy plant is being used as a model for genomic study of all plants, said Karel Schubert, the director of science administration for the Danforth Center.

-- Finding genes that could produce improved traits. Scientists are concentrating on areas in the genome that affect important processes like a plant's fruit or grain yield, disease resistance, or development of specific proteins or fats in the food product.

-- Getting desirable genes into a plant without introducing undesirable ones. For example, getting a drought-resistant gene into a plant without affecting yield or the taste of the fruit.

-- Speeding up the breeding-selection process.

Sifting through junk

Plenty of material that could improve plants is hiding in plain sight, said Nathan Lakey, the chief executive of Orion Genomics in St. Louis.

"Half the genome of a particular species is junk," Lakey said. In plant research, like in medical research for people, "the question is how to find what's valuable in that huge space of junk," he said.

Scientists know where to look, he said. For example, they know the approximate location of genes that regulate the water intake or the seed growth of most plants.

Orion struck a deal recently with a subsidiary of the New Zealand Dairy Board to sequence the genome of forage plants eaten by dairy cows. Orion's scientists will work with scientists based in Auckland. They'll share discoveries and technologies. Orion will use the information for row crops grown in the United States, and the New Zealand company, ViaLactia Biosciences, will use the information for forage plants.

Researchers are working to identify the best genes in a type of crop or within a variety and then to breed the genes into other plants. Also, they're looking for beneficial mutations -- new genetic variations -- that could improve plants.

"It's possible within a species there are mutations that are silent in their current form," Lakey said, meaning that they don't influence the plant's development or function. "But if they're combined with other genes, we could enable them to be recognized."

Staying simple

David Shleper, a professor of agronomy at the University of Missouri, said breeding researchers "try the simplest approach first."

"We put pollen from plant A onto the stigma of plant B."

Though the method of crossing plants remains the same, "We've gone from the whole-plant level to the molecular level," Shleper said. "That's what has changed" in the 27 years he has been researching new crop breeds.

"We used to depend on cruder means to evaluate" plant reproductive cells, he said. Now, computerized databases enable scientists to keep track of the possible combinations, and genetic markers enable them to choose only the best plants for further breeding.

Once the genes are identified, marker technology can help researchers to select plants with the good genes and to screen out the undesirable ones.

Researchers can test subsequent generations of cross-bred plants in the lab for the presence of the gene. If it's there, the plants are grown for seed. If it's not, the seedlings are discarded.

Such lab tests "replace a greenhouse process that takes a couple of months," said Edwards, the Monsanto scientist. "It saves a year or more of testing varieties you'd later abandon."

Grover Shannon, another Mizzou agronomy professor, directs field trials in Portageville, Mo., for a project to develop soybeans that are resistant to the cyst nematode.

Shleper and Arelli, the counterparts of Shannon's in the university's labs, "might find a new source of resistance and incorporate that in a gene," Shannon said. "My job in the field is to get that gene into something the farmer can use."

Whether through conventional breeding or genetic engineering, "You can put a gene into anything," Shannon said. "But will it yield? Is it well-adapted to different soil types? A farmer's not going to plant something that won't yield well."

GLOSSARY

DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid, the huge molecules that make up genes and contain the operating instructions for all living things.

Genome: The sum of all genetic information contained in an organism.

Genomic sequence: The order of the building blocks that make up DNA sections.

Stigma: The part of a plant on which pollen grains fall, beginning the process of becoming seeds.

EU to unveil controversial labeling rules

July 24
Reuters

Brussels -- The European Commission is due to unveil long-awaited proposals for labeling foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on Wednesday, part of a campaign to make the entire food chain more transparent.

Getting the European Union's stalled clearance procedure up and running again after over three years is aimed at removing a major irritant in transatlantic trade and follows a deal between Brussels and Washington ending a dispute over banana imports.

The GMO proposals, also expected to include strict requirements on traceability through the production process, have been held up for months -- delayed by wrangling inside the Commission between its agriculture, trade and environment units.

There have been a series of high level meetings designed to iron out the remaining difficulties but officials admit the proposal could undergo further changes when the full 20-member Commission meets on Wednesday.

``It comes down to a political discussion,'' one official told Reuters. ``How far do we go in tracing GMOs back through the food chain? It's not just a scientific question.''

Washington has already signaled its opposition to the new rules, particularly those on traceability, and they may do little to soothe trade relations with the United States, the world's largest producer of GMOs.

The U.S. has branded the plans unworkable, saying provisions calling for processed foods containing GMOs to have a complete record at each stage of the production process of where the GMOs comes from threatens to hit billions of dollars worth of exports to the EU.

It would prefer to see a labeling system based on testing of the final product for the presence of GMOs.

But EU Food Safety Commissioner David Byrne is adamant that the GMO strategy fits with his overall policy of guaranteeing food safety and transparency ``from the farm to the fork''.

EU officials say Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, on the other hand, believes the proposals go too far and fears they may jeopardize talks due for November in Qatar aimed at launching a global trade round.

Japan finds no StarLink traces in pig tests

July 23
Reuters

After a round of tests on the safety of unapproved StarLink corn as animal feed, Japan's Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry has found no evidence of health risks from pigs fed on the biotech product.

The results come after the ministry said in April it had found no health risks from chicken or milk cow products after similar tests on use of the genetically modified (GM) corn.

StarLink is controversial in Japan, where consumer opposition to GM products has intensified after traces of the product were detected in food and animal feed last October.

The corn, made by Franco-German pharmaceutical group Aventis SA , is not approved in Japan even for use as animal feed.

In the latest tests, researchers fed 20 pigs, each weighing about 30 kilograms (66.14 lb), with feed containing 70 percent StarLink corn for about 12 weeks until their weight increased to 110 kilograms.

No modified genes or proteins from StarLink gene-spliced corn were detected in meat, organs or blood of the pigs, the ministry said in a statement late last week.

Officials declined to comment on whether or when it might approve StarLink as animal feed.

Following the introduction in April of stricter rules on genetically modified products, importers said they believe the approval of StarLink for animal feed could give them a way to dispose of U.S. corn cargoes intended for human use that are now banned.

Such cargoes, which currently must be destroyed or shipped back to the country of origin, could be diverted for animal feed, they said.

The new rules set zero tolerance for imports containing unapproved GM products.

The discovery last October of traces of StarLink in food and animal feed prompted Japan, the single-biggest buyer of U.S. corn, to sharply cut its purchases. That sent importers scrambling to find other supply sources.

Japan imports four million tons of corn per year for food and another 12 million tons for animal feed.

In February, Aventis CropScience Japan KK, a unit of Aventis, applied to sell StarLink to Japan for use in animal feed.

In 1998, Aventis sought approval from Japan's Health Ministry to include StarLink corn in food products, but did not receive a reply.

In the United States, StarLink was approved for animal feed but not for human consumption because of concerns over potential allergic reactions.

It was found in taco shells last September, leading to an eventual recall of more than 300 food products.

StarLink was developed by Aventis to fight a destructive pest known as the European corn borer. The company maintains the corn has undergone years of rigorous testing and poses no health risks.

India: Activists thwart GM crop approval

July 22
IPS

New Delhi -- Concerted campaigning by vigilant international activists have thwarted approval for commercial production of genetically modified (GM) cotton in India, but the victory may be short-lived.

For one thing, Mahyco-Monsanto has been asked to conduct research trials for just one more year and lead campaigner, Devinder Sharma, says the transnational corporation is sure to exert even more pressure on the government next time around.

“It is a temporary victory gained only because Mahyco-Monsanto and its supporters in the government were caught trying to circumvent the mandatory three-year trial period,” Sharma said.

Sharma pointed out this major flaw in the government scientists’ presentation of data at the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests when it called an “open dialogue” prior to approving Mahyco-Monsanto’s Bt Cotton called ‘Bollgard.’

“To reach any long-term scientific conclusion for crop-based research, the accepted norm is that it should be based on three year’s of research,” Sharma said.

Earlier, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the government’s premier farm research outfit, has also raised objections to attempts at shortening the trial period favoring Mahyco-Monsanto, the Indian subsidiary of the United States-based multinational.

Pressing home the discomfiture of the government, Sharma and other campaigners are now calling for the disbandment of the discredited committee for attempting to “slip a scientific fraud on the public.”

Others, who attended the GEAC’s public dialogue, including Michelle

Chawla from Greenpeace International, complained that major environmental concerns that were raised were simply ignored.

“There has been no public disclosure or scrutiny to date of empirical evidence showing that scientific concerns have been addressed by Monsanto-Mahyco,” Chawla said. 

Doreen Stabinsky, science advisor with Greenpeace, said Bt-cotton threatened sound integrated pest management (IPM) practices that reduce pesticide use in cotton significantly while Bt-Cotton can also harm beneficial insects and lead to an increase in other pests and therefore increased pesticide use. 

“The (government) scientists at the meeting refused to even acknowledge these possibilities,” Stabinsky said.

The Indian government has been mum on this episode. 

Monsanto-Mahyco’s Bt-cotton field trials have always been shrouded in mystery and it took internationally well-known environmentalists like Vandana Shiva to blow the whistle on their existence in 1998.

In states like southern Karnataka, Prof. Nanjundaswamy, who leads the Karnataka State Farmers’ Association, reacted with a campaign to physically weed out fields planted with Bollgard, Bt-cotton.

While the Monsanto representative in India, Ranjan Smatecek, maintains that the Indian government has given necessary clearance at every stage of the trials, Shiva disputes this. 

Shiva’s Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) has in fact challenged the legality of the trials, approved by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), in the Supreme Court of India. 

Shiva said the next hearing of the case, pending since 1999, is likely to  take place in July when the Supreme Court resumes work after the summer break and that the attempt by the GEAC to approve commercialization, meanwhile, was such as to invite contempt proceedings.

“During the pendency of the court case, the GEAC could not even legitimately have commercialization as a valid agenda item at its meeting,” said Shiva, who refused to attend the ‘public dialogue.’

Sharma said that had the GEAC approved Bt-cotton, it would have opened the floodgates to other GM seeds and crops in a country that does not have technical and scientific infrastructure to deal with GM technology.

The DBT has already approved field trials for GM tomatoes, cauliflower and mustard by TNCs and is itself funding transgenic research in potato, rice, wheat and tobacco.

DBT’s Manju Sharma has previously said that India cannot afford to lag behind considering that millions of acres of transgenic plants are now being cultivated worldwide.

According to Devinder Sharma, deferment of permission was helped by a blitz of faxes and e-mails from activists around the world directed at Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Agriculture Minister Nitish Kumar, Health Minister C.P.  Thakur and Minister for Environment and Forests, T.R. Baalu.

He said the failure of Monsanto-Mahyco to obtain permission for commercialization in India was only a one-year reprieve. “We will just have to keep up our guard against Bollgard until next year,” he said.