July headlines

Return to July article index

Secrecy surrounds GM wheat trials in Prince Edward Island

July 27
CBC

CHARLOTTETOWN -- The location of test plots for genetically modified wheat on Prince Edward Island has been kept so secret that even the provincial agriculture minister has been kept in the dark.

"I absolutely think the province has a right to know," said P.E.I. Agriculture Minister Mitch Murphy.

But a series of government documents published in an Island newspaper revealed the province didn't know where the GM wheat was planted.

Last March, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency told P.E.I. that biotechnology company Novartis wanted to test some GM wheat in the province.

P.E.I.'s agriculture minister sent back a list of questions. The CFIA asked Novartis to answer them.

In response to the question of the exact locations of the field trial sites, Novartis replied the information was "strictly confidential."

Novartis says it is worried about vandalism and wants to ensure the safety of its personnel. The company also says it wants to protect its intellectual property from industrial espionage.

"I don't think the issue of industrial espionage, if we can use that term, is a good enough reason not to be transparent with the information," said Murphy.

Farmers across Canada concerned

Island farmers like David Mol are also curious. The Kensington, P.E.I., farmer wonders if one of the test sites was anywhere near his fields.

"I'd be concerned with cross-pollination, or that proper procedures and safety protocols were followed," said Mol.

Farmers across the country have expressed their concerns about the test plots.

Earlier this week, a group representing Saskatchewan farmers and health activists called on the prime minister to prevent the introduction of GM wheat.

The Canadian Wheat Board has also failed in its attempts to find out where the test plots are located.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says its hands are tied by privacy laws.

CFIA spokesperson Stephen Yarrow said he's sympathetic to the reasons why people want to know.

"We are on the side of the protection of proprietary information," he said. "That's how it looks, because that's how it is."

Transparent process needed

Murphy says more openness will lead to greater acceptance of GM wheat once it's ready to market.

"If we're going to give this technology a true evaluation, then the process used to test it has to be open and transparent," said Murphy.

Murphy also said Ottawa didn't answer his inquiry about who would be liable if something went wrong with the tests.

Brazil's battle over GMO unlikely to end this year

July 27
Reuters

Sao Paulo -- Consumer and environmental groups in Brazil said the government's recent offensive to open the country to the sale of genetically modified foodstuffs (GMOs) would prove a long, hard fight.

For almost half a decade the government and biotechnology companies like U.S.-based Monsanto Co. have warred with environmental activist Greenpeace and local consumer groups IDEC and Procon in the local courts over the GMO status of Latin America's agricultural workhorse.

Brazil is one of a few large agricultural producers in the Western Hemisphere to still ban the sale of GMO from its grocery shelves, as well as GMO animal feed and grain -- the reason perhaps that environmental and consumer groups see it as the last great stand against biotechnology companies.

IDEC and Greenpeace activists protested before the Agriculture Ministry in Brasilia on Thursday against the liberalization of GMO sales in Brazil.

``We are not immediately concerned over the government's actions. There are still many questions raised by the injunction that have not been answered yet, such as how GMO will be segregated from conventional grains,'' said Mariana Paoli, genetics specialist for Greenpeace in Brazil.

The Agriculture Ministry took the offensive over the past two weeks toward the liberalization of Brazil's market to GMO sales. Last week the ministry published a decree that requires all commercial food stuff with more than 4 percent GMO to bear a consumer label by 2002.

The ministry then said on Wednesday it was set to petition the courts next week to lift their injunction suspending the sale of five Monsanto GMO soybean strains in Brazil.

``Our injunction still stands. It will take some time for the government and Monsanto to prove that there is no threat to human health or the environment and most importantly that there is an entire system ready to separate GMO from conventional grain,'' said Paoli.

Brazil's GM-free reputation has its commercial benefits. Some of the country's important agricultural exports such as soybeans and corn have won special premiums from health conscious consumers in Europe and Japan who have been resistant to GM technologies.

The ministry's advisory body on the safety biotechnology, the CTNBio, had approved the sale of the Round Up Ready Monsanto soybeans in 1998 but the courts, at the request of Greenpeace and IDEC, initiated an injunction.

``At the time, the judge lacked a lot of the sufficient information he needed to make a judgment, so he approved the injunction on the doubts that Greenpeace and IDEC raised,'' said a spokeswoman for the CTNBio.

``But the situation has changed. The ministry is likely to approve the Round Up Ready varieties and the labeling system will be in place by 2002 which will include a plan to keep conventional grains separate.''

The spokeswoman said the Monsanto varieties of soybeans were the only GMO grains so far that it had recommended the ministry approve for sale in Brazil. It is analyzing health and environmental data for other varieties of BT corn, but this is expected to take several months.

If GMO is approved in Brazil over the next year, Monsanto may find itself in an exceptionally favorable market position. Unless other companies seek and secure approval from the CTNBio, Monsanto could be the sole biotechnology company with license to market its GMO beans in Brazil.

Growing the future

July 27
Wall Street Journal

There`s a new front in China`s internal battle over trade: genetically modified organisms. Ever since Beijing passed some anti-GMO regulations a few months back, farmers, manufacturers and government have been sparring over how the products should fit into China`s future. But unlike Europe`s activism, China`s relationship to biotech will have real consequences for the country. As Huang Jikun, head of the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, explains, ``I haven`t seen anyone die of GM crops so far, but every year nearly 500 people in China die of pesticide poisoning used with traditional crops.``

That endorsement should clarify China`s policy for the world. While countries in the European Union, Japan and Korea have become panic-stricken over GM products like Starlink corn making it into their Food products, theoretical concern is a luxury China can`t afford. In a country with little arable land, desperately poor farmers and political concern about over-dependence on other countries to supply its food needs, China must continue its pursuit of biotechnology tools.

The proposed regulations, if taken to a European extreme, would cause an industry panic. But unlike Europe, China has no consumer protesters. Consumer awareness may be growing, but GMO products barely register a blip on consumers` radar screens. In addition, consumers are unorganized and have little political clout. China seems certain to continue its pursuit of biotechnology tools. The question is how to navigate the political obstacles.

Many observers say the Ministry of Agriculture is trying to get the best of both worlds. One set of farmers and officials in the MOA want protection from cheaper and often higher-quality imports and are opposed by commodity processors and another set of farmers and MOA officials seeking the cheaper production costs those GMO products provide. Meanwhile, on the one hand, as the manager of large state farms that grow soybeans and corn, China wants to restrict imports to boost domestic prices while trying to promote Chinese corn as ``GMO-free`` to make export sales to South Korea and Japan. On the other hand, MOA livestock feeding operations benefit from cheaper soybean imports, and their own state farms will benefit from using GMO seeds.

Given all that, China can only try to argue for restrictions on scientific grounds, something they are unlikely to press because the government itself has been leading research into GMOs for years. From genetically modified seeds to animal cloning, the Chinese government is aggressively trying to harness biotechnology in order to increase domestic output and reduce production costs. And despite current international concerns over issues such as Starlink corn, China appears committed to developing home-grown techniques as well as encouraging international investment in this area.

All of this must be set against the backdrop of China`s imminent entry into the World Trade Organization. While China may want to limit imports, neither the MOA nor the central government is likely to play up the biotech arguments that are so often abused for political purposes elsewhere in the world. And, of course, any argument China might make for restrictions on GMO imports as a tool to help protect their farmers would go against World Trade Organization rules and land them in a bunch of trouble.

There are strong arguments from farmers who don`t want any ``protection`` from biotech. Genetically modified cottonseed, first introduced to China by Monsanto several years ago, is perhaps the best-known weapon against cotton bollworm, which plagued northern China in the mid-1990s. Today more than 700,000 hectares of transgenic cotton grows in China. The resounding success of GMO cottonseed has sparked farmer interest and government research, and a Chinese competitor has now developed its own brand of anti-bollworm GMO cottonseed.

As in the United States and Argentina, farmers say lower costs for inputs such as pesticide more than make up for the more expensive seeds. In fact, partially due to the success farmers had in 1999 in the Shandong/Henan border area, cotton acreage increased in 2000 and again in 2001 by an estimated 10% to 15%. This success has also sparked interest in other GMO seeds. The Committee of Genetics Engineering Safety has received nearly 200 GMO seed patents for potential sale to Chinese farmers.

If marketplace success for farmers, seed companies and processors was not enough, further indication that the Ministry of Agriculture will not tamper with its current pro-GMO formula came in the form of a June report published on its Internet site. The report, written by a guest commentator, first gave a nod to the plight of farmers, explaining that some farmers would benefit from higher prices and lower competition should China restrict GMO grains. But the report also said that such a decision would have gloomy long-term repercussions.

For one, if China wants only GMO-free soybeans, domestic prices would skyrocket and supplies would fall far short of demand. For another, the country would suffer a soybean meal shortage that would cripple the animal feed industry, escalate meat prices and spike the inflation rate. China`s crushing industry would be hit by massive losses. Perhaps most importantly, the report noted, any attempt to ban GMO grains could affect China`s accession to the WTO, or put the government in a position to be sued in WTO court once it gets in.

It was not surprising, then, that as they put the finishing touches on the much-awaited guidelines, Vice-Ministers and MOA planning department apparatchiks say that the impact of its new regulations will be negligible and that they will not reduce GMO soybean production or demand.

The problem is that, as with any new Chinese regulation, what matters is not what is written or said but how it is actually implemented. One of the biggest worries is that local plant and quarantine officials will look at the heavy testing and paperwork requirements in the new GMO regulations and see an opportunity to grab extra fees from importers in return for expediting the customs clearance process. Arbitrary procedures and fees imposed by local quarantine and customs officials have long been an impediment to imports.

In fact, one of the focal points of the recent U.S.-China agricultural issues agreement for WTO was a promise by Beijing to set up a central office and hotline for responding to complaints by importers and suppliers when local officials overstep their authority. But again, it will take a few actual test cases before anyone will feel confident about how the new rules will be implemented.

That is where China`s impending entry into the WTO will come in handy, both for foreign exporters and Chinese or foreign crushers in China using foreign beans. If a company believes the new guidelines might make it difficult or more expensive to import beans, it could bring a suit at the WTO court. Just as likely, China would seek to avoid the suit by amending its implementation guidelines.

But as long as the Chinese government believes it has more to gain from GMO products than it has to lose, it will act in its own best interests and not impose significant restrictions on GMO product imports or on GMO research.

New Zealand: Thriving organics industry highlights GE threat

July 26
Greenpeace press release

Green Party Agriculture Spokesperson Ian Ewen-Street MP today said news that the New Zealand organics industry will generate around $110 million this current financial year showed what New Zealand stood to lose if genetically engineered organisms were released into the environment.

Figures from New Zealand's Organic Products Exporters Group (OPEG) predict domestic and export sales of our organic produce will rise from $65 million last year to around $100 million this year. OPEG predict these sales will reach $500 million by 2006 and say the value of the domestic organics market is doubling annually.

"These figures are timely given that on Friday the Royal Commission into Genetic Modification will report to Government and make a series of recommendations on what path this country should take in relation to genetic engineering," he said.

"It is important that people realize that organics and genetic engineering in agriculture are mutually exclusive. Genetic engineering poses a serious threat to organics because of the possibility of horizontal gene transfer and pollen contamination. The two simply cannot co-exist."

Mr Ewen-Street said he was delighted but not surprised that the organics industry was showing such strong and sustained growth. He said the report from the inquiry and the Government's response to it would be critical in determining the future of this industry.

"New Zealand trades heavily on our clean green image and organics helps give that image some real substance. People buy our produce because they believe it to be cleaner and safer than food produced in other countries," he said.

"New Zealand currently has a massive economic advantage in being GE Free and our organics industry is thriving as a result. If we keep genetic engineering out of our environment and commit to producing the cleanest, safest food in the world our agricultural and horticultural sectors will benefit enormously."

Views on genetic modification of food influenced by religious beliefs, not just science

Jewish support strongest; majority of Christians in opposition; Muslims least supportive

July 26
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology press release

WASHINGTON -- Although the debate over genetic engineering of food and animals has focused mainly on relative benefits and risks, many Americans also have ethical or religious views that significantly affect the way they think about this new technology, according to a Zogby International poll released today by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.

When asked specifically about their own religious or moral views in regards to agricultural biotechnology, a majority of Christians (Protestants, born-again Christians and Catholics) and a plurality of Muslims say they are opposed to moving genes from one species or organism to put into another, the poll found. Jews were the only religious group polled that had a majority that supported this technology.

Overall, 57 percent of Protestants (62 percent of Evangelicals) oppose the technology based on their religious or ethical views while 37 percent are in favor; Catholics followed closely behind with 52 percent opposed and 42 percent in favor. Among Muslims, 46 percent said they are opposed, with 32 percent in favor. Jews were the most favorable of the technology, with 55 percent in favor and 35 percent opposed.

However, a majority in all religious groups believes that humans should use their knowledge to improve the life of other humans. When probed on the question of whether man has been empowered by God to use science to improve life or whether man is ``playing God,'' a majority of all those polled felt humans have been empowered by God to improve life. Jews and Muslims agreed the most strongly with the statement on empowerment (62 percent and 61 percent agreed, respectively), followed by Catholics (55 percent) and Protestants (54 percent).

In addition, most of those polled, regardless of religion, felt it is important to improve the world or strike a balance between improving and preserving it. Jewish adults feel most strongly that humans have an obligation to improve the world (60 percent). Protestants are more likely than other religious groups to say that humans should strike a balance (43 percent), with nearly half of born-again Christians (48 percent) saying humans should strike a balance.

The poll was released as part of a panel discussion hosted by the Initiative titled ``Genetically Modifying Food: Playing God or Doing God's Work?'' Margaret Warner, senior correspondent for the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, moderated the panel, which explored the religious, moral and ethical considerations that play into the debate over agricultural biotechnology. Speakers included: Jaydee Hanson, General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church; Dr. Robert Gronski, National Catholic Rural Life Conference; Rabbi Avram Israel Reisner, Baltimore Hebrew University; and Prof. David Magnus of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

``The debate over this technology has largely centered on the science issues, but there is clearly an ethical side to it as well that is shaping American hearts and minds,'' said Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Initiative. ``This survey shows that while Americans have concerns about moving genes between different species, they also support the idea that we have been empowered by God to understand nature and use science and technology to improve the human condition.''

The poll, part of a nationwide survey of 1,117 adults 18 and older, was conducted by Zogby International from July 16-20, 2001. The margin of error is +/- 5 percent for Protestants, +/- 5.7 percent for Catholics, +/- 7 percent for Jewish, and +/- 9 percent for the Muslims.

To read the poll questions, for more details on the results, and to watch a 85 minute video about this topic, go to http://www.pewagbiotech.org/events/0726

The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research project whose goal is to inform the public and policymakers on issues about genetically modified food and agricultural biotechnology, including its importance, as well as concerns about it and its regulation. It is funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to the University of Richmond.

Insecticides still used despite biotech

July 25
UPI

AMES, Iowa -- Iowa State University scientists say insecticide use still is widespread despite promises that biotech corn designed to repel the European corn borer would reduce pesticide levels.

Environmentalists say the study challenges the assumptions made when these genetically engineered crops were approved.

Runoff from farm chemicals is a major cause of water pollution, and scientists turned to genetic modification in a bid to reduce that chemical contamination. The Agriculture Department's Agricultural Research Service calls soil insecticides among the most toxic agriculture chemicals around.

Has biotech corn lived up to its promise?

"From our point of view, based on the past two or three years of data, the answer would be no," researcher John Obrycki and three colleagues wrote in a recent issue of BioScience, adding that biotech may not be the "silver bullet" it was once thought.

Developers of biotech crops have pushed their seeds as an alternative to using pollution-causing chemicals on crops, but the genetically modified produce has run into resistance in Europe and Japan where officials have expressed health concerns. Corn, potatoes and cotton have been modified to produce their own Bacillus thuringiensis, a soil bacteria fatal to some, but not all, pests.

The whole issue of genetically modified crops has come to a head in recent months after an environmental group found traces in the human food chain of a variety of corn approved only for animal consumption and industrial usage.

Starlink, produced by Aventis CropScience, was the only GMO corn that had received only conditional approval. It is feared that the protein it produces, Cry9C, is a human allergen, but the Environmental Protection Agency said last week that may not be a problem since less of the crop has worked its way into the food chain than originally thought.

U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics indicate insecticide use has remained level for years despite increased acreage devoted to GMO crops because farmers use the pesticides against other species such as corn rootworms.

Monsanto spokesman Roy Fuchs told the Des Moines Register that corn farmers use less insecticide to kill corn borers than cotton farmers use to kill bollworms. But, he said, biotech corn produces higher yields per acre than regular corn and also reduces fumonisin, a toxic fungus.

Monsanto currently is seeking approval for a new kind of biotech corn that is fatal to rootworms as well.

The EPA is studying the re-registration of biotech corn and cotton. The National Environmental Trust said this week that the EPA is not disclosing information that the agency has collected on the effects of biotech crops on the monarch butterfly.

"There is no way the public can comment on data that the agency refuses to release," Center for Food Safety Director Joe Mendelson said.

Specifically, the group is concerned the toxins produced by biotech crops are too strong and permanently harm the butterfly species, as well as produce long-lasting effects on food.

To complicate the issue, the ARS has reported biotech resistance developing in several pests, including Indianmeal moths, diamondback moths and at least nine other insects.

EPA issues new rules for pesticide producing plants

July 23
Environment News Service

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued three new rules designed to "clarify and strengthen" the agency's rules governing genetically engineered crops that produce their own pesticides.

The rules address issues about so called "plant incorporated protectants." Plant incorporated protectants (PIPs) are materials that enable a plant to protect itself from pests, such as insects, viruses and fungi, because the plant produces its own pesticide.

Under the rules announced Thursday, PIPs derived from biotechnology will be regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

"Developing this framework means that EPA's current system of rigorous scientific evaluation for plant incorporated protectants will continue," said EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. "There has been an open and transparent process of scientific consultation and public comment leading to the finalization of these rules."

Under the rules, genetically engineered PIPs will have to meet federal safety standards as rigorous as those used for traditional pesticide registrations. If the agency determines that individual PIPs pose little or no health or environmental risk, they will be exempted from certain regulatory requirements.

For example, PIPs developed through conventional breeding will be exempt from the new requirements. However, manufacturers must still report any adverse effects they discover.

The rules also exempt the DNA that creates the plant pesticide from food "tolerance" requirements - meaning there will be no federal limits on how much of the engineered DNA can remain in finished food products. This exemption does not apply to the actual pesticide produced, which will continue to be fully evaluated by the EPA to ensure that it is safe for human health and the environment.

For example, if the EPA were to approve genetically engineered StarLink corn for human consumption, the agency would limit the amount of the insect toxin produced by the corn, known as Bt, that can remain in foods made from the corn. But the EPA would not place limits on the amount of the Cry9 protein, which causes StarLink to produce the Bt toxin, that the foods could contain.

The EPA is inviting public comments over the next 30 days on three additional exemptions from today's rules, which were first proposed in 1994 but are not part of this rulemaking.

The proposed exemptions are:

• PIPs derived through genetic engineering from plants that are able to reproduce naturally;
  
• PIPs that act by affecting the plant, such as causing the plant to have thicker wax cuticles; and
  
• PIPs based on viral coat proteins - substances that encapsulate and protect the genetic material of certain plant viruses.

The rules were approved in January by former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, but were then withdrawn to provide allow the incoming Bush administration to review them. They finalize several regulatory steps first proposed by the EPA in 1994, and followed by the agency since that time.

More information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides