July headlines

Return to July article index

Interest high as GE study panel hands over report

July 27
New Zealand Herald

The four-volume report on genetic engineering goes to the Government today as supporters and opponents of the technology gear up for a day of activity.

After almost five months of deliberations, the chairman of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, will hand the report to the Governor-General, Dame Silvia Cartwright, in Wellington.

The report, which is 1500 pages long and cost about $5 million, is due to be publicly released after Monday's cabinet meeting.

Both sides in the gene debate have squared off for months and the acrimony showed no sign of lessening on the eve of the report's handover.

Federated Farmers and other pro-GE groups were yesterday contacting Prime Minister Helen Clark to express their anger that the anti-GE Green Party will get an early peek at the closely guarded report.

"We are very unhappy about it. All groups should get the same chance to hear the same information at the same time," Federated Farmers national president Alistair Polson said.

Like Federated Farmers and other interested groups, the Greens had "interested persons" status before the commission because they chose to register their interest.

They were the only political party to do so.

Mr Polson said that while the Greens were "sort of" in Government, they should still be treated the same as any other group.

A Green Party spokesman said it was unclear when the party would get the report. The Greens were more focused on what would be in it than when they would get a first look.

But while the report is expected to adopt a proceed-with-caution approach to the new gene technology, it could end up pleasing no one.

On the pro-GE side, scientists, researchers and people with genetic diseases were just some of the witnesses who appeared before the commission to argue for a biotech future.

"I hope they might make some suggestions on reducing the cost of low-risk GM work," said Dr William Rolleston, chair of an umbrella group of pro-GE industries called the Life Sciences Network.

One of the most difficult issues the commission had to come to terms with was that many Maori regard genetic engineering as culturally offensive and want it banned.

"I think the Maori issue will be significant," Dr Rolleston said.

He did not expect the commission to back a veto of GE and was in no doubt what would happen if it did.

"Scientists would vote with their feet."

Greenpeace was one of the largest groups on the anti-GE side. Although the organization has always said it does not object to genetic engineering work being done in the laboratory, it wants a veto on genetically engineered organisms being released into the environment.

"More and more markets are demanding GE-free products and that's where the economics seem to be. But like everyone else we're in wait-and-see mode," said Annette Cotter, of Greenpeace.

Greenpeace, GE-Free New Zealand and other anti-GE groups will hold an all-organic "last supper" outside town halls throughout NZ at lunchtime today to reinforce their opposition to genetic engineering.

The Government has been determined to prevent leaks of the report. Just a handful of numbered copies will be given to Government officials today and the cabinet won't be briefed on the royal commission's findings until Monday.

Over six months, the four-member Royal Commission on Genetic Modification read 11,000 public submissions and heard evidence from more than 300 experts.

Hundreds of people also attended 15 public meetings and 10 regional hui held by the commission.

Consumers ask Asia to adopt tough EU GMO rules

July 27
Reuters

TOKYO -- The European Union's new rules on food derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are likely to spur Asian consumers to ask their governments for tougher safeguards against GMOs, analysts said yesterday.

"There is a strong possibility that we'll see some trade conflict over GMO rules between now and 2003 because no global standards have yet been set and each country has different views depending whether they're a consumer or a producer," said a health ministry official.

The CODEX Alimentarius Commission, a joint body of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, is working to set up international food standards for GMOs by 2003.

On Wednesday, the European Commission unveiled long-awaited new rules on the labeling and traceability of foods containing GMOs aimed at restarting its stalled approvals process. They should enter into force in 2003 at the latest.

The EU's approval process for GMOs has been stalled for three years, causing major trade friction with the United States.

Under the new EU requirements, all foods and animal feed derived from GMOs have to be labeled and, in the case of processed goods, records have to be kept throughout the production chain allowing the GMO to be traced back to the farm.

"We need to tighten further our regulations for GMOs and to make them similar to the EU's ruling," Amagasa Keisuke, head of a Japanese campaign against GM food, told Reuters. "Our current rules are very loose."

THRESHOLD

Keisuke said rules imposed by Japan in April did not go far enough.

The rules establish zero tolerance for imports containing unapproved gene-altered products and require mandatory labeling for imports such as for corn and soybeans with up to five percent of approved GM products.

"We want to cut the five percent threshold for GM labeling to one percent like the EU rules," Keisuke said.

The EU rules stipulate that accidental traces of GMOs that have been cleared by the EU's scientific advisers, even if they have not been received final official approval, will be allowed in food and feed up to a maximum of one percent without being subject to labeling requirements.

The EU is also requiring labeling for refined products such as corn or soyoil, even when the original GMO content is removed during the production process. These products will have to be labeled as coming from GMOs although not containing them.

"Korea's labeling rules exclude edible oils and feed which we argue should have been included," said Song Young-soon, director of the product testing and evaluation department at Korea's National Council of Consumer Organizations.

South Korea requires only GM corn, soybeans and bean sprouts for food to be labeled with a threshold of three percent. The rules, introduced in March, will be extended to potatoes in March 2002. Processed food containing GM corn, soybeans and bean sprouts have had to be labeled since early this month.

In China, the Ministry of Agriculture has drafted details of the implementation of new GMO rules it issued on June 6.

"The details have been worked out and we have made some changes," said a ministry official. He declined to elaborate on the changes, which he said were awaiting the final approval of the minister and "would be issued very soon".

The new rules span the food chain from research and production to food processing and labeling. State approval of applications for bio-engineered crops could take up to 270 days.

U.S. science panel rejects StarLink in human food

July 27
Reuters

WASHINGTON -- A science advisory panel on Friday urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to maintain its ban on StarLink biotech corn in human food, saying there was not enough evidence to establish if the genetically altered variety caused allergic reactions.

StarLink, made by Franco-German pharmaceutical giant Aventis SA, caused a massive U.S. food recall last autumn when traces of the bio-corn were discovered in taco shells.

The U.S. corn supply was accidentally contaminated when farmers, shippers and grain handlers mixed small amounts of StarLink with other varieties of yellow corn.

A panel of 16 physicians and independent scientists was asked by the EPA to evaluate if a ``tolerance level'' -- or maximum allowable amount of StarLink -- could be established for StarLink in human food.

The EPA approved StarLink in 1998 for livestock feed and ethanol, but banned it in human food because of uncertainties about health effects.

The science panel concluded that ``since there is inadequate information to establish a reasonable scientific certainty that exposure would not be harmful to public health, they could not recommend establishing a specific tolerance level for StarLink,'' the EPA said in a statement on Friday.

The panel, however, also noted that virtually all StarLink corn would be gone from the U.S. corn supply by 2002 because of efforts by the U.S. Agriculture Department and Aventis to segregate StarLink.

``EPA sincerely appreciates the high level of scientific expertise this panel has provided on this important issue,'' EPA Assistant Administrator Stephen Johnson said in a statement.

``Bringing the best science to the table, and evaluating it in a transparent manner is fundamental as we continue the important work ensuring protection of public health and maintaining consumer confidence in the integrity of the food supply,'' he said

The panel also said the wet-milling corn process used by food makers minimizes StarLink's unique Cry9C protein and risk to public health.

``This supports the agency's determination that there is no public health risk from eating products manufactured from StarLink corn through the wet-milling process, provided that corn utilized in the wet-milling process does not contain significant levels of StarLink,'' the EPA said.

The scientists on the committee also reaffirmed that StarLink has a ``medium likelihood'' of being a human allergen.

StarLink is a yellow corn that contains a unique protein, Cry9C, which repels destructive pests as the plant grows. The EPA approved StarLink in 1998 for livestock feed and ethanol, but banned it in human food because of uncertainties about health effects.

The scientific review of StarLink was prompted after Aventis asked the EPA in April to set a tolerance level of 20 parts per billion for StarLink in processed food.

Aventis, which contends StarLink poses no risk of allergic reactions, faces several lawsuits over contaminated foods.

Environmental groups said StarLink causes allergic reactions in some people and have cited the case of a Florida optometrist who documented his skin rash and breathing problems after eating corn chips containing a small amount of StarLink.

The science advisory panel was led by Stephen Roberts, director of the Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology at the University of Florida.

Government blocks use of biotech corn

July 27
AP

WASHINGTON -- The government won't allow trace amounts of the genetically altered StarLink corn in food, agreeing with scientific advisers who say the biotech crop has not been proven safe for human consumption.

Discovery of the corn in taco shells last fall spawned nationwide recalls of food products and embarrassed the biotechnology industry. Developer Aventis CropScience withdrew the corn from the market but asked the Environmental Protection Agency to allow a small amount in food in order to avoid further recalls.

``The science we have before us now indicates that it's not possible to establish a tolerance'' or maximum safe level for StarLink, Steve Johnson, an assistant EPA administrator, said Friday.

By the time Aventis does the additional studies and analysis that the panel of scientists recommended, virtually no StarLink will be left in the corn supply anyway, Johnson said.

The scientists reported Friday that they believe there is a chance that the corn is an allergen, but there is a low risk that consumers would eat enough corn to develop an allergy to it.

The panel said it could not determine a maximum safe level of the corn ``where there would be a reasonable scientific certainty that exposure would not be harmful to public health.''

The scientists urged mandatory testing of grain and a wider search for people who may have had allergic reactions to the biotech corn. EPA rejected those recommendations as impractical or unnecessary. Grain processors are now testing for StarLink on a voluntary basis.

Aventis issued a statement saying it would ``fulfill it's commitment'' to ensure that StarLink corn does not get into food and is instead diverted to feed or industrial use, the only purposes for which it was approved by EPA. The company did not say whether it would renew its request for tolerance.

``The potential for a problem, which was always very small, is growing smaller on a daily basis,'' said Val Giddings, a spokesman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

StarLink is one of several varieties of biotech corn that contain a bacterium gene that allows the plant to make its own pesticide.

Unlike the others, StarLink was never approved for human consumption because of questions about whether a special protein it contained, known as Cry9C, was an allergen. The protein breaks down relatively slowly in the digestive system, an indication that it could cause allergic reactions in some people.

Aventis wanted EPA to set a maximum level for Cry9C in food of 20 parts per billion. That's the equivalent of one StarLink kernel in 800 kernels of corn.

EPA says the levels of StarLink in the U.S. corn supply ranges from 0.34 to 8 parts per billion, depending on the method used to make the estimate.

The Agriculture Department says it has accounted for all but 720,000 of the 128 million bushels of StarLink corn grown last year. Another 4.9 million bushels may have been mixed with grain that went to food processors.

In June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cleared StarLink as the cause of allergic reactions in 17 people who thought they may have been sickened by the corn.

However, the scientists questioned the reliability of the test that was used and said the government should be contacting doctors to look for possible allergy cases related to StarLink. The search for such cases needs to continue for two years, the report said.

``The public would benefit from assurance of the safety of the food supply,'' the scientists said.

Genetically engineered corn should be kept out of food, EPA advisers say

July 27
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

A panel of science advisers to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Friday that a variety of genetically engineered corn, called StarLink, should be kept out of human food. The scientists said they still have doubts about the safety of the product.

Previous tests conducted by the Food and Drug Administration showed that 17 people who had allergic reactions after eating corn products were probably not allergic to a pesticide protein in the corn.

But the 16-member scientific advisory panel concluded that the allergy test did not answer the question of whether StarLink corn can cause allergies. Until the question is answered, the EPA says it will not allow the corn in food.

Uncertainty surrounding the health effects of StarLink, made by Aventis CropSciences, has caused environmental and consumer groups to question the ability of government regulators to protect the food supply.

The StarLink biotech corn was approved only for use in animal feed, but was mixed with corn used in human food. Hundreds of products were recalled and the corn was pulled from the market after the contamination was discovered last fall.

Friday's report followed a two-day panel meeting this month to decide whether a small amount of Cry9C, the pesticide protein in StarLink corn, should be allowed in food.

Aventis and other scientists have suggested that StarLink corn was present only in minuscule amounts in human food - levels of pesticide protein that are too low to provoke allergies. But the panel concluded that there is not enough data to say with reasonable scientific certainty that any Cry9C in food would be safe and not cause allergies.

The science advisers also questioned the ability of an antibody test to detect the Cry9C protein in some processed foods.

Only one of the 11 food samples that allergy-test subjects gave to the FDA showed contamination with StarLink DNA. No Cry9C protein was found.

That sample was from a bag of white corn chips that Florida optometrist Dr. Keith Finger says caused him to wake up itching in the middle of the night. White corn was previously thought to be free of StarLink contamination.

The EPA said that StarLink should be virtually cleared from the food supply in two to three years thanks to efforts by Aventis and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to pull the corn from the grain supply. "We are proud of the progress we have made in containing StarLink corn," an Aventis spokesperson said.

EPA has no plans to seek additional information on the corn, an agency spokesman said. Aventis must decide whether to continue seeking approval for StarLink in food.

The fact that StarLink was not cleared for human consumption and is being held until there is more scientific evidence should comfort consumers, said Rick Tolman, chief executive of the National Corn Growers Association.

But some doubt that federal regulators are doing an adequate job of protecting consumers.

No federal agency is doing a thorough job in investigating the health and environmental effects of StarLink or any other genetically engineered crop, said Matt Rand of the National Environmental Trust - part of the Genetically Engineered Food Alert coalition, which first discovered StarLink in taco shells last year.

Finger, the Florida optometrist who believes he is allergic to StarLink, agreed." As far as I'm concerned, the FDA did a totally inadequate job of protecting the public," Finger said.

Australia: Non-GM crops not commanding price premiums - Cargill

July 26
Reuters

SYDNEY -- Conventionally produced crops were generally not commanding price premiums over genetically modified (GM) agricultural products, grain trading giant Cargill Inc said on Wednesday.

The vast bulk of early GM varieties were also not scoring price premiums over conventional products, Ian Baker, business development manager of Cargill Australia Ltd told the New South Wales Farmers Association annual conference.

"Australia has been able to derive little if any benefit from our non-GM status for canola over our major international competitor, Canada, where over 75 percent of their production is from varieties using biotechnology," he said.

Baker's comment offered an insight into one of the most controversial aspects of the world food industry, where farmers and producers are grappling with whether to reap yield gains from GM crops or to remain GM-free in the hope that it will produce greater consumer acceptance and higher prices.

Canola is a key focus of the debate, with Canada, the world's leading exporter, producing GM crops but Australia, the world's second largest exporter, so far GM-free but trialing GM crops.

Some specific products, such as tofu soybeans sold to Japan and feed grains to Europe, had commanded premiums for conventional breeding over biotechnology, Baker said.

"(But) we have seen little consistent evidence of premiums on a wider scale. This has also been the case with canola," he said.

Baker also said that there was no blockage to the sale of GM canola into Japan, China and Asia, where seed from Australia was generally blended with Canadian seed, thus losing its identity.

The sale of GM canola to the European market, however, had been restricted, he said.

Premiums would only be achievable when processors or consumers could see additional value in new food product varieties, Baker said.

Cargill had released a number of new biotech canola varieties in Canada, including Clear Valley 65, which has improved stability and an extended frying life.

Production has grown rapidly to more than 250,000 tons in Canada and was accompanied by a price premium of C$10-C$15 a ton over other varieties, he said.

DEMAND LIMITED

But demand for specific quality attributes was limited and premiums would quickly evaporate if overproduced, he said.

"For biotechnology to be sustainable it clearly relies on sharing value through the value chain ... starting with the farmer," he said.

Alan Green, a scientist with Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), told the conference the main concern of many opponents of GM foods was not primarily the environment but globalization and agri-business.

He also said GM products would not find full consumer acceptance until they offered clear benefits for consumers.

GM products offered many benefits to the environment, especially with the development of industrial products from GM plants which would cause a shift away from petrochemicals for the production of goods such as plastics.

This would come about in a third wave of the GM revolution, involving the production of "industrial crops," he said.

Novel GM crops could potentially produce "designer oils", for use in products such as detergents, as well as biodegradable plastics.

The first wave of GM products has involved modified input traits which produce herbicide resistance and in-built herbicides in GM plants.

GM crops in the first wave are already being produced on a widespread scale around the world, including a GM cotton crop in Australia which produces an inbuilt pesticide in the plant.

The second GM wave, currently under development, involves output traits. This includes vegetable oils with more stable heating properties and lower cholesterol content, as well as products which reduce post-harvest spoilage, for example bruising in potatoes and bananas.

Farm group says GM acres way up in Ontario

July 26
Western Producer

Ontario farmers sharply increased their use of genetically modified seed this year, despite warnings by critics of consumer unease and market resistance.

Agcare, a pro-biotech Ontario farm coalition that claims to be a coalition representing 45,000 cash crop and horticultural farmers in Ontario, said this year`s corn, soybean and canola acreages all contain record amounts of GM seed.

``It`s clear that farmers see the advantages that the technology offers,`` Agcare chair and Guelph-area farmer Jim Fischer said.

``Each year, the adoption rate for biotech crops increases as more farmers experience the benefits and incorporate the technology ... .``

The group says preliminary estimates indicate that up to 30 percent of soybeans, 40 percent of corn and 80 percent of the small canola crop are GM varieties.

Agcare executive director Brenda Cassidy said it shows that farmers have been testing and learning about the benefits of herbicide- and pest-resistant varieties and are willing to embrace them.

Farmers will grow a variety that gives them good economic results and for which there is a market, she said. All varieties on the market have been approved by federal regulatory agencies and the threatened market resistance is not evident in Ontario.

``It`s certainly not evident yet,`` she said.

``There doesn`t seem to be any shortage of markets for GM crops.``

GM critic Michael Khoo with Greenpeace Canada scoffed at the report as unsubstantiated hype by a pro-biotech group.

``These are very unofficial numbers,`` he said from Toronto.

``I see a lot of hype and I don`t see a lot of substantiation.``

Khoo said farmers cannot avoid the consistent poll results indicating that many consumers are skeptical and a vast majority favor mandatory labeling for food containing GM material.

``The consumer concern about this is not going to go away,`` he said.

Cassidy readily conceded that GM food is controversial in the market and Ontario farmers are aware of it.

``If a major marketer were to say, ‘no, we won`t take a GM variety,` that affects the level, certainly it would,`` she said.

``We have seen that with Bt potatoes, which are now off the market. But we have not seen that yet in our products.``