July headlines

Return to July article index

GMO controls will hit exporters

July 30
UPI

Brussels -- New labeling rules for genetically modified foods or foods containing GM ingredients announced by the European Commission, the European Union's executive, could prevent the import of most food into Europe if adopted by ministers of the 15 member states.

The proposed legislation set unacceptably tight limits, according to trade and industry sources. The legislation would include a maximum tolerance level of only 1 percent authorized genetically modified organisms in food and feed. Industry believes that this needs to be raised to 5 percent for the regulation to be workable.

As currently drafted, the proposal would impact heavily on U.S. producers and manufacturers.

Under the proposals all GMOs would have to be accompanied by supporting "event code" documents detailing their exact type at every stage of the production and supply chain. But, curiously it would not be necessary for event codes to appear on the labels of finished foods.

Products derived from GMOs would also have to be traceable. The labeling of food and animal feed products made from GMOs would also extend to those derived from genetic modification, but containing no detectable trace of a GMO substance.

The purpose of the new legislation, according to the commission, is "to establish a sound community system to trace and label GMOs and to regulate the placing on the market and labeling of food and feed products derived from GMOs."

The legislation would consist of two proposals: one for traceability and labeling of GMOs and products produced from GMOs, and one on regulating GM food and feed. It is aimed at ensuring traceability of GMOs throughout the chain, from farm to table, and to provide consumers with information by labeling all food and feed consisting of, containing or produced from a GMO.

It will establish a "one door-one key" procedure for the authorization of GMOs for food and feed, including their deliberate release into the environment. This procedure will consist of a single scientific assessment, carried out by the scientific committees of the yet to be established European Food Authority. Two further proposals relating to GM seed will be brought forward later this year.

But, the current proposals are subject to a co-decision with the European Parliament. The EU's 626-strong elected assembly, and the council should enter into force in 2003 at the latest, with the labeling provisions in respect to food and feed to be reviewed after two years of operation.

Commenting on the proposals, Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said: "The provisions for traceability ensure a high level of environmental and health protection and pave the way for a proper labeling system.

"Certainly, there is a cost for the producers and for trade, but what is at stake is our ability to build public confidence. European companies will only be able to seize the opportunities provided by bio-technology if this confidence is established."

New Zealand government report seeks to steer GMO middle ground

July 30
Reuters

WELLINGTON -- Genetic modification (GM) holds promise as a way of conquering disease and wiping out pests but it is risky and should be rigorously tested on a case-by-case basis, a New Zealand government inquiry recommended on Monday.

The $2.6 million inquiry rejected the idea of a GM-free New Zealand by recommending a loosening of curbs on low-risk GM applications, but also sought a toughening of rules on high-risk ones.

``It would be unwise to turn our back on the potential advantages on offer, but we should proceed carefully, minimizing and managing risks,'' the report into the controversial and wide-ranging topic of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) concluded.

The middle ground outcome disappointed anti-GM campaigners but was welcomed by scientists who support trialling GM products outside laboratories under conditions to be set by authorities.

The report did not give details of the conditions, crops to be trialled, or what it saw as low and high risk applications.

Calling the inquiry the first of its kind in the world, Prime Minister Helen Clark said that the government's initial response to the report would be released by August 31, when a moratorium on field trials or the release of GMOs into the environment ends.

A final response would be released by November.

She said the commission had taken a careful and cautionary approach in melding many views into a measured document.

``I would not see this as a fence-sitting report,'' Clark told reporters.

IMPROVED PRODUCTS OR FRANKENFOODS?

Around 42 percent of New Zealand's annual exports involve food, and anti-GM activists argue the country should sell itself as free of genetic engineering.

Scientists around the world are modifying the genetic make-up of agricultural products to improve their resistance to pests, disease and weather, or to increase crop yields.

Anti-GM activists say that gene research, while appropriate for finding new medicines, creates ``frankenfood'' and endangers the environment and the food chain.

The NZ Life Sciences Network, which supports genetic engineering research, said the study endorsed the status quo and that there was no reason for the moratorium to be extended, as called for by anti-GM campaigners.

``The commission's report is a ringing endorsement of the regulatory structures we have in New Zealand,'' network chairman William Rolleston said.

But the New Zealand Green Party, which pressured the government to hold the inquiry, said the report had ``chickened out'' on key issues and was extremely disappointing.

Anti-GM activists and environmentalists rallied in 42 New Zealand towns and cities last week to press for a ban on GMOs and to market the country as a ``clean and green'' food producer.

``Despite all their nice words about keeping New Zealand's options open, the commission has recommended a faster path to the field release of GE (genetically engineered) crops than we had before -- destroying our current market advantage of guaranteed GE-free exports,'' Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said in a statement.

The report recommends setting up two new state agencies -- a Bioethics Council to examine social and ethical GM-related issues, and a Parliamentary Commissioner on Biotechnology to audit existing approval rules.

GM crops to get the go-ahead in New Zealand - report

July 30
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

The world's first royal commission on genetic modification (GM) of crops will give the go ahead to the controversial science in New Zealand, a report says.

The commission's 1,500 page report will be released later today.

Quoting an unnamed official from the Ministry for the Environment, the Christchurch Press newspaper said the commission would give the go ahead for GM field trials, a major blow to opponents of genetic engineering.

The Green Party, which had lobbied for the establishment of the commission, had asked it to recommend that the technology be confined to the laboratory.

Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said the outcome would be disappointing, but did not wish to comment until she had seen the full report.

"I think the key things that we're looking for is what are they going to say about the release of GE [genetically engineered] organisms, because at the moment New Zealand is GE-free in its environment and its agriculture," she said.

That marketing advantage would be lost once New Zealand stepped across that threshold.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Helen Clark said the Government would take about three months to consider the report's recommendations.

She said the report, which had been in Government hands since being handed over by commissioner Sir Thomas Eichelbaum on Friday, would be taken "very seriously".

The Prime Minister said there were both risks and opportunities with genetic engineering, but the point was to "discard the extremes of the debate and come through the middle with some mainstream commonsense".

New Zealanders wanted to know what they were eating, but also felt genetic engineering could produce medical breakthroughs, she said.

Blair faces split over GM foods

July 30
The Scotsman

TONY Blair is under pressure to delay the commercial growing of genetically-modified crops until well after the next general election amid fears the government could suffer an electoral backlash over the threat of so-called "Frankenstein foods".

Some ministers believe it will take at least a decade - and possibly 15 years - for the British public to be persuaded that GM products are safe to eat and pose no risk to the environment.

One minister opened up a split between Old and New Labor when he told The Scotsman: "Public consent is the big thing that is missing. The last thing we want is a public uprising with demonstrations all over the country."

This view runs counter to the open-minded approach of the Prime Minister.

Mr Blair believes the current program of farm trials will provide the scientific evidence necessary to reassure consumers, allowing the biotechnology industry to proceed with its plans.

However, the calls for caution are based on fears within government that there is growing concern about GM food as part of a general revival of "green" matters, particularly among young people alienated from conventional politics.

There are also concerns that the courts appear increasingly reluctant to convict and punish environmental campaigners who challenge the law by non-violent direct action.

Last month, a district judge acquitted on a legal technicality 11 people charged with criminal damage on a genetically-modified maize crop in Essex.

The protesters maintained they were trying to prevent "contamination" of the environment by the seed company Aventis and claimed a poll showed 88 per cent of the local community were opposed to the trials.

It was the latest in a series of controversial judicial decisions since Lord Melchett, the former head of Greenpeace, and another 28 activists were cleared on a charge of causing criminal damage in Norfolk last September.

This month, charges of aggravated trespass were dropped against seven protesters who damaged a genetically-modified crop in Dorset, while in another case, a judge told five people found guilty of pulling up oilseed rape that he accepted their "positive purpose".

Last week, the government announced provisional locations for the next round of farm trials at up to 30 sites this autumn, where scientists want to study the effects on wildlife of the use by farmers of special herbicides associated with GM oilseed rape.

Four Scottish farms are included, three in Aberdeenshire, and another in Ross-shire. If they go ahead, the results will be known in 2003.

The current moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops is a voluntary agreement with the biotechnology industry, which is anxious to press ahead.

Ministers are worried that it might prove difficult to persuade companies such as Aventis and Monsanto to take note of the extent of public concerns, especially since there is a widespread expectation that farm trials will prove GM crops have no adverse effects.

Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, is keen to promote talks between organic and conventional farmers to draw up a common strategy.

Professor Malcolm Grant, chairman of the independent Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission, said: "If the [farm trials] show there is no significant difference in the impact of the biotechnology, the government is faced with the difficulty of having no solid grounds on which to base resistance to commercial growing, yet knowing in the current state of public opinion that this could lead to serious disquiet round the country."

Backing this view, Alistair Beveridge, a spokesman for protest group Grampian Against GM, said: "The feeling I get now is that people who see their wishes have been ignored are now supporting direct action, and more are willing to take part."

However, Professor Anthony Trewavas, of the Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology at Edinburgh University, said: "Much opposition to GM is frenetic activity by people who feel unsettled by the pace at which the world is changing."

EPA rejects biotech corn as human food

Federal tests do not eliminate possibility that it could cause allergic reactions, agency told

July 28
Washington Post

The federal government's investigation into whether StarLink corn causes allergic reactions failed to establish that the genetically engineered corn was safe to eat, according to an expert panel convened by the Environmental Protection Agency.

While the panel did not conclude the modified corn causes allergies, it said that months of study by federal agencies "do not eliminate the possibility of such a reaction."

Based on the panel's recommendations, the EPA yesterday announced that it would continue its policy against permitting even trace amounts of StarLink in foods -- turning down a request to change that position from Aventis CropSciences, which developed the corn.

The unapproved presence of Starlink has required hundreds of food recalls and costly international trade problems, and food industry officials said yesterday they were disappointed in the EPA's refusal. But critics of biotechnology said they were pleased by the decision, which they said vindicated their concerns about the potential risks of some genetically modified products.

Stephen Johnson, of the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, said the agency had no choice but to turn down the Aventis application. "Some of the world's leading experts on allergenicity and food safety told us there was not enough data to conclude with reasonable certainty that there was an acceptable level of [StarLink corn] that people could eat," he said. "That leaves us no room" to allow StarLink.

The EPA approved StarLink as animal feed in 1998, but did not allow it for human use because of concerns that it contained a protein that broke down slowly and could cause dangerous allergic reactions. A public interest group found StarLink's genetically modified protein in taco shells last fall, and it has been at the center of the often contentious international debate over crop biotechnology ever since.

Johnson said the agency was studying how it might respond to the panel's recommendation that it expand its study of possible allergic reactions to StarLink. The panel said the federal government should ask specialists to report suspicious reactions to corn -- which is not a common cause of allergic reactions -- and should expand research into the entire field of genetically improved crops and food allergies.

In addition, the panel said that "every attempt" should be made to further test two people who reported severe reactions and who have offered to undergo skin testing and to eat StarLink products under medical supervision.

One of the two, Florida optometrist Keith Finger, told the panel that he sought out StarLink corn after his initial reaction last fall, and had received some anonymously in the mail. After running a test that showed it was in fact StarLink, he ate some and went to a local hospital several hours later with itchy rashes over his body and fast-rising blood pressure.

During two days of testimony in mid-July, Food and Drug Administration officials said that blood tests on 17 people who reported possible allergic reactions to StarLink, including Finger, did not show any signs of an actual physical reaction.

But the expert panelists raised questions about the validity of the testing process and the size of the sample. They said that the tests decreased the probability that people had suffered allergic reactions to StarLink, but did not rule it out.

Johnson said yesterday it "would require many months or years of continued scientific evaluation to answer the question of allergenicity."

An Aventis official said that the company was not surprised by the panel conclusions and the EPA decision. She also said that there is no way to conclusively determine if the Cry9C protein in StarLink -- which protects the corn against the European corn borer -- can cause allergic reactions.

In a statement, the company emphasized its commitment to directing all corn with the StarLink Cry9C protein to livestock and industrial uses. "We will continue to support the grain handlers and millers with their testing programs," the company said. "We are proud of the progress we have made in containing StarLink corn."

In its report, the expert panel concluded that the amount of StarLink in the food supply was significantly less than predicted in the fall, and that there is a "low probability of allergenicity" in the population based on levels of StarLink in the U.S. diet. Aventis has been buying back StarLink corn, and corn commingled with StarLink, and virtually all is expected to be out of the food supply after the fall harvest.

During the panel meeting, officials from the Agriculture Department reported the agency will spend between $13 million and $17 million to also buy back seed for growing corn that had been contaminated with StarLink.

The modified corn, which was planted on only 320,000 acres last year but has spread well beyond that, has created problems for U.S. corn exporters because some foreign buyers avoided all U.S. corn. The grain and food industries have supported the Aventis request for allowing trace amounts of the corn, saying low levels of many genetically modified proteins can be found in virtually all corn.

"The food industry is disappointed by the EPA decision today on StarLink," said Gene Grabowski of the Grocery Manufacturers of America. "It means continued uncertainty and anxiety in the food market . . . and eventually will result in price increases. It's a situation that should not be allowed to continue."

But Bill Freese of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, said the panel report "shows that the EPA and FDA need to begin more seriously regulating genetically engineered foods to protect public health."

Group appeals to prime minister over GM wheat

July 28
CBC

OTTAWA -- A coalition of farmers, citizens and grain industry groups will deliver a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien asking him to halt the introduction of genetically modified wheat.

The National Farmers Union, Greenpeace and the Canadian Wheat Board will all sign the letter, which is to be sent to Chrétien next week.

It will ask the prime minister to "prevent the introduction of genetically modified wheat into Canadian food and fields."

The Canadian Wheat Board's Justin Kohlman says their customers don't want GM wheat, and the wheat board doesn't want it forced into the system, costing farmers money.

Winnipeg area farmer Nelson Boychuk says genetically modified seeds cause the farmers who plant them to lose control. That's because genetically modified seeds are patented, protected secrets.

Environmentalists agree, saying that GM seed companies are cornering the market with a product the public knows little about.

But Boychuk says it's probably a foregone conclusion with GM wheat being tested across the country and GM canola already available.

GM seed company Monsanto says they're willing to discuss concerns with anyone, but that their products are still in the research stage.

Statement of the GE Food Alert Coalition on EPA recommendation not to allow StarLink corn into food supply

July 27
press release

The Genetically Engineered Food Alert coalition applauds the recommendation released today by EPA's science advisors not to allow StarLink corn into the human food supply. After originally discovering the adulterated corn in taco shells last fall, Genetically Engineered Food Alert has demanded a thorough government investigation into the human and environmental
impacts of StarLink before considering the request by Aventis
CropScience, the corn's developer, to approve it. Today, the
government's own science advisors agreed.

Over the past two years, Aventis has pulled countless regulatory tricks to avoid liability for the StarLink corn debacle, but in last week's final attempt, there were no more tricks left in the company's hat. Aventis failed to convince the science panel that StarLink is safe for people to eat.

The passive allergy reporting measures that the EPA and FDA have enlisted to date have been insufficient, and Genetically Engineered Food Alert supports the EPA science advisors' call for a more extensive investigation into the allergy concerns surrounding StarLink corn.

American consumers have the right to know what they are eating and that the food they are eating is safe.

---
Genetically Engineered Food Alert founding members include: Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, National Environmental Trust, Organic Consumers Association, Pesticide Action Network North America, and the State Public Interest Research Groups.

Genetically Engineered Food Alert, a coalition of health, consumer and environmental groups, supports the removal of genetically engineered ingredients from grocery store shelves unless they are adequately safety tested and labeled. The campaign provides web-based opportunities for individuals to express concern about genetically engineered food and fact sheets on health, environmental and economic information about genetically engineered food. The campaign is endorsed by more than 250 scientists, religious leaders, doctors, chefs, environmental and health leaders, as well as farm groups.

Environment: EU rules on GMOs lack safeguards - environmentalists

July 27
IPS

BRUSSELS -- The European Commission's proposed regulations for tracing and labeling genetically modified (GMO) food and feed fall dangerously short of preventing their unauthorized release into the European Union (EU) market, environmentalists warned Thursday.

They were reacting to Commission proposals Wednesday to lift a 1998 moratorium on new approvals of GMO plant varieties while setting out what it called the "world's most stringent" rules on controlling and monitoring their release.

The new regulations would set up a centralized approvals process for authorizing GMOs and a detailed system to trace them throughout the food chain, from the farm to the grocery store.

Labels would be placed on goods to the effect that: "This product does not contain but is derived from GMOs." That could apply, for example, to eggs from chickens and milk from cows that consume GMO feed.

EU Food Safety Commissioner David Byrne said the rules would allow consumers to choose whether or not to eat food derived from GMOs. Consumers, he added, "can be assured that any GMOs in their food have been assessed strictly for their safety."

The environmental group Greenpeace welcomed the introduction of a more thorough labeling regime, which includes products derived from GMOs such as oil and starch in food, as well as animal feed, which is the bulk of present GMO imports into the EU.

But the group said the new regulations include a "dangerous loophole" with respect to cross-pollination and contamination of non-GMO and organic crops. This is because the Commission proposed to set a one per cent tolerance threshold not only for authorized but also for unauthorized GMOs. Below that threshold, their presence in a product would not need to be approved or labeled.

To take effect, the plan must be approved by the 15 EU member states and the European Parliament.

"If the European Parliament and Council endorsed this provision, EU member states would in fact give up their sovereignty over the regulation of GMOs to some extent," said Greenpeace.

Another leading pressure group, Friends of the Earth (FoE), described the rules as a concession to the biotech industry, giving it "license to pollute" to the detriment of European citizens.

"All companies have to do now is to say that the GMO contamination they created was 'accidental', and they get away with it," said Gill Lacroix, biotechnology coordinator at FoE Europe. "It's the thin-end-of-the-wedge syndrome - they will contaminate our agriculture and food supply and that contamination will self- perpetuate as time goes on."

Lacroix said the biotech industries have convinced the Commission "to legislate on how to accommodate GMO pollution, rather than to act on how to prevent it."

The Commission has proposed applying these exemptions only to those GMOs that have already received a favorable risk assessment by the EU scientific committee but that lack final market approval from the member states' competent authorities and ministers.

Scientists as well as politicians and NGOs have frequently questioned the scientific committee's favorable opinions on GMOs over the past years. Greenpeace charged that the committee's conclusion, that 'zero tolerance' of seed contamination from unauthorized GMOs is unworkable in practice, was based on political and commercial assumptions rather than scientific criteria.

Pioneered in the United States and on the market since the early 1990s, GMOs have been treated with extreme caution by the EU until now.

The concept of modifying plants to make them immune to herbicides or to control the ripening process has raised fears in Europe that 'superweeds' could spread out of control and that modified products - not yet thoroughly tested - could have catastrophic effects on public health.

The industry is so new that the full implications of the new biotechnology are not known and much of Europe is against even carrying out controlled tests on GMO crops.

But European and international companies producing genetically altered corn, potatoes, tomatoes and other foods have eagerly awaited - and lobbied for - regulatory approval.

In February, the European Parliament argued that Europe needed to lift the moratorium - while putting in place controls on GMOs - in order to be competitive in biotechnology.

"Industry cannot wait forever. We must keep Europe in the fast lane on biotechnology," said Euro-parliamentarian David Bowe, author of the body's proposal to monitor GMOs, much of which has been incorporated into the Commission's proposal presented Wednesday.

However, Greenpeace European Unit political advisor Brigid Gavin argued that the Commission's proposal to set a one per cent tolerance threshold not only for authorized but also for unauthorized GMOs is the "wrong reaction" to increased pressure and threats from the US administration and GMO producing companies like Monsanto, Aventis, Syngenta and DuPont.

"If the EU sets clear and uncompromising safety standards the market will adapt to them," she said. "Opening loopholes like this, however, invites them to continue with their present strategy of sneaking unwanted and dangerous GMOs into our food chain."