June headlines

Return to June article index

Environmentalists, fish farms square off over altered salmon

June 6
Halifax Herald Limited

Mondariz, Spain - Environmental campaigners warned Tuesday that introducing genetically engineered fish into Atlantic Ocean salmon farms will cause irreversible damage to the species.

However, supporters of genetically modified fish-farming said it would allow increased production while relieving the pressure on wild stocks of Atlantic salmon.

The dispute over genetically engineered, or transgenic, salmon flared as the 18th annual meeting of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) got underway with government representatives from Canada, the United States, Russia and the European Union.

The transgenic salmon issue is expected to be handled formally later during the five-day meeting at the northwestern Spanish spa resort of Mondariz.

Lindsay Keenan, genetic engineering campaigner for Greenpeace, called on NASCO to take action to prevent the United States Food and Drug Administration from approving the cultivation of genetically modified salmon in ocean pens.

"The future threat to the Atlantic salmon is from transgenic salmon and it should not be allowed anywhere near the oceans," Keenan said, adding that "altered salmon could escape into the wild, adversely affecting the ecosystem."

The environmentalist said transgenic salmon should only be grown in secured, self-contained, land-based facilities, which is "not economically viable for those companies" that want to cultivate it.

Greenpeace's protest was backed by 16 other ecologist groups. Environmentalists cited studies estimating that the introduction of 60 fertile transgenic fish in a natural population of 60,000 could destroy it in 20 to 30 years.

But Joe McGonigle, vice-president of Aqua Bounty Farm and a member of the U.S. delegation, said transgenic salmon was still in the research phase and dismissed the environmentalist's warnings.

"It's pretty clear that transgenic salmon or fish in general are not dangerous despite hysterical claims by the ecologists," said McGonigle, whose U.S.-Canadian firm is developing a genetically modified Atlantic salmon that grows to full adult size in 18 months instead of the normal 36 months.

He said Aqua Bounty Farms has orders for 15 million eggs from genetically engineered Atlantic salmon that it has been raising in a research project on Prince Edward Island.

The company is awaiting FDA approval to market the eggs to fish farms that could produce the first genetically altered animals to show up in grocery stores.

McGonigle said his firm is working on sterilization methods that could eliminate the environmental dangers of transgenic salmon.

China enacts genetic product rules

June 6
AP

Beijing - China has enacted new regulations on producing and using genetically modified farm products, the state-run Xinhua News Agency said Wednesday.

Rules approved May 23 by Premier Zhu Rongji are designed to protect the environment and human health while promoting research, Xinhua said.

China has enthusiastically pursued genetically modified products in its drive to be self-sufficient in food supplies for its 1.26 billion people. The country has not seen the level of heated debate that has raged in Europe and elsewhere over their safety.

Under the new rules, Chinese-foreign joint ventures and foreign-owned companies need government approval to research or test genetically altered products, Xinhua said.

Sellers of modified seeds, seedlings or animals need official permits, Xinhua said. The rules require labeling of genetically altered products.

Under the regulations, the government can reject or destroy imports of genetically modified products without proper documentation, Xinhua said.

Proponents contend that genetically altering crops to resist pests, drought or other adverse conditions may be the only way to ensure food security in the developing world, particularly in densely populated Asia.

But the technique of splicing genes from one organism onto another has also provoked fears of unforeseen hazards to health and the environment.

FDA: Cloned animals not OK'd as food

June 5
AP

WASHINGTON –– The Food and Drug Administration says it doesn't want meat or milk from cloned livestock sold to consumers until it is sure the food is safe and the technology won't harm the environment or the animals.

"We're trying to make a science-based decision on whether these types of animals pose any risk or not," John Matheson, a senior regulatory review scientist for the FDA, said Tuesday.

In a series of meetings over the past six months, FDA officials have asked biotech companies to keep the livestock out of the food chain until the National Academy of Sciences completes a review of their safety and makes recommendations to FDA. The study is expected to be finished by early next year.

The FDA is concerned about the welfare of the cloned animals as well as their safety for humans and the environment. The agency believes it has the authority to regulate cloned animals under its approval process for new animal drugs.

Essentially, the agency is deciding whether cloned animals should be treated like genetically engineered animals, which are regulated by the FDA, or like animals bred through in-vitro fertilization, which don't require FDA regulation.

"We figure there is a pretty good chance there won't be a need to regulate them," Matheson said.

One concern of scientists is that mass animal cloning could lead to breeds that are more susceptible to disease, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

A Holstein dairy cow cloned by Infigen Inc. of DeForest, Wis., was sold at auction last fall in the first commercial sale of a farm animal. Infigen also owns a herd of cloned cattle that are used to produce genetically engineered proteins for pharmaceutical purposes.

Infigen's cloning process involves activating an unfertilized egg by removing the nucleus, fusing the egg with a cell from the same animal's ear, and then using a chemical compound to trigger a release of calcium that causes the egg to divide and grow. The resulting embryo is then implanted in a surrogate cow.

U.S. studying safety of animal clones as food

June 5
Reuters

U.S. regulators said on Tuesday they have urged companies that clone livestock to apply for their permission before they put the animals' meat or milk into the food supply.

The Food and Drug Administration is developing policy guidelines on whether cloned animals that are not genetically modified should be tightly regulated like drugs.

The agency plans to issue its position after the National Academy of Sciences completes a report assessing if cloned animals pose any hazards to animals, human health or the environment. The report is due out early next year.

In the meantime, the FDA has advised a handful of companies that clone sheep, cows or pigs to file an application with the agency if they want to sell cloned animals as food.

``If people insist on putting them into the food supply ... before the report is out, we would recommend that they come into us with an investigational application first, just to be on the safe side,'' said John Matheson, a senior regulatory scientist at the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Companies involved in animal cloning include PPL Therapeutics, creator of Dolly the sheep, Infigen Inc. and Advanced Cell Technology.

Infigen spokesman Peter Steinerman said its first cloned cows whose milk might go into the food supply are due to be born in September. The cattle are clones of a prized dairy cow named Mandy with above-average milk production.

Infigen has told customers it will not release the cows until it has regulators' support, Steinerman said. The company is preparing a study of the milk produced by the clones, and plans to share results with the FDA.

``We look forward to working with the FDA and any other regulatory agency to address concerns,'' Steinerman said.

Scientists clone animals by taking DNA from an adult cell and placing it in a female egg stripped of its own genetic material. The embryo is implanted into a surrogate mother, and the resulting baby animal is a clone.

Such cloned animals are genetic copies of another animal, and they do not pose the same concerns as animals whose genes have been modified.

``In theory these animals should be fine, but we want to make sure there isn't any risk associated with them,'' Matheson said.

At a congressional hearing in March, experts reported high rates of failures in animal cloning attempts and birth defects as arguments against cloning people.

The FDA commissioned the National Academy study to help regulators decide whether cloned animals should require ''pre-market'' approval as drugs do, or if they should be classified like in-vitro fertilization, which is more loosely regulated.

``We're trying to make a science-based decision on whether unmodified cloned livestock should be regulated on a pre-market approval basis,'' Matheson said.

Elsewhere, a doctor at the University of Tennessee reported Tuesday that a 9-month-old Jersey calf that was the first of the breed cloned in the United States from an adult cell was found dead from unknown causes.

Canadians head to Japan to soothe Quest canola concerns

June 5
Reuters

Winnipeg - In a bid to bolster confidence in Canada's canola, Canadian agriculture officials and oilseed representatives were in Japan on Tuesday to present a report on a recall of canola seed from Monsanto Co. that contained an unregistered version of a genetic trait.

``This is courtesy. It's public relations. It's sharing information,'' Dale Adolphe, president of the Canola Council of Canada told Reuters before boarding a plane for Japan.

Adolphe said he was to be joined this week by an official from Canada's federal agriculture department and Monsanto staff for meetings with Japanese health and agriculture officials, as well as representatives from the Japanese processing industry which buys canola seed to crush into oil for cooking and meal for livestock.

On April 25, the biotechnology company Monsanto, voluntarily recalled its Quest brand of canola seed after discovering trace amounts of an alternate version of the Roundup Ready trait that was not registered for use in canola in Japan.

Japan is Canada's largest canola customer, buying about C$800 million worth of seed, or about 1.8 million tons annually.

Monsanto's recall took place the same month that Japan passed strict regulations on imports of biotech products, including checks for unapproved genetically modified (GM) food imports at unloading ports and in food products on domestic store shelves.

St. Louis, Missouri-based Monsanto's GM series of soybean and canola seeds, engineered to withstand the company's popular Roundup herbicide, are the most widespread GM oilseeds planted in North America.

The recall forced two of Canada's major grain companies, Agricore and Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (SWP), to deploy dozens of employees to track down the Quest seed, which represented between 10 percent and 12 percent of the 12 million canola acres seeded in western Canada during the last crop year.

SWP said on Tuesday that 870 of its farmers had received 500 tons of Quest seed at the time of recall and of those growers, 18 had already seeded about 6,000 acres. Winnipeg-based Agricore said that 29 farmers in Alberta had already put 7,700 acres of Quest into the ground.

Both companies paid for farmers to exchange the seed for another kind of canola or to apply herbicides to burn off the canola that was planted.

``We tried to make it as painless as possible basically,'' said Diane Wreford, a spokeswoman for Agricore, adding that neither the grain companies nor Monsanto had calculated the cost of the recall which took between two days and two weeks to complete.

Monsanto also said it had not yet determined how the alternative genetic trait got into its Quest canola.

At the time of the recall, Monsanto and the Canadian grain companies stressed that retrieving the seeds was not a health or safety issue -- the trait is approved for use in Canada -- rather, the purpose was to limit any potential trade repercussions and reassure overseas buyers.

``The reason really that the withdrawal was undertaken was to really help protect the integrity of some of Canadian canola export markets,'' said Monte Kesslering, a manager of SWP's seed buying unit.

``From what we've seen, that has been accomplished by this recall,'' said Kesslering.

Monsanto officials say they are currently working on getting approval for GT-200, the alternate version of the Roundup Ready trait, in Japan.

``To me the big milestones are the completion of the replacement which has happened and then the completion of the approval process in Japan which is some time off yet, but being pursued very aggressively,'' said Loren Wassell, a Monsanto spokesman.

Canadian canola industry representatives say the massive recall last year of tacos and other foods in the U.S. and Japan prompted by the discovery of traces of Starlink corn, a GM variety that was unapproved for use in foods, has made many in the North American grain and oilseed export sector even more sensitive to overseas demands.

Just last month, traces of an unapproved GM potato, NewLeaf Plus, were found in a Japanese potato snack, prompting an immediate recall and reports of more lost business for grain exporters in the United States.

NewLeaf Plus was developed by Monsanto to protect potatoes from insects and the potato leafroll virus.

Canadian canola exporters said that Japan's new zero tolerance standards were already being felt.

``They (Japan) want the methodology for testing canola cargoes and we're basically telling them the testing has been going on since 1998 and there's no detection of anything until this year and we've recalled it,'' said Adolphe.

``We don't need to test it. But we're not sure that's going to work,'' Adolphe said.

($1 equals $1.53 Canadian)

Corn growers challenge logic of promoting biotechnology in foreign markets

June 5
American Corn Growers Association press release

The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA), watching foreign export markets continue to fade away and seeing corn prices paid to U.S. farmers continue to drop, is questioning the wisdom of promoting biotechnology (GMOs) to foreign customers.

``The ACGA believes an explanation is owed to the thousands of American farmers who were told to trust this technology, yet now see their prices fall to historically low levels while other countries exploit U.S. vulnerability and pick off our export customers one by one,'' said Larry Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of the ACGA. ``An explanation is also owed our foreign customers on why the United States isn't leading the effort to promote and sell the type of commodities and products they want and demand.''

ACGA's Farmer Choice -- Customer First program continues to provide information to U.S. farmers concerning the GMO-driven loss of export markets, legal liability created by cross-pollination contamination and the limitations inherent in on-farm segregation. The program provides objective information and encourages farmers to make informed planting decisions about what seed varieties to plant. The ACGA program urges farmers to study the pros and cons of agricultural biotechnology and its potential market impacts.

``Brazil's current marketing year corn exports have risen to 1.7 million metric tons (67 million bushels), which competes directly with U.S. corn producers,'' said Dan McGuire, ACGA Program Director. 

``Meanwhile, just last week, a news report stated that Cargill is breaking ground to set up a new port terminal on the banks of the Tapajos river at Sanatarem, Para state (Brazil) to be completed within ten months, with a turnover of 120,000 metric tons per month. The Sanatarem facility is expected to result in a freight savings of US$60 million on the 3 million metric ton volume of soybeans to be transported to the facility from northern Mato Grosso state via the BR 163 roadway. Brazil is a Non-GMO soybean producer. The same news report says that Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul states produce 3.5 million metric tons of soybeans, which should grow to 10 million metric tons within five years as transportation problems are tackled. Now Brazil is also a corn exporter, competing directly with U.S. farmers. With this new export facility, we can expect Brazil to expedite a soybean/corn crop rotation program which will increase competition for U.S. farmers over the long term,'' added McGuire.

More recent developments should also concern U.S. farmers. The May 28, 2001 edition of Feedstuffs reported that Australia's Industrial Supplies Office ``has identified the non-genetically modified (non-GM) status of Australia as a possible advantage over other soybean producers, such as the U.S., which has more than half its soybean crop sown to GM varieties.'' 

A May 21, 2001 news report out of London stated that a delegation from India, sponsored by the Soybean Processors Association of India met trade officials in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Britain to persuade buyers that their soybean meal is non-GM, unlike other producers. India has already carved a niche for its non-GM soy products in Asia, with exports from 2.5 to 3 million metric tons per year. 

According to a May 18, 2001 news report from Quito, Ecuador, the Ecuadorian government suspended a United Nations-sponsored nutritional program that provides food for poor children and mothers due to the possibility that genetically engineered soybeans were among some of the food products. And, China continues to be an aggressive corn exporter, also exploiting the U.S. vulnerability in Japan and other large U.S. corn markets, that results from GMOs in general and StarLink corn specifically. 

``Even in the face of all these negative market signals, it appears that some in the U.S. are willing to promote biotechnology no matter how negative the impact is on U.S. exports and commodity prices. That arrogant strategy is turning out to be a 'market development in reverse' program,'' concluded McGuire.

Genetically modified trees good news for paper industry

June 5
New Straits Times (Thailand)

Traditionally the raw material of the pulp and paper industry depends on the natural forest where trees which are more than 50 years old are felled.

As it is increasingly seen as unacceptable to hew such trees, Thai paper manufacturer Advance Agro Public Company Ltd has found a solution.

The company uses trees which are only five years` old, the youngest in the world.

Currently major producers of pulp and paper such as Brazil use seven-year-old trees while Sweden and Finland still use 40-year-old trees.

``We are the first in the world to discover this and we did it by making the best use of Thailand`s natural geography and climate combined with the agricultural skills of the Thai people,`` said deputy managing director Paisan Srisa-an during a media tour of the company`s plant recently.

The company had conducted a 20 year research which culminated in the use of genetically modified Eucalyptus trees.

Advance Agro has transformed Thailand from an importer of pulp and paper into a major exporter.

The company was incorporated in 1989 but in the early 80`s its major shareholder the Soon Hua Seng Group began experimenting with Eucalyptus and other species as an alternative to low value crops such a rice and tapioca.

It realized that the farmers would be better off planting fast growing trees which would produce high fiber yields.

In 1987 it succeeded with one variety of Eucalyptus which not only thrived on degraded land but was also disease and insect resistant.

Having established the raw material source, the company formed Advance Agro in 1989 as the only fully integrated pulp and paper producer in Thailand.

The company was listed in the Stock Exchange of Thailand in 1995.

In 1998 Stora Enso, the biggest pulp and paper manufacturer in Europe acquired a 19.99 per cent equity in the company. Stora Enso provides support in technology, research and development as well as marketing in Europe.

In the same year Japan`s Oji Paper Co Ltd bought a 5.5 per cent stake. It helps with the expansion into Japanese and Asian markets.

Advance Agro was recently awarded the ISO9001:2000 and to date more than 10,000 farmers have joined the tree growing program.

This way the farmers receive a steady income while the company has a long term wood supply without having to rely on trees from the natural forest.

It has created a new era for the paper industry based on the dual concept of saving the environment and of developing the Thai agricultural sector.

Environment protection dictates every stage of the company`s processes.

The trees are grown on tree farms. Reservoirs are dug so that the community`s water supply is not disturbed. Electricity is produced by using raw material residues as recycled fuel. The residues also double up as natural fertilizers.

Water is recycled using a pulp cleaning system which uses less water than any other system in the world.

Jelly plants could grow, and glow, on Mars

June 4
CNN

An invasion of an alien species with plant and animal attributes could take place within years. But Earth would be the departure point, not the destination.

Terrestrial scientists planning to sprout genetically altered weeds on Mars hope to take part in a $300 million mission to the red planet that could pave the way for human colonization.

The plants, which will contain genes from jellyfish to make them glow in response to environmental stresses, could leave Earth on a spacecraft bound for Mars as early as 2007, according to NASA.

"It will be a symbolic step of life from Earth, leaving Earth, and growing somewhere else," said Chris McKay, a NASA scientist involved in Mars missions.

A robotic gardener will scoop up, analyze and fertilize martian soil in miniature greenhouses, which will house germinating specimens of a common mustard plant known as thale cress.

Despite working with such strange red dirt, biologists are confident in their interplanetary green thumbs.

"I have no doubt that we can get plants to survive on Mars," said Rob Ferl, a University of Florida scientist who is trying to reserve a spot for the experiment on the proposed 2007 mission.

A common weed along roadsides and trails, the Arabidopsis plant was selected for the project because of its short life cycle, about 5 weeks, its diminutive size, about 7 inches, and because its entire genetic structure has been mapped and sequenced.

Scientists intend to modify the plant, known as the "lab rat" of genetic botany, with marker genes from other species to make it glow with colors corresponding to different environmental stresses, such as drought, extreme temperatures and noxious soils.

One specimen will emit a green in the presence of excessive levels of heavy metals. Another will turn blue to signal peroxides.

One of the marker genes will ensure that the first terrestrial colonizers on Mars represent the animal as well as the plant kingdoms. It comes from Aequorea victoria, a jellyfish that floats along the Pacific coast of North America.

A camera onboard the lander will document the progress of the pioneer species on Mars, where the daily temperatures range from 45 degrees Fahrenheit in the day to minus 170 degrees Fahrenheit at night.

If the lowly weed succeeds in its lofty task, the researchers hope it sparks more scientific interest in the possibility of "terraforming" Mars, or engineering its ecosystems to make them more suitable for Earth life.

Such tinkering would likely be required to produce oxygen, food and water for human transplants, as the cost of sending such essentials from Earth would be prohibitive.

"I have no doubt what we can get plants to survive on Mars. When we do, we will have shown that Earth-evolved life is capable of thriving in distant worlds, and we will have set the stage for human colonization," Ferl said.

Tighten biotech food rules

June 3
Denver Post

But many American consumers still don't know that 60 percent of processed foods on our grocery shelves today contain genetically modified substances. That lack of information not only leaves consumers unable to make proper decisions but also undermines the food industry's credibility.

Promises and concerns about genetically engineered foods were described last week by Denver Post reporters Ann Schrader and Steve Raabe.

Genetically modified foods should not be banned, because they can offer benefits, such as a new strain of rice containing extra protein.

But rules governing the labeling, marketing and liability of biotech foods should be strengthened.

European consumers get crucial information because genetically modified products are labeled. American companies that do business in the European Union have had to comply with the strict disclosure rules. But these same agri-businesses don't give similar information to consumers in the United States. Why not?

There's really no excuse for their two-sided policy. Even if food companies fear that some consumers won't buy their products if they know what's in them, that very possibility highlights why disclosure is important. Far from reassuring consumers, the dearth of information makes it look like food companies have something to hide.

Legislation to require that genetically engineered foods be labeled as such has been considered in Congress and 17 states, including Colorado. So far, though, agri-businesses have managed to nix the proposals. Normally, consumer protection should be Congress' job, but sometimes states need to take the lead to compel changes at the national level. If Congress doesn't act soon, then states like Colorado should start to look at their own measures.

The lack of disclosure also undermines the industry's claims that genetically modified foods pose no health risks. The companies say no data indicate that anyone has been harmed. But if consumers aren't aware of what they're eating, there is no way that they, their physicians or public health experts could easily track unexplained illnesses or allergic reactions. Disclosure and full labeling of products thus is crucial to adequately protect certain at-risk groups, especially people with severe food allergies.

In addition, critics fear that genetically modified organisms could escape into the broader environment and cause unpredictable harm. The biotech industry says that concern is exaggerated. But if the industry is that sure of itself, then it should accept full financial responsibility if any damage does occur.