June headlines

Return to June article index

Thailand: Saying no to transgenic crops

There is a growing worldwide market for non-genetically modified food--and countries from Brazil to Thailand stand to gain by catering to it

June 14
Far Eastern Economic Review

IN SUPERMARKETS across Asia, bags of potato chips and containers of infant formula contain ingredients from transgenic (commonly referred to as genetically modified, or GM) crops. The non-governmental organization Greenpeace has recently campaigned to expose the widespread use of GM ingredients--imported from abroad--in Thailand and the Philippines. In the process, Greenpeace may have also unwittingly exposed a growing market opportunity for foodstuffs that are certified as not having been made from GM crops.

Unlike the United States and Canada, Asian countries have not embraced GM seeds. While Japan has recently approved three GM seed varieties, China is the only country in Asia growing a GM crop: cotton. But several countries have imported GM seeds and plants for field trials and GM rice is under development, with commercial varieties about five years off. Multinational seed companies have promoted GM seeds as a key technology for feeding growing populations. But for agricultural exporting countries like Thailand, India and Vietnam, the marketing benefits of avoiding GM crops may far outweigh any yield increases or nutritional benefits GM seeds may offer.

Says Wanchai Cherdshewasart, a member of the prime minister's National Board of Biosafety: "Now is our golden opportunity. Most countries are looking for non-GM produce. We should take advantage of it." The advantage of non-GM crops has all to do with consumer perceptions of GM crops. Carole Burke, editor of Japanscan's Food Industry Bulletin, says, "Japanese consumers are very concerned about food quality and safety in general, and are very skeptical about the safety of GM foods."

That same skepticism has spurred several European countries to reject numerous shipments of American and Canadian GM corn, soya beans and canola. Thailand's prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, is well aware of how such consumer sentiment affects export markets. He is hedging his bets, recently telling a local newspaper, "We should not say that we want or do not want GM . . . People are just suspicious of the technology."

While some GM commodities have been approved for import into Europe and Japan, many European governments now require the labeling of foods with GM ingredients. Asian countries are beginning to follow suit. Some companies like food-processing giants Unilever and Nestle have eliminated the use of GM ingredients in their operations in Europe. Japan's top two brewers, Asahi and Kirin, eliminated GM ingredients several years ago. Says Burke, "All leading food-processing companies in Japan are very conscious of consumers' fear of GM foods. Market leaders in all segments of the food industry are demanding GM-free commodities, and the menus of major restaurant chains note their foods are GM-free."

As labeling becomes widespread, the demand for GM-free food is likely to increase and could potentially represent a multibillion-dollar market. Burke says the growth in demand can be compared to the demand for organic food. In Japan organic foods represent only 1%-2% of food sales "but will grow considerably" she says, while organic foods are the fastest growing segment of food sales in the U.S. In order to meet that demand, U.S. food processor Archer Daniels Midland has been offering American farmers a premium for non-GM corn and soya beans of around eight cents a bushel.

But maintaining separate storage and processing facilities for GM and non-GM commodities requires vigilant tracking which increases costs. To avoid this complication, Brazil adopted the alternative strategy of simply banning the import of all GM seeds and commodities. Brazil's new reputation as a reliable source for non-GM corn and soya beans was the key factor in South Korea's recent decision to import Brazilian, rather than American, corn. When GM rice hits the market, demand for non-GM rice will likely follow, and Asia, the world's ricebowl, will be expected to meet that demand.

In Asia, Thailand is the country best positioned to reliably serve the non-GM market. More than two years ago, the government banned the import and cultivation of commercial-GM seeds. While there are currently experimental field trials of Monsanto's GM cotton, and the government-funded National Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology is conducting research into GM papaya, tomato and cucumber, those field trials may not be legal for much longer.

FIELD-TESTING BAN

At the urging of Thai NGO Assembly of the Poor, Thaksin's cabinet is considering a ban on the field-testing of GM seeds and plants. Agricultural economist, Chaiwat Konjin, who oversees a major Asian Development Bank agricultural loan in Thailand, says, "It is not in the interest of Thailand to produce transgenic crops. The trade issue is very important and we must protect our export markets."

The Philippine Senate tried to pass similar legislation last year. Despite an active NGO community opposed to GM crops, the move was unsuccessful. Unlike Thailand, the Philippines is a net importer of food, especially rice, and is more concerned about feeding its population. The Philippines is also home to the International Rice Research Institute, which is in the forefront of research into GM rice. The IRRI's spokesman, Duncan Macintosh, says the proposed ban was short-sighted and would have been counterproductive. "We try to keep our research agenda separate from consumer concerns. Because without the science consumers will never get the facts they need to have a constructive debate."

China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia and even Thailand are part of the IRRI's Asian Rice Biotechnology Network, which may eventually develop GM rice varieties. If such a variety were to come to market, "there is just no way Japan would accept it," says Burke. "The Japanese are extremely fussy about their rice." Chaiwat says Thailand is keenly aware of this attitude and neither the Ministry of Commerce nor the Ministry of Agriculture will promote GM crops. "We want to protect our own varieties of rice."

Vietnam is the world's second-largest rice exporter, after Thailand, but the Vietnamese serve a different market segment with lower-quality rice and so are not as opposed to the idea of GM rice. The governments of China and Indonesia, like the Philippines, are more concerned about food security than export-market security and so are not opposed to GM rice. While the Indian government is cautiously optimistic about GM crops, a delegation of private soya-bean producers recently visited several European countries to confirm that Indian soya was still non-GM.

While Thailand's stance toward GM crops may be pre-emptive, it is not simply forward-looking. Thailand has already run into problems with some of its export markets. A few months ago, the government of Saudi Arabia rejected shipments of tuna packed in soya oil produced from GM soybeans, imported from North America. The two countries have resumed trade in tuna, but Thai manufacturers must now label the product as GM-free and pay for certification by a third-party testing facility.

This experience underscores the complexity of the situation and lends credence to Greenpeace's calls to ban imports of GM commodities from other countries, which are often used in foods processed in Thailand. But even with such a wide ban, the genetic genie may already be out of the bottle. There are reports of Thai farmers smuggling and growing GM seeds from China, and there is always the possibility that GM seeds and plants will be brought into the country illegally or by accident. While the verdict is still out on whether GM crops are a boon for farmers and consumers or a risk with far-reaching environmental implications, Thailand's pragmatism suggests an answer already familiar to business: The customer is always right.

Greenpeace demands withdrawal of GM foods

June 7
Times of India

NEW DELHI: Environmental organization Greenpeace International has sounded an alarm about the detection of genetically modified ingredients in two popular food products that are freely sold in the Indian market.

"These two products could be only the tip of the iceberg, where illegal entry of genetically altered food in the Indian market is concerned," Michelle Chawla, Greenpeace's genetic engineering campaigner, said Wednesday, demanding that they be withdrawn immediately.

Providing evidence of GM corn and soya in Procter and Gamble's Pringles Potato Crisps and Abbott Laboratories' Isomil Baby food, available in most urban shops in the country, the organization alleged that the US-based manufacturers had not sought approval required by Indian law to sell these products here.

"Not only are these companies unashamedly violating the laws of the country, they are deceiving an oblivious public," Chawla said. The organization demanded that the companies immediately withdraw their food products.

In May, Hong Kong DNA chips, an independent laboratory, conducted tests on a total of six products available in the Indian market. Only two mentioned were found containing GM substances, specifically corn and soya genetically engineered to be immune to Monsanto's weed-killer "round-up".

However, Chawla said it was safe to assume that these two brands could only be the beginning, as soya and corn were present in most processed foods.

Use of genetically modified substances is in the centre of a raging controversy over the ill- effects of consuming such genetically altered food on human beings. Though no major side effects have been detected barring allergies, a section of scientists and environmentalists have objected to such artificial "Frankenstein Food."

In India, it is illegal to import or sell any genetically engineered food product without prior approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Isabelle Meister, science advisor with Greenpeace said: "Scientists still do not know the long term effects of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment and people's diet." But she said the evidence was mounting.

Recently, several food products had to be recalled in the US because they contained traces of a genetically engineered corn (StarLink), suspected to cause allergies.

Though these products can be sold in Europe, Procter and Gamble have assured European citizens that they would not use GM ingredients in their food products. But they do sell Pringles containing GM substances in Thailand.

Similarly, Abbott had assured consumers in UK and Netherlands that their products were GM free. However, Isomil Soy Infant formula with genetically altered soya is sold in Philippines.

Chawla pointed out that in 2000, over 50 percent of the soya and 25 percent of the corn grown in the US was genetically engineered. Since US did not segregate between conventional and GM crops, it had become a major source of genetic "contamination", she said.

In India, several local communities consume cottonseed oil, as it is cheaper. Multinational Monsanto-Mahyco has field tested genetically engineered cotton are ready to begin commercial growing in India.

Green guru Norman Borlaug calls for compulsory GM studies

June 6
The Scotsman

A NOBEL Peace prize winner has called for the introduction of compulsory biology studies among wealthy urban nations to improve understanding of food and agricultural issues.

Dr Norman Borlaug, often described as the father of the "green revolution" said that this understanding would help counter the irrational fears stirred up by zealots against genetic modification techniques.

"The intensity of attacks against GMOs by certain groups is unprecedented and, in certain cases, even surprising given the potential environmental benefits that such technology can bring in reducing the use of crop protection chemicals," he said.

"It appears that many of the most rabid crop bio-tech opponents are driven more by a hatred of capitalism and globalization than by the actual safety of transgenic plants.

However, the fear they have been able to generate ... among the public is due in significant measure to the failure of our schools and colleges to teach even rudimentary courses on agriculture.

"This educational gap has resulted in an enormous majority, even among well educated people, who seem totally ignorant of an area of knowledge so basic to their daily lives and, indeed, to their future survival. We must begin to address this ignorance without delay ... by making it compulsory for students to study more biology and to understand the working of agricultural and food systems."

Dr Borlaug, who was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day of an international biotechnology conference in London last week, said that almost all traditional foods were the products of natural mutations and genetic recombination. Without this process we would still be "slime on the bottom of some prime evil sea".

He added: "The Green Revolution of the last four decades had led to vast increases in food supplies at lower prices to millions in developing countries but it needed to be taken on further with biotechnology; again with those countries as prime beneficiaries."

"But instead the battle over biotech products is being fought mainly in the rich nations, whose governments collectively subsidize their very small farming populations to the tune of $350 billion a year and where many of the major problems of human nutrition are related to obesity."

Dr Borlaug urged private life science companies to establish concessionary pricing of GM materials for low income countries and to share their expertise with public research institutions and scientists concerned with smallholder agriculture. He expressed some "uneasiness" at the concentration in ownership of these life science groups and called on governments to establish a stake in GM research to produce "public goods" and to ensure farmers and the public were not held hostage to possible private sector monopolies.

His themes were broadly endorsed by Senator George McGovern, US ambassador to the UN Food and Agriculture agencies, who said he felt strongly about the potential for biotechnology to alleviate hunger and suffering in the developing world.

Label GMO beer and food - Pass bill C-287

More than 80 groups, 93% of Canadians say label now

June 6
Council of Canadians press release

Ottawa - More than 80 groups have joined the push to get the federal government to listen to Canadians and implement mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. The unprecedented support comes as private member's bill C-287 enters second reading in the House. 

If passed, Liberal MP Charles Caccia's bill would make food companies label their GE food. But there's concern the bill will die unless enough MPs vote in the fall to send the bill to committee and to a final vote in the House. 

To build support for the bill, a letter is being circulated across Canada to encourage support for C-287. To date, more than 80 groups have signed and many of the groups are promising a summer of mobilization as MPs return to their ridings. 

"All MPs, and Minister Rock in particular, should support this bill to make sure a much needed democratic debate takes place in Parliament," says Nadège Adam, Health Protection Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. "Few other initiatives have had a 93 per cent public support rate for six years in a row." 

"Canada's jacking up MPs' salaries because they say we're falling behind world standards," said Eric Darier of Greenpeace. "But 35 countries are adopting mandatory labeling, protecting more than a billion people. We're falling behind the world - way behind - and Canadians are demanding we keep up." 

"Not only do Canadians want mandatory labeling, the world expects it," said Brewster Kneen of BC Biotechnology Circle. "From beer to canola and from Europe to Japan, our customers want GE food labeled. How many customers do we have to lose before the government gets it?" 

Caccia's bill is timely since the Royal Society of Canada's report, which contains 53 recommendations calling for the overhaul of the GE regulatory process, continues to be ignored by government officials since its release last February. 

The Globe and Mail's Edward Greenspon has called this a "private member's bill worth supporting".

Mandatory labeling of GM foods quiets activists but deceives consumers

June 6
AGCare press release (Canada)

GUELPH, ON - According to a coalition of Ontario farm groups, mandatory labeling requirements for genetically modified foods have resulted in consumer deception and misinformation in countries where they've been enacted. 

"Every country that requires mandatory labeling for GM foods has also developed a long list of exemptions and loopholes to address the difficulties inherent in the process. As a result, many foods that are labeled 'non-GM' in other countries have a significant proportion of ingredients that have been obtained from genetically modified crops," said Mary Lou Garr, vice-chair of AGCare, a coalition of agricultural producer groups in Ontario. "We think that Canadian consumers deserve better, and that's why we support the voluntary labeling standards process currently in development through the Canadian General Standards Board." 

Examples of exemptions currently in place include excluding ingredients that are obtained from GM crops, but which do not contain novel proteins or DNA (such as oils, sugars and starches from genetically modified corn canola and soybeans), ingredients that are used in small quantities, so comprise only a small portion of processed food products, and crops genetically modified through technologies other than recombinant-DNA techniques. More information on international approaches to the labeling of genetically modified foods is available on the AGCare website: www.agcare.org 

In Canada, genetically modified foods must be labeled in cases where the modification results in nutritional or compositional changes or a change in potential allergenicity in a new food or crop. This standard is applied regardless of the technique by which the modification is achieved. 

Manufacturers can choose to label products to provide information regarding the presence or absence of genetically modified ingredients, so long as the information is factual and neither misleading nor deceptive. Currently, the Canadian General Standards Board is in developing a standard for voluntary labeling through a multi-stakeholder consultative process that includes representation from consumer, industry, producer and general interest groups. 

Canadian food retailers have agreed to delay marketing of foods with GM or non-GM claims until the CGSB Standard is completed in order to ensure that the information offered to consumers through such labeling claims is clear, consistent and meaningful. 

AGCare is a coalition of 17 farm groups representing Ontario's 45,000 field and horticultural crop growers on crop biotechnology, crop protection, and related environmental issues. 

Further information is available on AGCare's website: www.agcare.org 

You want some ketchup with that vaccine?

Tater tots aren't so tasty to disease-causing bugs

June 5
WebMD.com

You say "potato," and I say "vaccine." A humble spud modified to carry fragments of disease-causing bacteria and viruses appears to be effective, at least in mice, at protecting the body against the severe, potentially fatal diarrhea and dehydration that can occur with intestinal infections.

To get the critical vaccine components past the formidable barrier of acidic digestive juices and into the gut, the designers of the potato vaccine borrowed a trick from the bacteria that cause the deadly infectious disease cholera. Researchers Jie Yu, a PhD candidate, and William H.R. Langridge, PhD, describe how they pulled it off in the June issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology.

Edible vaccines have been in the works for several years as low-cost, low-tech alternatives to versions of standard shot-in-the-arm vaccines. The concept was shown to be effective in humans in a clinical trial published in 1998. In that trial, conducted at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, volunteers ate bite-sized pieces of raw potato that had been genetically engineered to produce part of the toxin secreted by a strain of E coli bacteria, which causes a form of diarrhea. The proof-of-concept trial showed that the vaccine was successful in activating the immune system in most of the volunteers.

"Edible vaccines offer exciting possibilities for significantly reducing the burden of diseases like hepatitis and diarrhea, particularly in the developing world where storing and administering vaccines are often major problems," Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said in a written statement at the time of the earlier trial.

The need for safe, effective, and easily transported vaccines is clear: In 1999, the FDA withdrew from the market a much-anticipated and highly promising conventional vaccine against rotavirus infections, which cause severe diarrhea and fluid loss that kill an estimated 600,000-800,000 children annually, mostly in the developing world. The withdrawal followed a series of reports, confirmed by the CDC in Atlanta that showed children who received the vaccine had a small but significant increase in risk for serious or even fatal bowel obstructions.

But in trials so far, edible vaccines, while apparently safe, have been limited in their effectiveness due to the digestive action of the human stomach: The vaccines are often broken down before they can get across the lining of the stomach and intestines and into the bloodstream.

To get around this problem, Langridge, with the Center for Molecular Biology and Gene Therapy at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, and Yu, adopted the invasion strategy developed by the bacteria that cause the deadly intestinal infection cholera. Cholera bugs are able to wreak havoc on the body because they latch onto the mucous tissue layer that lines and protects the gut, and use it as a shield from digestive juices. In other words, the bugs have learned how to parachute unharmed behind enemy lines.

To create the vaccine, Langridge and Yu fused small pieces of cholera to parts of other disease-causing organisms: rotavirus and enterotoxigenic E coli, which causes a cholera-like disease in humans. Then they then inserted the genes for the combined vaccines into potato plants, which expressed the combination vaccine in the potatoes they produced.

Female mice that were inoculated by eating the potatoes developed antibodies in their blood and in their intestines to both rotavirus and E. coli, and the immune response appeared to last for at least two months. Further evidence that the vaccination was successful came from the fact that when pups of the immunized mice were exposed to the bugs, the diarrhea they developed was less severe and was shorter in duration than in mice whose mothers had never been immunized. The effect, called passive immunity, is another indication that the spud vaccine was working as intended.

"We believe that ours is the first group to show efficacy of an edible vaccine against rotavirus," Langridge tells WebMD. He says that because mice and human immune systems respond in similar ways to bacteria that cause stomach infections, the vaccine should also work in humans.

But a plant scientist who has been working on plant-based vaccines since the early 1990s tells WebMD that it has been a hard row to hoe.

"When we first started the work some nine or 10 years ago, we had a rather naïve notion that we could provide the seed or a genetically altered plant line that maybe the village shaman could grow and distribute to the people to treat [a disease], but we now know that we need to be very certain about the level of antigen [a protein that puts the immune system on guard] in the material, and the amount of material given in each dose. We know now that it will be necessary to provide some kind of a processed product," says Hugh S. Mason, PhD, associate research scientist at the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research and adjunct professor for plant biology at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

Mason and colleagues are working on other plant-based vaccine delivery systems, including freeze-dried tomatoes and potatoes that could be reconstituted with water or other fluids to make an oral vaccine.

Plant researchers are also mindful, he says, of concerns that rogue genes from bioengineered plants could escape into the environment and contaminate food crops.

"We have to very careful," Mason tells WebMD. "We want to be very certain that we have a very low probability of such an escape happening, and with certain crop plants, like potatoes. I think it's fairly easy to maintain that certainty."

U.S. corn groups aim to ease biotech fears in Europe

June 5
Reuters

As one food safety concern subsides with the containment of foot-and-mouth disease in Europe, a delegation of U.S. grain growers will meet with European Union officials next week to calm consumer fears over genetically modified crops.

Representatives from the National Corn Growers Association and U.S. Grains Council travel to Europe on Sunday as EU officials prepare to finalize a new policy on biotech foods that would require new labeling and "traceability" rules.

European consumers have shunned biotech foods for years because of concerns about its health and environmental risks. Genetically modified foods are spliced with foreign genes to help plants resist drought or ward off pests.

U.S. farm groups contend the EU proposal unfairly discriminates against U.S. exports and could violate World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements.

"We want to find out what their concerns are about biotech and voice our opinions and meet in the middle," said

Fred Yoder, a biotechnology expert for the National Corn Growers Association.

The European Commission was scheduled to approve its policy on biotech foods by June 20, an EU official said.

U.S. FARMERS ON DEFENSIVE

During the week-long trip through Brussels, Geneva and Paris, the six-person delegation will meet with European Commission officials, WTO ambassadors and corn importers.

U.S. farmers, the world's leading producers of transgenic crops, have fallen on the defensive since an unapproved corn variety was discovered last year in hundreds of American snack foods, taco shells and other products containing corn flour.

StarLink, a corn variety made by the Franco-German pharmaceutical group Aventis, was barred by U.S. regulators for human use because of concerns that it might trigger allergic reactions.

EU placed a moratorium on the process for approving new biotech crops two years ago, effectively shutting off imports of U.S. corn to Europe, according to the U.S. corn industry.

American farm groups and the biotechnology industry contend that foods containing gene-spliced ingredients are safe and no different than conventional ones. U.S. green groups say not enough is known about the long-term effects of genetically modified foods on human health and the environment.