June headlines

Return to June article index

Using for a cause - coffee

June 29
AP

SEATTLE -- When a black man was shot to death by a white police officer, a Seattle community leader called for a boycott of Starbucks, even though the coffee chain had nothing to do with the shooting.

When organic-food activists wanted to raise awareness of milk containing artificial bovine growth hormone, the protesters went to Starbucks, too even though the company had already said it would work to stop using such milk.

And when suburbanites near San Diego wanted to fight the corporatization of their community, they targeted a planned Starbucks not the Rite-Aid drug store or the Jack in the Box right up the road.

Across the country in recent months, protesters have been gathering at Starbucks. And it's not a double-tall nonfat latte they're after.

Instead, they are hoping that the coffee chain's omnipresence and its socially conscious customers will help draw attention to such issues as racial profiling and food safety.

The protesters readily admit that Starbucks is not a bad corporate citizen.

The company has cultivated a socially conscious image by giving extensively to local charities, working to preserve the environment in areas where it buys coffee, and using environmentally friendly products.

But that didn't stop Ronnie Cummins of the Little Marais, Minn.-based Organic Consumer Association from going after Starbucks in the spring, when he announced plans to picket Starbucks stores over the use of a bovine growth hormone in some of the milk they serve.

"We believe that Starbucks is the weakest link in the chain because their customer base cares about the environment and cares about social justice and cares about their health," Cummins said.

Starbucks considers itself a victim of its own success.

"We are, I guess, in some ways accustomed to being front and center on some issues that I don't think we own," Orin Smith, Starbucks president and chief executive, said this week.
But the company also has responded to many of the protesters' concerns because Smith, like the protesters, believes Starbucks customers will.

"We have to do what is right for our customers, and to that extent we will continue to work on some of these issues," he said.

Starbucks began in 1971 with a single store in Seattle. It now has 3,300 locations worldwide.

In 1991, Starbucks began giving money to CARE, the international relief organization, and became the first privately owned U.S. company to offer stock options to part-time employees. In 1997, it established a foundation to support local literacy programs. In 1998, Starbucks joined with a company owned by former basketball star Magic Johnson to develop Starbucks locations in urban neighborhoods in need of a boost.

But many activists remain unimpressed.

During the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, demonstrators damaged a Starbucks store.

In the San Diego suburb of Ocean Beach, the company faces a campaign from townspeople who do not want Starbucks on their locals-only main street.

"I don't have anything against Starbucks per se, but it represents the changing face of America. I fear there will be no more family-run businesses," said Jordan McMullin, 25.

Perhaps the most bizarre stand against the company came in Seattle, where the Rev. Robert Jeffrey announced a boycott of a Starbucks store in a largely minority neighborhood that had recruited Starbucks.

Jeffrey wanted to draw attention to a police shooting a mile from the store, and chose Starbucks because of its political clout.

His largely ineffective boycott perplexed many, who noted that one Starbucks store donates all of its profits to a private school that serves mostly black students. School director Doug Wheeler said he almost cried when he read about the boycott.

On the eve of the organic-rights group protest in the spring, Starbucks announced it would begin offering hormone-free milk by the end of July. But that wasn't enough to silence the protests, which resumed at more than 200 Starbucks this week.

Thailand: Government likely to label 3 percent GMO food imports

June 29
Reuters

Bangkok -- Thailand is likely to introduce rules soon requiring all imports of food containing more than three percent of genetically modified organism (GMO) products to be labeled, officials said on Friday.

Thailand's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is due to consider the rules next week, FDA officials said.

"The FDA is scheduled to meet on July 3 to consider what appropriate proportion of GMO in food needs to be labeled," Chanin Charoenpong, the FDA's expert on food standards, told Reuters.

He said the FDA favored requiring all food products containing more than three percent of GMO to be labeled.

European countries require food products with more than one percent GMO content to be labeled, while South Korea and Japan require labeling for food with three and five percent respectively.

Thailand has banned the planting of GMO crops, but it has no objection to importing GMO corn, soybean and cotton for human and livestock consumption as well as products made from GMO grains.

Thailand imports soybean and corn from the United States, Brazil and Argentina, where GMO crops are progressively replacing traditionally-grown crops.

Thailand also imports for local consumption finished edible products that use corn, soybean or tomatoes as raw materials such as corn soup.

The labeling standard is expected to take effect by the end of the year, FDA officials said.

Manufacturers in Thailand and overseas would be allowed up to one year after that to prepare for the labeling, officials said.

"Any exporters who export to Thailand food products or products containing GMO that exceed the approved level are required by Thai law to have the product labeled," said Chanin.

A public hearing would be held among involved parties including consumers and manufacturers before the standard is imposed, FDA officials added.

China to set pace in transgenic cotton planting

June 28
Reuters

Guilen, China -- China will set the pace in planting genetically modified (GM) cotton with its acreage seen growing the fastest in coming years, Chinese agricultural officials and cotton analysts said on Thursday. 

Beijing is gearing up to push farmers to sow more GM cotton seeds to combat ravaging bollworms, reduce planting costs and increase yields, a senior Chinese agricultural official said. "I see the growing area of the transgenic insect-resistant cotton in China expanding in the next few years," Du Min of the research center for rural economy at the Ministry of Agriculture told an international cotton conference in Guilin. 

She declined to provide a figure for the acreage increase. China has been active in researching and growing Bt cotton, which contains the bacterium Bacillus thuringienesis proteins and is resistant to corn borers, bollworms and other pests that damage cotton plants. It is effective mainly against the bollworm in its first and second generations, but becomes increasingly vulnerable to the third and fourth generations. 

The acreage of transgenic insect-resistant cotton in China rocketed to about one million hectares in 2000, or 28 percent of the country's total cotton area, from less than 100,000 hectares in 1998, or 2.2 percent of the total area. China's cotton acreage is expected to rise 14.9 percent to 4.63 million hectares in 2001. 

Gm Cotton Rising Fastest 

"China will become the most important country with regards to using Bt technology," Carlos Valderrama, chief economist at the International Cotton Advisory Committee, told Reuters. "China will be having, over the next seasons, greater growth in areas dedicated to Bt cotton ... The area in China will increase the fastest," he said. 

Analysts welcomed China's approach to Bt research, involving foreign companies like Monsanto and the government. "It's not only the multinationals who have been conducting this, but in China, there is also independent government research," Valderrama said. 

Monsanto's Bt cotton covers about 240,000 hectares in China. The New York-listed firm has gained government approval to grow Bt cotton in the eastern provinces of Hebei, Anhui and Shandong and is awaiting the green light to plant in Hubei and Henan, company officials said earlier in June. 

Domestic Bt cotton is also gaining ground. "In 2001, the growing area of domestic Guokang GM cotton will reach 800,000 hectares," from 350,000 hectares in 2000, Du said in a research report presented at the conference. 

The Guokang series was developed by the Cotton Research Center and the Biotechnology Research Institute of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Du also said planting more GM cotton was in line with government plans to increase rural incomes as farmers could spend less on pesticides and labor, while selling more cotton with increased yields.

Prudence in biotech, not perfection

June 27
Scripps Howard News Service editorial

But there is a truth that needs to be told, and it is this: The people trying to squelch the production of genetically modified foods through violence, through nuisance, through duplicity - even those who employ sincerely meant argument that happens to be ill-informed - are up to something morally monstrous. About 60 percent of the processed foods you now buy at the grocery store are genetically modified and have never caused anyone as much as a stomachache for that reason, the protesters do or should know, and what they should also know is what George McGovern has reminded us, that the "most promising weapon in the global war against hunger is high-yielding, scientific agriculture, including genetically modified crops."

The former senator and presidential candidate, who addressed the matter in his capacity as a U.S. ambassador to a U.N. food agency, made it clear in a piece he wrote that he is not opposed to prudence. Yes, the U.S. government does need to have careful rules in place to protect the environment and health, and scientists around the world do need to address questions about possible harm as objectively and conscientiously as they can. While that sort of armor has in fact been donned, anyone who spots any chinks should speak out loudly and be applauded for the concern.

What is going on among the protesters is mostly something else. Obstructively, they ask for a level of safety assurance that cannot be produced for much of anything if anything at all, and demagogically, they ask for policies that have the spreading of alarm as their only ascertainable objective. When worries about dangers to monarch butterflies or of allergy-causing corn are dismissed by scientists, they persist as if the contrary reality of things were available to them through some deep political-economic understanding. The whole issue, they say, is the willingness of corporations to sacrifice humanity and the environment to satisfy their greed, but it is the protesters who propose to keep millions from being healthily fed because of their cockeyed take on the world, and that is as despicable a transgression as the one they allege.

Gene trial patients will be genetically modified humans

June 27
Electronic Telegraph

MEN in Birmingham are to be turned into genetically modified organisms in an attempt to cure their prostate cancer, scientists said yesterday.

The new trial, which begins next month, is the first in the world to see if a genetically engineered virus can turn prostate cancer cells into targets for anti-cancer drugs. Potentially, it promises treatment for men with early forms of the disease.

First they will be injected with a common cold virus which has been genetically modified to carry a gene called nitroreductase. This will produce a protein molecule in the prostate cells capable of activating the anti-cancer drug which will be delivered later.

But because the men will receive a genetically modified virus, under health and safety regulations they will become, in effect, genetically modified organisms. For about two days they will be treated in isolation in special rooms and be seen only by doctors and nurses wearing masks and protective clothing.

Dr Nick James, reader in oncology at Birmingham University said yesterday: "There are a lot of concerns about GMOs. The steps we are taking are quite draconian. The research involves a whole raft of regulations that we would normally have to follow."

Dr James said his team had sought the approval of the Government's Genetic Therapy Advisory Committee. He said the measures were a precaution, because although the virus is not activated, regulations still rule that it is a genetically modified organism.

Unlike conventional chemotherapy, gene therapy can be targeted to a tumor, avoiding damage to healthy tissues. Scientists have already developed "pro-drugs" which are usually harmless but are converted into toxic forms in the presence of a chemical trigger. By genetically engineering cancer cells with the trigger, they can mark out the tumors for attack.

The new trial, which will take place in two stages, will see if this approach works in early prostate cancer. Men with prostate cancer  who will have surgery anyway will be given the virus and then the pro-drug CB1954, originally derived from mustard, which has been developed by the Cancer Research Campaign.

Samples of their prostate tissue will be analyzed after surgery. These men will have no benefit from the treatment but their results will help doctors move to the second stage. In the second stage, men with early prostate cancer will go through the same process with the expectation that the treatment will be effective. Up to 30 men will be treated in this way. 

The announcement was made at the Third Global Conference for Cancer Organizations in Brighton this week.

Dr James said: "We are keen that men with early-stage prostate cancer should put themselves forward for the trial, which could open up an entirely fresh approach to treating the disease. We're optimistic that gene therapy will fulfill its enormous potential by saving the lives of many patients."

Pests attack genetically modified cotton

June 27
Jakarta Post

MAKASSAR, South Sulawesi -- Hundreds of hectares of the genetically modified cotton fields at three villages in the regency of Bulukumba, South Sulawesi, have been destroyed by pests identified as Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera.

However, officials dealing with the genetically modified cotton business said separately that there was "nothing to worry about."

Tri Soekirman, Corp. Communications manager of Monsanto, the supplier of the genetically modified cotton from South Africa, said here on Thursday that the pests were not dangerous. 

"They are just larva which eat the leaves, but will not disrupt cotton production," Tri told The Jakarta Post.

He said that based on a survey made by his team, the population of the pests was still tolerable. "Therefore, pesticide is not necessary to eliminate them. The farmers know how to handle them."

On Wednesday in Bulukumba, the leader of the genetically modified cotton monitoring team, Ibrahim Manwa, voiced similar optimism that "the pest population is still at tolerable levels."

He said 40 trees had been taken as samples from Balleanging village in  Bulukumba. "Out of the 40 trees, less than seven were attacked by the pests. This means that the population of the pests is still very low," he said, showing dried cotton leaves which had been destroyed by Spodoptera.

Ibrahim was in Bulukumba with the deputy head of the South Sulawesi Agriculture Office, Karya. 

The controversy over genetically modified cotton started in early May this year when a total of 40 tons of Bollgard cotton seed belonging to U.S.-based Monsanto was imported by Jakarta-based PT Monagro Kimia.

A number of activists have said that genetically modified products must be prohibited from directly entering the province, and demanded that such seeds be quarantined for detailed examination before being distributed to the farmers.

It was Minister of Agriculture Bungaran Saragih who recommended the importation of the seed and its distribution to seven regencies in South Sulawesi.

State Minister for the Environment Sonny Keraf criticized the decision. In Bulukumba regency alone, the genetically modified cotton was planted on a total of 1,571.75 hectares, managed by 80 farmers' groups consisting of 2,003 families.

At least 180 hectares of the cotton fields in the village of Balleanging, Ujungloe district, have been invaded by the pests. Local farmers said that the pests started attacking the cotton in mid-June.

Many farmers have complained about the pests. They said the supplier had claimed that the cotton variety was resistant to all kinds of pests.

Genetically modified canola becoming a weed

June 22
CBC

WINNIPEG -- Western farmers are struggling with a new pest in their fields - a crop that was supposed to make their lives easier. 

Genetically modified (GM) canola is appearing in farmers' fields where it wasn't planted, and because the plant has been engineered to resist conventional herbicides, it's tough to kill.

Agricultural scientists suspect that the plants spread through cattle manure. The seeds travel through an animal's digestive tract and are deposited on the soil, where they germinate.

"The GM canola has, in fact, spread much more rapidly than we thought it would," said Martin Entz, a plant scientist at the University of Manitoba. "It's absolutely impossible to control."

Ottawa approved GM canola in 1996, and at the time it did consider the possibility that it could become a weed. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency describes the current problem as "a nuisance" and has advised farmers to "use another chemical."

But the alternative chemicals can kill farmers' intended crops, and in some cases, the GM canola appears to be resistant to the other chemicals.

Monsanto, which created on of the GM canola strains, says that if farmers' call the company, they'll send out a team to manually pull up the weeds.

But Martin Phillipson, a University of Saskatchewan law professor, said that Monsanto may be liable for damages if their GM canola continues to spread.