"We do not have any positive results whatsoever," said Carol S. Rubin, a research scientist at the National Center for Environmental Health at the C.D.C. Still, the report prepared by the centers says that there is some possibility that people could be allergic without having antibodies in their blood.

StarLink contains a bacterial gene that permits the corn to produce a protein that kills the corn borer, a major pest. But that protein, known as Cry9C, has some characteristics of an allergen, mainly that it is not digested easily in the stomach.

Because of those concerns, the corn was approved for use as animal feed but not for human consumption. But it leaked into the human food supply, causing huge recalls of taco shells and other products, hurting American grain exports, forcing grain elevators and food companies to test incoming shipments of corn, and raising new concerns about the possible health effects of genetically engineered foods.

Now, the biotechnology industry, which said all along that there was little threat to public health from the corn, may breathe a bit easier. "We are pleased, but not the slightest bit surprised," said L. Val Giddings, vice president for food and agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group.

Critics of genetically modified food said the testing was insufficient. "These tests are not proof that StarLink corn is safe for human consumption," said Matt Rand, a spokesman for Genetically Engineered Food Alert, a coalition of environmental groups. "This is not a thorough investigation."

He said the government did not test the hundreds of people who complained to food companies about reactions instead of to the F.D.A. He also said it appeared that the test might have been performed using Cry9C made by bacteria, which might be different from the protein made in the corn.

Dr. Rubin said she could not comment on the specifics of the antibody test because it was designed by the F.D.A. An F.D.A. spokeswoman said her agency would not comment.

Dr. Marc E. Rothenberg, the section chief for allergy and immunology at Children's Hospital in Cincinnati and an adviser to the E.P.A. on this issue, said that antibody tests were more likely to report false positives than false negatives. Just because a person has antibodies to a protein does not mean she suffered an allergic reaction, he said. But if there are no antibodies, he said, there is only a tiny chance that the person had an allergic reaction.

The results of the blood tests will be used by the E.P.A. to decide whether to permit small amounts of StarLink in human food. Aventis CropScience, the company that developed StarLink, has asked the agency to permit such a small presence for four years, so the food industry would be spared the costs and disruptions of testing and food recalls. The E.P.A. has scheduled a meeting of its scientific advisory panel for next month to discuss the issues.

Aventis , which declined to comment on the results announced yesterday, has asserted that since most of the StarLink grown has been collected by the company and the government, there is so little in the food supply that it would not cause any public health problems even if Cry9C were found to be an allergen.

The C.D.C. and the F.D.A. reviewed the cases of 51 people who had told the agency about allergic reactions they thought were connected to StarLink. Of those, 28 people were considered to have had some sort of allergic reaction, while the rest were judged to have had some other health problem.

U.S. finds no link in biotech corn, illness

June 14
Boston Globe

Tests carried out by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control have cast doubt on claims by dozens of people that they became sick after eating a genetically engineered corn not approved for human consumption.

The results, released yesterday, found no evidence that sensitivity to a protein known as Cry9c contained in StarLink corn caused allergic reactions, which reportedly ranged from itching to shock, the CDC said in the highly anticipated report.

Although not definitive, the government's findings were hailed by the biotechnology industry and could mark a first step in ending the controversy that erupted when StarLink was first discovered in a sample of Taco Bell taco shells last year. Its presence prompted more than 300 recalls of everything from chips to corn dogs, slowed grain exports, particularly to Asia, and threw part of the country's agricultural industry into chaos.

Aventis SA, the French pharmaceutical company that invented the variety and had earlier complained that the government's tests would not be conclusive, declined to comment on the results. But the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group in Washington, said the findings should be enough ''to put concerns to rest.''

''As a scientist, there are always questions I'd like to ask,'' said L. Val Giddings, the group's vice president for food and agriculture. ''But from a standpoint of what we need to know from a public health point of view, this should be case-closed.''

Critics of the biotech industry said they thought the study was far too limited. They contended that more people should have undergone tests and that the government's scientists should have employed better methods, including skin-prick tests.

''This test does not prove that StarLink corn is safe for human consumption,'' said Matt Rand, campaign manager for biotech at the National Environment Trust, a lobbying group that opposes bioengineered foods. ''They chose only to test a handful of people. This is not a representative sample of the population that was exposed to StarLink corn.''

The danger posed by StarLink, which the government had approved only for animal consumption, has been a matter of fierce debate.

More than 50 people had reported allergic reactions - diarrhea, vomiting, stomach aches, and shock - after eating products that contained the corn.

Critics also have cited a report by a panel of independent scientists in December to the Environmental Protection Agency. The report said that StarLink shows a ''medium likelihood'' of causing an allergic reaction in some people. That same report, however, said the low levels of the protein likely present in food probably would not make people sick.

CDC officials stopped short of calling yesterday's results the final word. Even the report acknowledged that the tests on blood samples, which did not detect antibodies identifying an allergy, could not rule out the possibility of a reaction.

''It was a first safe step,'' said Dr. Carol Rubin, an epidemiologist with the CDC's Center for Environmental Health.

The results were eagerly anticipated because the EPA is considering a request by Aventis to allow a trace amount of StarLink in foods for humans. The EPA said yesterday that while the results were important, it would make no decision on Aventis' request until after a July 17-18 meeting of its scientific advisory panel.

U.S. watchdog group assails genetic field testing

June 14
Reuters

Boston -- A consumer watchdog group on Thursday accused the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) of rubber stamping approval of field tests of genetically engineered crops that could harm people and the environment.

``Our environment is serving as the laboratory for widespread experimentation of genetically engineered organisms with profound risks that, once released, can never be recalled,'' the U.S. Public Interest Research Group said in a 98-page report called ``Raising Risk.''

The Washington-based group said the USDA authorized nearly 29,000 field tests of genetically engineered organisms through 2000. The agency only has rejected 4 percent of the applications to conduct field tests, the report stated.

The experiments were being done in an open environment with little oversight or public notification, the watchdog group said. Introducing nonnative organisms into the environment is estimated to cost the United States $123 billion annually in ecosystem damage, it added.

``Contrary to popular belief, the technology is not very precise,'' the report said. ``Scientists cannot control the location where the gene is inserted into the host's genetic code, nor guarantee stable expression of the gene in the new genetically engineered organism.''

The experiments sometime deal with bizarre combinations, such as introducing tomato genes to fish genes, or even combining pig genes with human genes, according to the report.

Between 1987 and 2000, leading U.S. biotech firm Monsanto Co. applied to conduct the most field tests every year.

Hawaii has hosted the most field tests with 3,275 and Illinois ranked second with 2,832, according to the study.

Concerns about genetically modified food reached a frenzy in the United States last year when StarLink, a genetically modified corn which has been approved for animal feed but not for human consumption, was discovered in a number of food products. StarLink is made by the Franco-German pharmaceutical group Aventis .

A report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released on Wednesday found the biotech corn that spawned a nationwide recall last fall did not cause the allergic reactions that people reported after finding out about the grain.

U.S. PIRG recommends a moratorium on field testing and commercialization of genetically engineered foods and crops until it can be determined they do no harm the environment or people.

The demand for testing genetically modified plants surged in the 1980s during the U.S. biotech boom.

The U.S. PIRG report says corporations and universities are becoming increasingly secretive about their genetic testing. From 1989 to 1999, the percentage of crops containing genes declared confidential increased nearly every year. Last year, 65 percent of the genetically engineered crops were declared ``confidential business information,'' the study said.

Feature: Argentine farmers bet on biotech

June 14
Reuters

Buenos Aires -- Genetically modified (GM) soybean seeds have made Argentine farmer Hector Salmoiraghi's life a lot easier, he says as he stoops to examine a soybean plant in a vast field lined with eucalyptus trees.

Salmoiraghi, whose father and grandfather were also farmers, has been growing soybeans for 25 years, outside the port city of San Pedro, some 124 miles (200 km) northwest of Buenos Aires.

``Genetically-modified soy simplified everything,'' he said, adjusting his black gaucho-style beret and standing tall in his rubber boots and Wrangler jeans.

Salmoiraghi began using U.S.-based biotechnology giant Monsanto's Roundup Ready (RR) soybean seeds five years ago.

Made to be resistant to the company's powerful Roundup weed killer, the seeds cut costs by an estimated $50-$60 per hectare (2.47 acres) by reducing the preparation needed before planting.

Salmoiraghi, who planted 250 hectares (617.5 acres) with GM soy this season and plans to plant more next year, says he'd never go back to the traditional seeds: ``It wouldn't make sense. GM soy is much easier to work with.''

He is one of thousands of Argentine farmers singing the praises of GM products, and now the government is behind them more than ever before.

Argentina, a major grain and oilseed producer, is second only to the United States in the use of biotechnology products and has recently re-dedicated itself to promoting their development and attracting biotech companies that want to invest here.

After 3 years of a de facto moratorium on approving GM products, Argentina in May authorized the use of Monsanto's RR cotton.

Weeks later, the government created a biotechnology commission and Agriculture Secretary Marcelo Regunaga set off for the United States, where he met with biotech companies and visited research centers.

``We share the biotechnology policy of the U.S.,'' said Regunaga in a recent interview.

``I told (U.S. Agriculture) Secretary (Ann) Veneman that in all the international forums, we need to present a common position in which Argentina would have a more aggressive attitude than it has had in the past.''

Argentina is betting that biotechnology is the wave of the future. But sharing a common policy with the United States also means the countries could share common foes.

ANTI-GM GROUPS

While proponents say GM products increase efficiency, environmental and consumer groups say the products are not well regulated and could contain hidden health and environmental risks.

``We are against the sale of these products until there is conclusive evidence of the long-term effects they could have,'' said Karla Irigoyen, the Chile-based representative of watchdog group Consumers International.

``There is a lot of concern about the use of GM products in Argentina, not only for the sake of Argentine consumers but also for consumers in all of Latin America,'' where Argentina sends exports, said Irigoyen.

The government is well aware that GM products are controversial and will step up measures to ensure that no unapproved products are used illegally and that approved products are safe, said Regunaga.

Also approved in Argentina are insect-tolerant corns made by Swiss company Novartis and Monsanto, a herbicide-tolerant corn made by Franco-German company Aventis and an insect-tolerant cotton made by Monsanto.

THE TRADE ISSUE

Argentina's renewed commitment to biotechnology means that GM products are here to stay, at least for the time being. But whether GM is the future will depend on the impact the use of these products has on trade.

Agricultural shipments make up about 60 percent of Argentina's exports and GM products are a particularly dicey topic in the European Union and Asia, where imports of some products have been restricted on concern they may not be safe for human consumption.

``By approving (GM products) Argentina is definitely moving in the wrong direction and is risking its exports,'' said Emiliano Ezcurra, the coordinator of the biodiversity campaign for the Buenos Aires office of global environmental group Greenpeace.

Argentina sent nearly 30 percent of its grain exports and about 60 percent of its vegetable oil exports to Asia in 2000, according to data from the Agriculture Department.

China last week ruled that all production and sales of GM foods, including imports, must have government approval certifying that they do not cause any harm to humans, animals or the environment. It remains to be seen how the move will affect Argentine exports.

The European Union, where Argentina shipped about 10 percent of its grain exports and 60 percent of grain byproducts in 2000, has not approved any new GM crop varieties since 1998.

The European Parliament in February approved strict rules to regulate GM organisms, but France and five other countries said they would continue to block new GM permits until further rules are put in place ensuring gene-altered products can be traced back to their source.

``In Europe, it's a question of time,'' Carlos Popik, president of the Argentine unit of Monsanto, told Reuters in a recent interview.

``The question is purely political,'' he said. ``Europe prefers to increase production by subsidizing it instead of making it more efficient. These are the types of things that will be changed by time.''

Regunaga seemed unconcerned about Europe: ``In Europe there are people in favor of and people against'' biotechnology, he said. ``Certainly, we are going to try to find our friends in Europe so that we can have a more aggressive international position in favor of biotechnology.''

Politics aside, Argentine farmers will likely continue to support development of GM products that cut costs.

Salmoiraghi says RR soy has helped farmers survive in San Pedro, as lower global commodity prices, high interest rates and fuel prices and tax pressure have sent many small producers packing.

``GM soy has helped us,'' he said. ``It hasn't helped as much as it could have because prices have fallen, but it has certainly helped because with these fuel prices, I'd say that even we medium-sized producers wouldn't be around anymore.''

Organic food booms in Italy but sales still modest

June 14
Reuters

ROME -- Demand for organic food is exploding in Italy, but a hard core of consumers remains to be persuaded--with one in four Italians still unaware of what it is, Italy's biggest farmers' group said on Thursday.

Italian shoppers, proud of their country's culinary tradition and its renowned pasta, ham, cheese and wine, are increasingly turning to organic olive oil, rice, fruit and vegetables.

Research by Coldiretti showed the Italian market for organic food was growing by 20% a year and accounted for 0.6% of total food sales in 2000. Total organic food sales in Italy were 1.5 trillion lire ($660.6 million) in 2000.

Demand for organic produce is growing sharply across western Europe as consumers, worried about food scares and genetically modified foods, seek guarantees of food safety.

According to a recent survey by the farm ministry, most Italians oppose genetic engineering of their foods because of health worries.

``Demand for organic food is exploding, but one Italian in four does not know what it is,'' Coldiretti said on its web site.

The typical profile of a consumer of organic food in Italy was a single male graduate living in the wealthy north of the country, aged between 40 and 49, who had a well-paid job, Coldiretti said.

Many Italian supermarkets have special sections reserved for organic fare, which costs more than conventional foods.

``The survey of a representative sample of the entire Italian population reveals a worrying lack of awareness and information about organic produce due in part to unclear and incomprehensible labeling,'' Coldiretti said.

Coldiretti's president Paolo Bedoni urged strict standards for labeling of organic foods so that consumers were correctly informed about produce.

``It is necessary to implement measures to protect consumers and farmers from products entering the market that do not have the necessary guarantees,'' he said.

The Coldiretti research echoes the results of a recent poll by farm research body ISMEA, which said Italian shoppers, influenced by food scares, were increasingly turning to organic foods but that their awareness of such produce was patchy.

According to the poll of supermarkets and hypermarkets, 65% said Italian demand for organic foods was growing while 67% said consumers were poorly informed about it.

Italy is the ``most organic'' country in the EU, according to Coldiretti, with almost 50,000 companies engaged in producing organic food-40% of the EU total--and an organic farm area of almost one million hectares.

This represents more than a quarter of the total EU organic farm area.

Organic cereals--mainly durum wheat for pasta making, followed by barley, soft wheat and rice--represent between 23 and 25% of total organic agricultural production in Italy, according to Coldiretti.

Production of organically grown cereals is mainly in northern and central Italy. Farming of organic fruits and vegetables is predominantly in the south.