June headlines

Return to June article index

NGOs welcome government decision on BT cotton

June 22
Times of India

PUNE -- The prominent Pune-based NGO Kalpavriksh along with four others has welcomed the decision of the government-appointed Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) not to permit commercial planting of Monsanto-Mahyco's Bt cotton.

Kalpavriksh along with Deccan Development Society, Centre for World Solidarity, the Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defense of Diversity and organizations working on formulating India's National Biodiversity Strategy pointed out that given the potential dangers Genetically Modified (GM) crops could pose to the socio-ecological security of the country.

They pointed out that livelihoods of communities dependent on biodiversity could also be endangered. The NGOs emphasized that the GEAC should now insist on comprehensive and long term studies on the potential ecological, social and economic impact of any proposed GM crop or GM Food.

"With this decision, India remains a `GMO' (Genetically Modified Organisms) free country, since Bt cotton would have been the first crop to be commercialized," the press note said.

The decision of the GEAC to demand another year of field trials to be conducted directly under the supervision the ICAR only confirms the concerns raised that the data presented was inadequate and insufficient to introduce Bt cotton into the country, they stated.

The issue is not purely a scientific one, there are social, economic and political dimensions, all of which need to be debated and considered before any conclusion is reached, said PV Satheesh of the Deccan Development Society.

In view of these dimensions it is important that the decision-making process should actively involve environmental groups and small and marginal farmers whose stake is the highest in this debate, he added.

Greenpeace pointed out that it was now crucial that information regarding the field trials be made public and they be conducted in a most transparent manner to avoid public suspicion and doubt.

The groups demanded that all relevant Committees should incorporate NGOs and independent scientists and a full assessment of all alternative methods of tackling cotton pests, including through organic means be made. Meanwhile, the demands for public disclosure of previous data collected as well as the need for a scientific review still stood, they stated.

Location of GM crop trials revealed on web site

June 21
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

The locations of some of the genetically modified (GM) crop trials around Australia are to be revealed on a new website.

It is part of the regulatory framework for GM organisms that comes into force today.

The federal laws replace a voluntary system, with the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator overseeing the growing of genetically modified crops.

Regulator Liz Cain says it is a positive step.

"What it does in essence is open the doors that have been closed under the voluntary system," Ms Cain said.

"It gives the Australian community the opportunity to get information about genetically modified organisms that they haven't had before."

But not all the locations of 120 GM field trials are to be revealed, with the office assessing requests for about half the locations to be kept commercial in confidence.

The laws allow for fines of more than $1 million a day for breaches of conditions.

Opposition

The Federal Opposition says it is not happy with the implementation of the national laws to regulate GM organisms.

Labor's Alan Griffin, a Shadow Parliamentary Secretary, says the framework that would allow states to opt out, and be GM free, is not yet in place.

"We're concerned about the fact that for example the intergovernmental agreement hasn't been seen or passed by all the states yet.

"The Ministerial Council which is supposed to govern the operation of the system hasn't been set up yet [and] the policy principles they're supposed to set up, haven't been passed yet," Mr Griffin said.

Tough gene technology to reduce risk to human health

June 21
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

New national laws controlling gene technology come into effect today.

The Gene Technology 2000 Act has been described as the toughest legislation in the world to control gene technology.

The acting gene technology regulator, Liz Cain, says the voluntary system of overseeing the use of genetically modified organisms has been replaced by a rigorous regulatory system.

Ms Cain says people who breach the laws will liable for fines of more than $1 million.

"Australia will have for the first time a national regulatory system that will be responsible for assessing risks to the environment, and risks to human health and safety associated with genetically modified organisms, and for making sure that those risks are managed," she said.

WA

The Western Australian Government will introduce laws governing genetically modified (GM) food production.

The laws will complement the new Commonwealth Gene Technology Act.

If the new regulatory protocols do not work effectively the State Government will consider introducing a five-year moratorium on trials and commercial production of GM crops.

The Western Australian Minister for Agriculture, Kim Chance, says state initiatives will strengthen the message to the gene technology industry that the community and farmers must be protected.

"To ensure that the introduction of a GM variety doesn't economically disadvantage those growers of non-GM varieties, either in terms of adding to their costs or by detracting from the marketability of their grain as a non-GM grain," the Minister said.

Plant vaccine promises safe genetic modification

June 20
Reuters

Sydney -- Australian scientists say they have scored a world breakthrough by developing a vaccine to make plants immune to viruses. Because of how it works, they say, the vaccine sidesteps consumer concerns about genetically modified food.

The vaccine could increase yields of major crops such as wheat and barley by up to 30% by activating plant defense mechanisms to knock out diseases before they take hold, in the same way a shot in the arm can protect humans from flu.

But unlike other forms of genetically modified (GM) food, rejected by many consumers around the world, the Australian technique does not change plants by inserting a foreign gene. It simply silences an existing gene.

``From that point of view it's perhaps more acceptable to consumers,'' scientist Peter Waterhouse said on Wednesday. ``It's very exciting. It's enabling technology, you can do all sorts of different things with it.''

The vaccine could be used to knock out plant genes to produce non-browning bananas, caffeine-free coffee and many other changes in plants that do not involve altering their protein structure, said Waterhouse, a scientist with the government's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO).

The technique can also silence unwanted genes that produce allergens in nuts or pollen.

TECHNOLOGY READY TO ROLL

The technology, recently proven in barley plants raised in greenhouses and about to be used in trial crops, involves inserting a small, incomplete piece of virus RNA into plant DNA.

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the material from which genes--which transmit hereditary characteristics--are made. RNA, or ribonucleic acid, helps cells make proteins, and is also the hereditary material in some viruses.

The plant recognizes the virus RNA as foreign and activates its defense mechanism, degrading the invader before it multiplies.

This results in immunity to the virus, which scientists say can be passed down through plant generations.

When the breakthrough will be brought to market is complicated by cross-patent negotiations with multinational corporations active in the GM business, as well as by consumer reaction. But technologically the process is ready to roll.

``From a technical point of view there's nothing stopping us getting plants that would be ready to be commercialized,'' Waterhouse told Reuters.

The technology is likely to be commercialized first in a proven process which switches off unwanted genes in cottonseed, producing ``healthier'' cooking oil, he said. This is three to five years away from commercialization, research team leader Allan Green told Reuters on Wednesday.

The CSIRO team has also already developed potatoes resistant to potato leaf roll virus using the technique, with plants tested in laboratories, glasshouses and in field trials.

Waterhouse said the vaccination technology would be worth millions, if not billions, of dollars in license fees and increased productivity.

HUGE SAVINGS SEEN

Savings to Australia's big wheat crop alone, worth around A$4 billion a year on world markets (about $2 billion US), would be huge.

Multinationals would have to buy licenses from the CSIRO if they wanted to use the technology, which was in the process of being patented, he said. Hundreds of international laboratories had already requested technical details.

``It's a technology everyone wants to use.''

CSIRO's biggest breakthrough with the new technique has come with successful trials to knock out the major world-wide crop disease barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV), which affects Australia's wheat, barley and oats crops.

Evidence against bacteria-human gene transfer

June 20
Reuters

New York -- Mounting evidence against the direct transfer of bacterial genes to humans should ease concerns about inheriting such genes from genetically modified products, say scientists from GlaxoSmithKline.

In a Nature report in February 2001, the Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (HGSC) suggested that some genes in humans came directly from bacteria, because they could not find evidence the genes had passed from species to species through millennia of evolution, Dr. James R. Brown from GlaxoSmithKline's Bioinformatics group in Collegeville, Pennsylvania told Reuters Health.

Just last month, Dr. Steven Salzberg and associates at The Institute for Genome Research in Rockville, Maryland used a comprehensive comparison of various species to demonstrate that most of the proposed transfers could, indeed, result from the normal process of evolution.

Now, Brown and associates report, in the June 21st edition of Nature, results using a technique called phylogenetic analysis that further dispel the possibility of bacteria-to-human gene transfer. Phylogenetic analysis uses information from DNA to determine which species likely evolved from other species, thereby estimating how closely related they are.

The researchers show that most of the genes mentioned by HGSC are, in fact, present in ancient microorganisms and primitive animals. According to their analysis, the alleged bacteria-to-human gene transfers can be explained by the genes' being passed along from generation to generation as various species evolved into higher forms.

The scientists mention a few examples where the HGSC simply missed the gene's presence in other species and suggest further that differences in methods could account for some of HGSC's conclusions.

``It is entirely likely that if we had better representation of eukaryotic (species above the level of bacteria) genomes in our databases, that such reports of bacteria to vertebrate gene transfers would have never emerged because those genes would have been found in lower, early evolved eukaryotes, not just humans and bacteria,'' Brown explained. ``Therefore, it is highly important that we continue to fund genome sequencing efforts involving other organisms and encourage open access to these data.''

These findings also have practical implications. ``Consumers should know that we could not find any support for claims of bacteria to vertebrate gene transfers,'' Brown concluded. ``Thus, it is highly unlikely that humans could pick up genes from genetically modified food-related bacteria or (disease-causing) bacteria.''

SOURCE: Nature 2001;411:940-944.

Monsanto's remake

June 18
Vancouver Sun

Monsanto is the biotechnology company everyone loves to hate. It was one of the first multinational corporations to commercialize genetically modified crops, and soon became the poster child for opponents of genetic engineering.

Monsanto's sins included resisting the labeling of genetically modified foods and requiring farmers to pay royalties and sign restrictive agreements before planting bioengineered crops. It also promoted the draconian, but now-abandoned, terminator technology that prevents seeds produced by genetically engineered crops from germinating, thereby forcing farmers to purchase new seeds every season.

Justified or not, Monsanto's reputation as the evil empire became its corporate image. But the company is belatedly and energetically putting forward a kinder, gentler Monsanto as the biotechnology purveyor of the future.

In a remarkable mea culpa speech in Washington, D.C., Monsanto's CEO Hendrik Verfaillie confessed their sins and promised to do better: "My company had focused so much attention on getting the technology right for our customer, the grower, that we didn't fully take into account the issues and concerns it raised for others. When we tried to explain the benefits, the science and the safety, we did not understand that our tone, our very approach, was seen as arrogant. We were still in the 'trust me' mode when the expectation was 'show me.' Instead of happily ever after, this new technology became the focal point of public conflict." Monsanto's pledge to shape up is now fleshing out into the show-me mode, and its recent actions have done an end run around its most vociferous opponents.

The company's research today is focused on more socially acceptable crops that can improve human health because they have improved nutritional content or produce pharmaceutical products and vaccines.

The company also has brokered international agreements to turn over genetically modified crops to developing countries royalty-free, answering critics concerned about corporate exploitation of Third World peoples.

Monsanto's initial foray into corporate benevolence came with golden rice, a genetically engineered variety with a high beta carotene content that we can metabolize into vitamin A when eaten. Vitamin A deficiency does not generate headlines, but five million Third World children experience permanent eye damage and two million die each year from diseases associated with insufficient vitamin A or its beta carotene precursor in their diets. During the 1990s, researcher Peter Beyer from the University of Freiburg in Germany isolated three genes from daffodils that together produce beta carotene, and Ingo Potrykus from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology succeeded at inserting those genes into rice. The result was a golden-hued variety that produced sufficient beta carotene to alleviate vitamin A deficiencies.

The research turned out to be the easy part. The materials they employed and the methods they used were protected by 70 patents held by 31 different companies in 30 countries. This thicket of patent protection and intellectual property rights seemed impenetrable, and attempts by Potrykus and Beyer to negotiate free access to golden rice for Third World farmers became bogged down in a patent quagmire.

Until Monsanto stepped in, that is. Monsanto startled the biotechnology community in October 2000 by agreeing to donate its relevant beta carotene technologies for humanitarian purposes, royalty-free. The announcement broke the logjam, and with the Monsanto commitment as leverage, the other biotechnology companies quickly fell into line by donating royalty-free rights to the materials and technologies they controlled.

Monsanto has gone further, and currently is negotiating with India to provide royalty-free access to beta carotene-enhanced mustard oil, which is equivalent in importance to canola in Canada as a cooking oil. Less than one teaspoon of genetically improved mustard oil provides the daily minimum amount of beta carotene required for adequate vitamin A production in a child, an impact that places Monsanto's donation clearly on the side of the public good.

Monsanto's generosity in donating its potentially lucrative beta carotene biotechnology raises the question of motive, especially given its hard-nosed and uncompromising reputation. The reasons behind its new-found corporate generosity are complex, and like most philanthropy, involve a blend of self-interest and altruism.

Improved public relations, access to Third World markets for its other products and sales of golden rice to wealthier farmers in developed countries all will benefit Monsanto, although a child whose vision is saved will see the philanthropy as more significant than any long-term corporate strategy.

We tend to simplify, depersonalize and demonize organizations involved in issues such as genetic engineering, but Monsanto's new approach is proving more complicated, compelling and public-spirited than critics expected.

Its current corporate behavior reflects a growing optimism that nutritionally enhanced foods will revive biotechnology's reputation. Monsanto's perspective is that the good of mankind and corporate success are synonymous, and the company's future success rests on the expectation that the next generation of genetically modified crops will inspire the public to share that vision.

Scientists meet here on genetic engineering

June 18
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Genetically engineered trees are the latest fuel for the ire of environmental terrorist groups opposed to biotechnology. But when the smoke clears, biotech trees may prove to be some of the most environmentally friendly creatures in the forests, scientists say.

Tree scientists from government, universities, and the forestry and biotechnology industries gathered Sunday at the Regal Riverfront Hotel in St. Louis for the Society for In Vitro Biology's annual congress to discuss field trials and environmental risks from biotech trees.

Trees are one of the most visible and recognizable symbols of the environmental movement, said Armand Seguin of the Canadian Forest Service. Trees capture attention in ways other crop plants can't, he said.

"It would seem silly to see people chaining themselves to maize plants," Seguin said.

So genetically engineered trees seem to have replaced corn as the target for radical environmental groups. Last month, simultaneous arson attacks in Oregon and Washington destroyed hybrid poplar trees. Two weeks later, the Earth Liberation Front, a terrorist group that had burned a biotech lab in Michigan, claimed responsibility for the fires.

None of the trees targeted by the arsonists were genetically engineered although the group claims to have carried out the attacks to stop "genetic pollution" of the forests.

At current production rates, the demand for wood and fiber products from trees will surpass the supply in the next decade, experts say. While demand is increasing, the land available for growing and logging trees is declining. Forestry experts see only one solution to the dilemma.

"We're going to have to get a lot better at growing trees," said David Ellis of CellFor Inc., a Canadian biotech company. Tree farming and genetic engineering may be some of the best strategies to produce wood fast in a limited space, he said.

Critics of tree engineering say that the trees could cross-breed with wild trees and that the hybrids could take over entire forests. That is probably not going to happen, said Richard Meilan, associate director of the Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative at Oregon State University in Corvallis.

Meilan and his colleagues studied isolated stands of wild poplar trees in eastern Oregon to find how the trees breed in the wild. The researchers gathered 849 seeds from female poplar trees and then conducted paternity tests.

They discovered that while male trees located within about 1,100 feet from "mother" trees were often the source of fertilizing pollen, trees as far as six miles away could also father young trees. The data indicate that poplar pollen has the potential to spread over great distances.

But a second study conducted by Meilan's group showed that hybrid poplars, such as those grown commercially on many tree farms, aren't as likely to spread their genes as previously thought. Wild male poplars fertilized wild females more than 99 percent of the time even though the females grew closer to tree farms of hybrid poplars. The result suggests that hybrid poplars don't breed well with their wild relatives and probably won't compete well in the woods, Meilan said.

Seguin, of the Canadian Forestry Service, tested decaying leaves from genetically engineered poplar trees to see how long pieces of DNA from the plants last. His tests show that DNA is broken down rapidly - within three or four months. That rapid decay makes it less likely that soil microbes could pick up foreign genes from biotech trees, Seguin said.

He plans to repeat the study with needles from white spruce trees engineered with a pesticide protein that kills the spruce budworm. Seguin also wants to know if the pesticide protein, called Bt toxin, is likely to have detrimental effects on other insects in the environment.

All of the trees must be destroyed at the end of the 5-year Canadian trial. The researchers have several options for disposing of the trees, but the method of choice seems to parallel the tactics of the anti-biotech activists.

"In our case," Seguin said, "it will be a big fire."

China: GMO product rules confuse domestic market

June 18
Reuters

Shanghai -- Chinese enquiries for soybeans are drying up due to uncertainty over the government's new rules on genetically modified (GM) products and hopes that Chicago prices will fall further, traders said on Monday.

The rules, announced early in June, were unlikely to alter China's soybean output for 2001 because most of the seeds have already been sown, but some said next season's crop might get a boost if imports of GM soybeans are hit.

"Fewer people asked for South American and U.S. soybeans last week and we expect that to be the same this week," said a trader with a global trading firm in Shanghai.

Around 60 percent of U.S. soybeans and 90 percent of Argentine soybeans are genetically modified. Brazil has said its soybeans are GM-free, but trade sources believe GM soy has been planted in southern Brazilian states.

Traders in China, like their overseas counterparts, were puzzled by the new rules.

"Like those abroad, no one in China has any clue on what we are supposed to do with the new rules. Many people are still waiting to see what happens," the trader in Shanghai said.

Traders said it could take months to see how the rules will be implemented.

"There are lots of technicalities that still need to be ironed out to check the imports. I don't think the authorities can deploy the required manpower and technical expertise to do that immediately," said a trader at a global grains firm in Beijing.

Traders said they were unaware of any contracts signed after June 6, when the rules were announced with immediate effect.

Cargoes contracted before that were approved for import and exempted from the rules, which require a certificate that the GM products are not harmful for human beings, animals or the environment, traders and analysts said.

ANYBODY BRAVE OUT THERE?

"So far, we haven't heard of anyone brave enough to do that," said another trader from a global grains firm in Beijing. "People are still a bit wary."

Expectations that prices on the Chicago Board of Trade might fall further also led to the cautious mood in China.

"Prices were rising since the start of June and were quite high last week. But they came down and some are hoping for a further drop this week," the second Beijing trader said.

CBOT soybean futures closed sharply lower on Friday, with July down 12- last Tuesday, when it hit a high of more than three months.

While import prospects are still fuzzy, traders and analysts are certain the new rulings are unlikely to affect this year's soybean crop.

"The northeastern parts like Heilongjiang have already finished sowing. What's left is the eastern provinces like Jiangsu and Henan," said analyst Liu Aimin at Beijing Orient Agri-business.

"But even if farmers there decide to plant more, it's unlikely to affect the overall output because they are not the main growing areas," Liu said.

Analysts said they expected this year's output to fall below 15 million tons, down from 15.2 million tons in the previous crop year, as planted area was cut to 8.57 million hectares from more nine million hectares, they said.

"We'll see how imports go later this year. If they drop, then people will plant more beans the next crop year," Liu said.