June headlines

Return to June article index

When choice becomes just a memory

Soon all our foods will be polluted by genetic modification

June 21
Guardian (UK) column by Naomi Klein

You'd be wrong. The real strategy is to introduce so much genetic pollution that meeting the consumer demand for GM-free food is seen as not possible. The idea, quite simply, is to pollute faster than countries can legislate - then change the laws to fit the contamination.

A few reports from the front lines of this invisible war. In April, Monsanto recalled about 10% of the GM oilseed rape seeds it had distributed in Canada because of reports that the seeds had been contaminated by another modified rape-seed variety, one not approved for export. The most well-known of these cases is StarLink corn. The genetically altered crop (meant for animals and deemed unfit for humans) made its way into much of the US corn supply after the buffer zones surrounding the fields where it was grown proved wholly incapable of containing the wind-borne pollen. Aventis, which owns the StarLink patent, proposed a solution: instead of recalling the corn, why not approve its consumption for humans?

A nd there is the now famous case of Percy Schmeiser, the Saskatchewan farmer who was sued by Monsanto after its genetically altered oilseed rape seeds allegedly blew into his field from passing trucks and neighbouring fields. Monsanto says that when the seeds took root, Mr Schmeiser was stealing its property. The court agreed and, two months ago, ordered the farmer to pay the company $20,000, plus legal costs.

Arran Stephens, president of Nature's Path, an organic food company in British Columbia, told the New York Times earlier this month that GM material is even finding its way into organic crops. "We have found traces in corn that has been grown organically for 10 to 15 years. There's no wall high enough to keep that stuff contained." Indeed, there is so much genetic contamination in North American fields that a group of organic farmers is considering launching a class action suit against the biotech industry for lost revenues. Last week, the grounds for this case received a significant boost. Loblaws, Canada's largest supermarket chain with 40% of the market, sent out a letter to all of its health food suppliers informing them that they were no longer permitted to claim that their foods were "non-GM". Company executives argue there is just no way of knowing what is genuinely GM free.

You can already see the handiwork in the aisles of Canada's major supermarkets: hand-drawn black scribbles on boxes of organic breakfast cereal where the labels used to be. At first glance, Loblaws' decision doesn't seem to make market sense. Although roughly 70% of foods sold in Canada contain GM ingredients, more than 90% of Canadians tell pollsters they want labels telling them if their food's genetic make-up has been tampered with.

In North America, super-markets are part of a broader agricultural strategy to present labelling as simply too complicated. In part this is because chains like Loblaws are not only food retailers but manufacturers of their own private lines. Loblaws' line is called "President's Choice" or "Memories of..." Company chairman Galen Weston has warned that "there will be a cost associated" with labelling and if Loblaws sells some products that are labelled "GM-free" it weakens attempts to block GM labelling for the rest of its wares.

What does all this mean to Europeans? It means that your labels could soon be as obsolete as the scratched-out ones in our supermarkets. If contamination continues to spread in North America, and agribusiness's current push to overturn Brazil's ban on GM seeds is successful, it will become next to impossible to import non-GM soybeans. Backed by predatory intellectual property laws, agribusinesses are on their way to getting the global food supply so hopelessly cross pollinated, polluted and generally mixed up, that legislators may well be forced to throw up their hands.

When we look back on this moment, munching our genetically modified health-style food, we may well remember it as the precise turning point when we lost our real food options. Perhaps Loblaws will even launch a new product to bottle that wistful feeling: Memories of Consumer Choice.

www.nologo.org

Biotech protesters mobilize for convention

June 21
North County Times (California)

Activists are planning a nonviolent rally and educational workshops this weekend to protest the biotech industry as a prelude to the Bio2001 conference June 24-27 in San Diego.

While up to 15,000 delegates attend the conference to learn about biotechnology's potential, biotech skeptics say not enough attention has been paid to the potential harm an unfettered use of biotech can cause.

BioJustice, an umbrella organization for numerous activist groups, is organizing two days of educational workshops, called "Beyond Biodevastation." The workshops will be held on Friday and Saturday, followed by a rally on Sunday.

About 2,000 to 3,000 protesters peacefully demonstrated in Boston last year during the BIO 2000 conference, said San Diego Police Capt. Rob Newman. He expects more than that in San Diego because of better weather.

"We will protect their First Amendment rights so they can voice their opinions," Newman said. "But anybody that breaks the law in our city will, in all probability, be arrested."

Police and protest organizers say they both don't want a chaotic scene similar to the one that disrupted the World Trade Organization meeting two years ago in Seattle. Protesters in Seattle shut down city streets during four days of violent confrontation with police.

"This is a completely passive, peaceful protest," said BioJustice volunteer Anna Dorian of Encinitas. "The whole point of this is passive resistance. What happened in Seattle, that's separate from us. This won't be anything like that."

Dorian, who is working on a bachelor's degree in environmental science at Cal State San Marcos, said there is great potential for hazard with the use of biotechnology and emphasized that genetically modified food is the most pressing issue.

Not enough research has been done to discredit bioengineering, said Betsy Read, assistant professor of biological sciences at Cal State San Marcos.

BioJustice representatives say they want to focus on educating the public about the risks of biotechnology, including genetically engineered food such as StarLink corn and "golden rice".

StarLink corn is a genetically engineered corn that uses the pesticide Cry9C protein and has been approved for use in animal feed. It has not been approved for human use, due to concerns the pesticide may cause allergies. But last year StarLink Corn accidentally got into the human food supply, causing major recalls of corn products and hurting exports to foreign countries.

Golden rice was genetically engineered by European scientists to contain higher levels of vitamin A to help meet the needs of malnourished populations. Vitamin A deficiency causes at least a million children a year to die and half a million more to go blind.

Golden rice critics, such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, claim golden rice does not contain enough vitamin A to be beneficial and still holds the potential hazards of bioengineering. Supporters counter that golden rice is still in the developmental stage and will contain higher levels of Vitamin A in the future.

"For years, farmers have been hybridizing similar species, like one type of corn with another type of corn, in order to get better varieties of corn," protest organizer Steph Sherer said. "The problem with genetically engineered food, is they take a piece of DNA from bacteria and put it into a piece of corn," Sherer said, referring to StarLink corn.

"I'm very concerned about it. We don't know what we're doing to ourselves," said Dawn Yepez of San Marcos, who is planning to attend the educational workshops."

"They put herbicides and pesticides in corn and potatoes and get something like StarLink corn," Yepez said. "It's very disquieting."

Yepez, a graduate of the University of Michigan, said people are afraid the pesticide genetically engineered into StarLink corn may cause allergic reactions in humans and may kill Monarch butterflies.

Laboratory experiments have shown that Monarch caterpillars are harmed by being fed StarLink corn pollen. However, biotech supporters say the experiments weren't necessarily true of what would happen in nature, where the caterpillars have other food sources.

Food that is labeled organic cannot be genetically engineered according to the 1994 California Foods Act, said Steve Frame, produce manager at Jimbo's Naturally in Escondido.

"Almost 90 percent of our food is organic," Frame said. "Genetically engineered food is bigger, uses less land, but we don't know the long term health effects."

He said major supermarkets carry genetically engineered foods, but since manufacturers do not have to put it on their packaging, most people are not aware they are eating it.

Cal State San Marcos professor Read, who will attend Bio2001, said the argument against golden rice can't be validated because it hasn't been in the market long enough to make that case.

"I agree; bioengineered food should be labeled," Read said. "Consumers should be aware. I have no problem eating genetically engineered food. I probably do it all the time."

For more information on the rally or educational workshops, visit the Biodevastation web site at http://www.biodev.org or call (619) 237-5496.

Environmental terrorists target engineered trees

June 20
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Tree scientists from government, universities and the forestry and biotechnology industries gathered in St. Louis Sunday 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 state 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 was 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 found that while male trees 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.

Japan snack recall renews StarLink fears in East Asia

June 20
Reuters

TOKYO -- Another huge recall by a Japanese food maker has deepened fears among the top two U.S. corn importers, Japan and South Korea, over the possibility of more gene-spliced StarLink corn ending up on shop shelves, traders said.

Japan's unlisted Calbee Foods Co Ltd said on Wednesday it had voluntarily recalled some of its snack products after traces of unapproved genetically modified (GM) potatoes were detected.

``We are recalling our product 'Jagariko' produced up to June 7 after tests by the local health office were positive for unapproved NewLeaf Plus potato,'' the company said in a statement.

NewLeaf Plus, developed by U.S. agricultural biotech firm Monsanto Co, to resist insects and the potato leafroll virus, has not been approved in Japan. In 1998, Monsanto's Japan unit applied for approval of NewLeaf Plus in this country.

Calbee's food recall is Japan's second case since the imposition in April of stricter rules on imports of biotech products. The new rules ban imports containing unapproved gene-altered products and require labeling for approved GM products.

In late May, Japan's Health Ministry ordered Osaka-based House Foods Corp to recall some of its ``O'ZACK'' snacks after the ministry found traces of NewLeaf Plus in them.

The Calbee recall, reminiscent of the StarLink furor late last year, has again dampened Japanese and South Korean appetite for U.S. corn for human consumption, traders in Tokyo and Seoul said.

FOOD IMPORTERS SHUN U.S. CORN

The discovery of StarLink in food products last October by a consumer group had prompted Japan, where StarLink is not approved even for animal feed, to cut its U.S. corn buying. It also drove importers to find alternative supply sources.

Since last September StarLink, which in the United States has been approved for animal consumption but not for that by humans, has turned up in hundreds of U.S. food products.

There has been no improvement in avoiding StarLink contamination in Japanese corn imports for human consumption, said a trader with a trading house in Tokyo. ``Domestic corn buyers for food use have tried to seek other origins because they don't want to be hit by this problem.''

Japan imports four million tons of corn for food use each year and another 12 million tons for animal feed.

In South Korea, the Korea Corn Processing Industry Association agreed to buy 52,500 tons of Brazilian or Argentine corn from German grain trading firm Toepfer via tenders, shunning U.S. origin, traders said.

The group also asked suppliers in early June to replace U.S. corn with South American corn against its previously contracted optional origin cargoes, but they said it was unlikely to be able to do so because of higher premiums sought by suppliers.

The association, which imports two million tons of corn a year for food use, has already bought corn for November arrival, some of which the suppliers declared as having originated in the United States. South Korea imports another six million tons a year for animal feed.

Concern about StarLink has heightened after the South Korean government detected traces of it early this year in some corn imports that carried official U.S. non-StarLink certificates.

StarLink, made by Franco-German biotech firm Aventis SA to fight a destructive pest known as the European corn borer, has not been approved by U.S. regulators for human consumption because of fears over potential allergic reactions.

The public is overwhelmingly optimistic and supportive of genomics research - However, knowledge and understanding remain modest

Harris Interactive study finds overwhelming majority believes they haven't eaten genetically modified food

June 19
Press release

ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- This twentieth issue of Harris Interactive Health Care News (view full version at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/
about/vert_healthcare.asp) is based on a survey, Public Awareness in the Age of Genomics, that Harris Interactive conducted for the American Museum of Natural History. The newsletter covers some of the topics within the survey that was based on telephone interviews with 1,000 adults conducted during February and March of this year. The focus is on public knowledge of, attitudes to, and expectations for the application of Genomics in medicine.

The Public Is Only Somewhat
Knowledgeable about Genomics

A series of questions in this survey measuring public knowledge of genetics and related topics find that a substantial proportion of the public has some knowledge of genes and basic genetics, but that this knowledge is not substantial. Fully, 78% of the people surveyed were able to correctly identify a gene as ``the basic unit of hereditary information'' and 50% knew that genes are made of DNA. However, only 29% of the public have ever heard of the Human Genome Project, and only 36% have seen, read or heard about Genomics research in the past three months. Half of those surveyed (52%) could correctly identify a genome as ``an organism's complete set of hereditary information.'' The overwhelming majority believes that they have not eaten genetically modified (GM) food. Only 20% believe they have, suggesting that the public would be more knowledgeable and attitudes to GM food more positive if the food industry had decided to label GM food as such from the beginning.

Most People Believe Genomics Research
Will Have a Positive Impact

After several questions about genes and the Human Genome Project, which included a brief description of both the Project and Genomics, the public was asked what they thought the overall impact of Genomics research would be. A lopsided 84% to 11% majority of the public surveyed thought it would be positive. This support for Genomics research is, of course, based on limited public knowledge and, in some cases, ignorance about the subject - and this level of support could change sharply with any negative publicity. In part, these positive expectations of Genomics reflect the generally optimistic attitudes of most Americans toward new technologies, unless and until something happens to shake their confidence (remember Three Mile Island).

Table 1

    The Impact of Genomics Research

                            %
    Very positive           40  } 84% positive
    Somewhat positive       44
    Somewhat negative        8  } 11% negative
    Very negative            3
    Not sure                 5

A Variety of Genomics Benefits Viewed as Probable

Large majorities of the public respond positively (whether or not they have ever thought about them before) to the various benefits of Genomics. They believe overwhelmingly that Genomics research will be used to discover new and effective medical treatments (97%), to enhance the quality of life (88%), to conduct experiments on animals and humans (79%) - which not everyone supports, of course - and to track and identify criminals (78%). Rejecting the arguments of GM food opponents, only 16% of Americans believe that Genomics will ruin the environment or cause unwelcome changes.

Table 2 

How knowledge gained from Genomics research will be used 

It will be used to: Total % 
Discover new, effective methods of treating diseases 97 Enhance the quality of life 88 
Conduct experiments on animals and humans 79 
Track and identify people accused of crimes 78 
Ruin the environment by causing unwelcome changes 
16

Hopes and Fears

When asked what their greatest hopes for Genomics are, most people mention improvements in the detection and treatment of disease (50%) or improvements in the quality and length of life (30%). When asked what their greatest fears are, the answers given most often are that genetic information may be misused (45%) or that it may allow unethical experiments on humans and animals (32%). No other hopes or fears were mentioned except by small percentages of those interviewed (7% or less).

Public Belief that Genomics
Should Be Strongly Regulated

While the public is overwhelmingly supportive of medical research using genetic information and sees its many potential benefits, most people believe that it should be strongly regulated. Two-thirds of the public (63%) think Genomics should be regulated ``a great deal'' and another 29% think it should be regulated ``somewhat.'' Only 3% of the public think it should not be regulated at all. Belief in the benefits of Genomics and concern about the risks - and the need to minimize them - go hand in hand.

About Harris Interactive

Harris Interactive, is a worldwide market research, polling and consulting firm. It is best known for The Harris Poll and its pioneering use of the Internet to conduct scientifically accurate market research. The Harris Interactive Internet-based forecasts for the 2000 election were the most accurate in the history of the polling industry. With expertise in pharmaceutical, health care, automotive, finance, ecommerce, technology, consumer packaged goods and other markets, the firm has spent 45 years providing its clients with custom, multi-client and service bureau research. In February 2001, the Company acquired the custom research group of Yankelovich Partners, a leading consultative marketing and opinion research firm. Through its U.S. and Global Network offices, Harris Interactive conducts international research in multiple, localized languages. Harris Interactive currently maintains a database of more than 7 million online panelists - the largest of its kind. For more information about Harris Interactive, please visit the Company's website at http://www.harrisinteractive.com.

Saskatchewan professor says labeling food as modified gives wrong impression

June 18
Vancouver Province

Labeling food as genetically modified gives consumers the unjustified impression such products are risky, an academic told the annual meeting of the Consumers Association of Canada on Friday.

Health Canada requires labels on foods that could pose health concerns such as warnings about peanuts, noted Grant Isaac, associate professor of biotechnology management at the University of Saskatchewan.

So any labels about genetically modified ingredients could be interpreted as warnings, even though Health Canada requires that any foods approved for sale have already been scientifically tested and proven safe, Isaac said.

``If (genetically modified products are) perceived by Canadians to be a food safety issue then positive labeling would . . . only reinforce that fear in consumers,`` said Laurie Curry, a vice-president with the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, which represents 180 companies.

``As an alternative you have to go out there and educate the people about the technology.``

People want to know who they can trust, what is being done to minimize the risk and how they can get access to the information, she said.

But assurances from scientists are not enough for affluent and well-educated consumers in many developed nations such as Canada, said Michael Mehta, a sociology professor at the University of Saskatchewan who teaches courses on the social impacts of biotechnology.

Opposition comes not from ignorance, as some would suggest, but from unsatisfied concerns, he said.

Many consumers want to make buying choices based on their own concerns about the content of food and the socio-ethical issues related to the way it is produced.

As a result there have been labels to indicate that tuna is caught without killing dolphins and others to show what country it comes from.

``Judgment about the risk cannot be made by science alone,`` he said.

Genetic modification of food ingredients does not currently fall under Health Canada's labeling requirements.

The federal department has asked the Canadian general standards board to develop a voluntary labeling standard pertaining to genetic modification production methods.

The standards are expected to be released in the fall, Curry said.

Canada's food regulatory system is based on how much food is altered when it is processed rather than the methods used to alter it, Isaac said.

Canada's labeling is based on a principle of ``substantial equivalents,`` which means that the characteristics of a new food product are compared with standards already determined as safe for that type of food.

For example, the nutritional components of a food are measured against a norm already determined to be safe. If they fall within a comparable range, they are considered substantial equivalents and pass the test.

Health & Science: Taiwan hopes to echo high-tech success in biotechnology industry

June 17
Agence France Presse

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Taiwan hopes to repeat its information technology success in the biotechnology sector through tax breaks and other investment incentives, a business newspaper reported Sunday.

Venture capitalists investing in biotech businesses would be free from a 25 percent capital income tax and would receive financial aid to take the business public, according to the Economic Daily News.

The plans, being drafted by a special development committee, were expected to be finalized before the end of the year, the paper said.

Vice President Annette Lu has said the government would invest 50 billion Taiwan dollars ($1.52 billion) in biotechnology research to boost the island's competitiveness.

"Biotechnology has the potential to become the most promising industry in the century. The government has targeted a 25 percent growth each year," she said.

Taiwan would spend 10 billion Taiwan dollars each year over the next five years to become a world leader in the industry, Lu said.

According to the committee's projections, at least 500 biotech companies would be established in the next 10 years, creating 25,000 job opportunities.

President Chen Shui-bian said in May that biotechnology development is something that "if Taiwan does not do it today, it will regret tomorrow."

He hoped to make Taiwan's biotechnology sector as successful as its semiconductor industry.

Taiwan is a world-leading producer of desktop and notebook computers, microchips, scanners, monitors and motherboards.

Canada: MPs split on GM food labels

June 14
Western Producer

 The clock is ticking down on a debate over the appropriate way to label genetically modified foods. So far, Parliament is a House divided.

Charles Caccia, veteran Toronto Liberal MP and chair of the House of Commons environment committee, has proposed that mandatory labeling be the law.

The proposal will receive three hours of parliamentary debate before being put to a free vote in the autumn after MPs return from their summer recess.

Last week featured the second hour of debate and while the government already has decided voluntary labeling is the way to go, the debate has shown divisions within almost all parties.

A House of Commons vote to send the mandatory labeling idea to a committee for study would be an embarrassment for the government.

Alberta Alliance MP Rob Merrifield, a farmer as well as the party deputy health critic, argued that Canadians have been eating GM foods for many years without ill effects.

``The statistics show we are living longer and have more active and healthier lives now than ever before,`` he said. ``If our food sources were to become polluted or dangerous, the opposite of that would be true.``

His conclusion is that there is no scientific or health justification for labeling solely on the basis of genetic modification.

James Lunney, a Vancouver Island Alliance MP, has reached a different conclusion. He said there is no proof yet that GM foods are safe.

``We need better science around these products to assure Canadians that they are safe,`` he said. ``We also need to consider what options are available, including the labeling issue, in order to satisfy Canadians until the scientific principle is better satisfied to reduce the risk of these products.``

New Democrats and Bloc Québecois MPs have been unanimous in supporting mandatory labeling. But the Liberals have shown some divisions.

Southern Ontario MP Jerry Pickard, representing a large agricultural riding, said June 6 there is confusion about such basic issues as how to define genetic modification. He said politicians should not ``rush into``

labeling decisions while various studies of the issue are under way.

``More detail is needed if labeling is going to be accurate and useful to consumers,`` Pickard argued.

Senior Quebec Liberal MP and former Quebec environment minister Clifford Alexander insisted there is no need for more delay.

Caution and consumer rights demand labeling, he told the Commons. At present, educated consumers uneasy about the long-term implications of genetic modification have no way of determining what they are eating.