to protect potatoes from insects and potato viruses, have
not been approved in Japan. In 1998, Monsanto's Japan unit
applied for approval of NewLeaf Plus, but a decision is
still pending.
The food recalls, reminiscent of the StarLink furor late
last year, has again 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.
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 distrust U.S. corn and
cut its buying.
"The potato snack recalls have the same basic
problem as the StarLink corn does," said a senior
trader with the food industry.
The recalls suggest that the only way to avoid unapproved
GM products is to use other substitutes for corn or not buy
corn from the United States, said another trading house
trader.
Japan, which imports four million tons of corn for food
use each year and another 12 million tons for animal feed,
is the biggest buyer of U.S. corn.
In South Korea, the Korea Corn Processing Industry
Association, which imports two million tons of corn a year
for food use, has already shunned U.S. corn at its import
tenders. Korea imports another six million tons a year for
animal feed.
Concern about StarLink grew 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.
Greens
tell UK to halt GM crops or face new crisis
June 22
Reuters
LONDON - UK
environmentalists called on the government to rethink its
"enthusiastic" stance on genetically modified
foods yesterday, saying their production could usher in a
new health crisis similar to mad cow disease.
A report by green group
Friends of the Earth said research into the effects of
genetic modification (GM) on plants was patchy and that
studies into human and animal reactions to the products were
sometimes difficult to obtain.
"This report sounds
the alarm bell over GM food safety. There is clearly a large
difference between our ability to create GM crops and foods,
and our ability to test whether they are safe to eat,"
said Adrian Bebb from Friends of the Earth.
"If there was ever a
case for a freeze on GM foods then it would be now," he
said in a statement.
"With a new food
ministry in the UK there is a real opportunity for the
Government to rethink its previous enthusiasm for GM foods
and to put human safety before the profit margins of the
biotech companies."
The British government has
launched trials of genetically modified crops to investigate
the impact of such grains on the environment, and has sought
to persuade an increasingly skeptical public about the
technology's safety.
Public opinion has turned
against GM, with many rejecting scientific reassurances
after similar soothing words misled them about the risk of
eating beef during Britain's mad cow crisis. The disease was
linked to a deadly human form in 1996.
LITTLE
KNOWN ABOUT GM
Friends of the Earth said
little was known about GM food, which has been sold in the
United States since the early 1990s.
"The introduction of
GM foods, additives and feeds has taken place in the absence
of a safety assessment system that recognizes that the
techniques of genetic modification are still being developed
with unpredictable outcomes," the report said.
"Not only could a
major public or animal health crisis result from inadequate
screening before products enter the market, but public
confidence in the process is also unlikely to be restored. A
broad-reaching review...is required."
GM foods, which are
spliced with foreign genes to help them resist drought or
ward off pests, have prompted fears about the creation of
superweeds, the contamination of traditional crops and
potential harm to humans, animals and insects.
Supporters of the
technology say they are needed to feed an increasingly
hungry world and to grow more nutritious plants.
CropGen, a crop
biotechnology information agency funded by industry, said GM
food was the safest available to consumers.
"No GM product is
licensed for human food sale until it has satisfactorily
passed years of testing for possible untoward health
hazards. Indeed, only GM foods undergo such testing, so they
are in fact, the safest of all," Professor Vivian
Moses, chairman of a panel of scientists and experts at
CropGen, said.
"There has not been
one single substantiated instance of danger to human health
from GM foods, in spite of hundreds of millions of people
having eaten them for years."
GM giants
escape strict new laws
June 22
The Age (Australia)
The Federal Government's controversial gene technology
regulations, which came into effect yesterday, have been
attacked by the opposition and green groups for being
hastily implemented and failing to protect farmers and
consumers.
The laws are aimed at ensuring regulation and public
disclosure of projects involving genetically modified
organisms (GMO) conducted by private companies and research organizations.
Penalties of up to $1.1 million apply to breaches, and
acting gene technology regulator Liz Cain said a full list
of GM sites would be disclosed on the Internet.
However, companies conducting GM trials - such as French
multinational Aventis CropScience and its American rival
Monsanto - are able to apply for exemption from disclosure
on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. About half of
the GM operators have applied for exemption, and of the 63
past and current GM crop sites located in Victoria, 62 sites
are subject to such applications.
But Ms Cain said companies seeking to avoid revealing the
location of their GM sites would have to pass an
"incredibly high threshold".
Health Minister Michael Wooldridge said yesterday the
laws were "world's best practice" and would ensure
GMOs would not harm human health or the environment.
"This control framework will provide a climate of
community confidence in which the potential benefits of GMOs
can be developed, as well as effectively regulating any
risks associated with the technology."
But Tasmanian Greens senator Bob Brown said the
contamination of crops and lucrative organic farms was
inevitable under the laws.
"In the longer term, consumers face the
impossibility of obtaining GE-free foods," Senator
Brown said. "(Dr Wooldridge) says these laws insist on
transparency but already the regulator has admitted defeat
and says locations won't be published until the
multinationals ... have exhausted their appeal rights."
Labor's gene technology spokesman Alan Griffin said
yesterday the implementation of the regulations had been
rushed and criticised the fact that a regulator had yet to
be appointed and three consultative committees provided for
in the act had not been established.
Australian Democrats leader Natasha Stott Despoja said
the legislation did not go far enough and its test would be
whether public health concerns outweighed commercial
confidentiality interests.
The Australian Conservation Foundation's GeneEthics
Network said the regulations were inadequate.
Debate
over biotech food continues
June 22
KGTV, San Diego
About 90 percent of the companies represented at next
week's biotech conference are in the medical field.
A smaller sector is involved in agricultural
biotechnology, 10News reported.
And for activists and supporters, that is one of the
hottest hot-button issues at the conference.
Those in the business say that agricultural biotechnology
simply continues an age-old tradition.
"For over 10,000 years, we've been adapting and
modifying the food that we grow. Today we're able to do it
with really great precision," Bio spokesperson Lisa Dry
told 10News.
The tiny weed-like plant (pictured, right) is corn, in
its original form. Humans modified it over thousands of
years to create the yellow corn that we recognize.
Biotechnology is the next step.
"The benefit is that you know what the outcome is
going to be and you can replicate it exactly time after time
after time," she added.
Supporters of agricultural biotechnology say that this
science can help food production. And, in some cases, when
beneficial additives like extra vitamins are inserted, some
corn can fight pesticides on its own.
"The plant now has built-in, with this ability to
protect itself … so it's got a natural insecticide inside
the corn plant," Dry told 10News.
But according to 10News, activists say that it's not that
simple. The Biojustice counter-conference is at BIO 2001 to
raise issues, urging San Diegans to question just what's
happening to their food.
"The biotech industry has spent well over $250
jillion to convince people that there's nothing to worry
about with respect to genetically engineered foods,"
according to Skip Spitzer of the Pesticide Action Network.
Spitzer says that biotech threatens the very things it
claims to help.
"There's the problem of loss of markets. There's the
problem of crop contamination. And there's the problem of
loss of independence that farmers experience if they adopt
these technologies," Spitzer said.
Activists say that in the United States many foods
already contain genetically altered foods, while the export
market for these foods is falling apart.
"Countries around the world are banning imports of
genetically engineered foods. Over 20 countries now have
mandatory labeling systems," Luke Anderson of
Biojustice told 10News.
Florence Wambugu has a different perspective. She grew up
in a country where hunger is a daily struggle.
"There are more people to feed than we are able to
produce food for," Wambugu said.
For 12 years in Kenya, Wambugu reportedly tried to
improve local crops, using conventional methods. Nothing
worked, but she believes that biotechnology will, and she
supports the industry.
"Genetic engineering is offering an opportunity to
control diseases and pests," she said.
Wambugu admits that she has concerns, but says that those
obstacles should not stand in the way of science that could
help her homeland.
Wambugu is currently working on creating a stronger,
better sweet potato -- a vegetable that is a significant
part of the Kenyan diet, 10News reported.
She hopes to bring that to market within the next three
years.
Right now in the United States, labeling genetically
engineered products is voluntary.
GM
laws please industry but criticized by environmentalists
June 21
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
New regulations over genetically modified
(GM) organisms have been welcomed by the industry groups,
but criticized by environment groups.
The national laws replace a voluntary system, with the
independent Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to
police them.
The locations of at least half the
genetically engineered (GE) trial sites in Australia are to
be made public, while there are applications from companies
to keep the rest of them secret.
The laws provide for fines of more than a million dollars
for companies that breach them, and the locations of at
least half the 120 trial crop sites will be made public.
Multinational crop company Monsanto's spokesman Bob Arnst is
pleased.
"We are very happy to work within the current
guidelines," Mr Arnst said.
Greens Senator Bob Brown and the Organic Federation of
Australia say the guidelines are too weak, and Australia's
crop lands will be contaminated with GE material.
The Gene Ethics Network's Bob Phelps does not believe the
threat of large fines will make the big corporations improve
their performance.
"They've miss behaved themselves, they've broken the
guidelines and we don't think they'll obey the law," Mr
Phelps said.
The Organic Farmers Federation's spokesman Scott Kinnear
says the regulations are disappointing.
"No data whatsoever will be gathered on when a crop is commercialized.
"When they start selling seed to
farmers to pursue their expansion program throughout
Australian agriculture, there will literally be no data kept
on where and when the crops will be grown," Mr Kinnear
said.
"Farmers won't be notified and that's a real
concern."
Tasmanian
moratorium
The Commonwealth's Gene Technology
Regulator has upheld Tasmania's ability to continue with a
moratorium on GE crops, in the face of tough new Federal
laws.
While the laws allow for details of all sites across
Australia to be made public, multinationals Monsanto and
Aventis have applied to have the locations of their
Tasmanian sites kept secret.
The acting regulator, Liz Cain, says the new laws do not
impinge on Tasmania's right to continue its moratorium on GE
crops.
"Any state government can create legislation to protect
marketability for example, and the only connection that that
state legislation would have...is that the regulator is not
able to act inconsistently with state legislation," Ms
Cain said.
South
Australian opposition
Meanwhile, the South Australian Government
has come under fire over its refusal to support Tasmania
declaring itself a GM-free zone.
Federal Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Alan
Griffin, who negotiated the clause to allow states the right
to declare themselves GM-free, is not impressed by South
Australia's decision to oppose a Tasmanian opt-out.
"I think it's quite stupid of them," Mr Griffin
said.
Greens Senator for Tasmania Bob Brown, is even less
impressed.
"I'm just thunderstruck."
Tasmania needs the support of four states and the
Commonwealth if its wants to declare itself GM-free.
It recently wrote to all states seeking their support in the
lead up to a ministerial meeting on the issue later this
year.
It is the first anyone has heard of the South Australian
opposition to a possible Tasmanian opt-out, but the South
Australian Government is not saying why it does not want
Tasmania to go GM-free.
South Australia is currently contending with a local revolt
against GM crops, with a number of councils saying they will
declare themselves GM-free zones if the state does not.
'No
need' for Welsh GM trials
June 21
BBC
In another twist into the GM controversy, BBC Wales learns
that the government was advised there was no need to hold
trials in Wales at all.
Ministers in the then Department of the Environment
Transport and the Regions were told by their own scientific
advisers that removing Welsh sites would have no impact on
the validity of the research.
The trial sites - two in Pembrokeshire,
west Wales, and one in Flintshire, north Wales - had been
strongly opposed by the Welsh Assembly which had been intent
on keeping WalesGM-free.
The tests for genetically-modified fodder
maize were among the list of 28 published by the government
at Westminister at the beginning of April.
Now the BBC has learned that, six weeks
earlier, scientific advisors were asked whether it would
matter if Welsh sites were dropped.
The reply to ministers was that it would
not - as long as alternatives were found in the west of
England where growing conditions were similar.
That advice was given a month after Carwyn
Jones the Welsh Rural Affairs minister met Michael Meacher
the UK Environment Minister to outline Welsh Assembly
objections.
Both trials in Mathry, Pembrokeshire, were
abandoned before they began - following a row between the
landowners and Westminster over details of the scheme.
But Flintshire farmer John Cottle has
refused to bow to pressure to halt the second year of trials
on his farm in Sealand.
Last month, Mr Cottle explained to Carwyn
Jones that he was pressing ahead with the trials despite a
plea from the assembly to stop.
Mr Cottle said he was determined to carry
on with the experiment and he remained convinced of its
benefits.
Transgenic
cotton fails to get environmental nod
June 21
Economic Times (India)
IN A major triumph for environmentalists,
the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee has withheld
environmental clearance for large scale cultivation of
transgenic Bt. cotton.
Instead, it has called for fresh large-scale field trials
under the direct supervision of the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research under their Advanced Varietal Trials
of the All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project.
GEAC, which met yesterday, has also sought comprehensive
data from the field trials which would be conducted in
multi-locations under different agro-climatic conditions.
The demand for such data has been a long-standing one from
anti-GMO NGOs like Greenpeace and other environmental
agencies.
The trials would also address field level integrated pest
and varietal management issues, the impact on soil micro
flora and nontarget insects of cotton as well as the spread
of Cry protein resistant bolworms.
A statement issued by the ministry of environment and
forests said that the field trails would be monitored
through a committee set up by ICAR with representatives from
the ministry of environment and forests, department of
biotechnology, department of agriculture & co-operation
and ministry of health.
After an in-depth and careful consideration, GEAC observed
that Bt cotton hybrids `generally performed better’ in
terms of a nearly three month decrease in frequency of
sprays and insecticides required.
However, since the date of planting was late ( as much as
three months) the insect-pest load too was low. Hence it was
possible that the yield data and the net agronomic advantage
derived from the earlier trials `could not reflect the true
values’.
In addition, Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company which had
sought to commercialize Bt.cotton has also been asked to
conduct field trials on farmers’ fields in an area of
about 100 hectares under close supervision of GEAC and the
monitoring and evaluation committee.
As the matter thus passes on to the Agriculture and Health
ministry, sources in the Department of Biotechnology termed
the move as a `setback’ to India.
``The questions raised by GEAC — on whether the aaD gene
present in Bt cotton confers resistance to streptomycin (an
antibiotic commonly used in the treatment of Tuberculosis)
and on what would be the implications of gene flow by bees
— are questions that will not find answers in 20 years,
leave alone another year of trials,`` said a top DBT source.
The source said the agronomic questions asked (on yield
levels and decrease in spray) had been posed earlier and
would still remain even after a year.
``If our findings over three years has not satisfied them,
another year of trials will not provide any miracle
answers.``
Meanwhile, the sources were worried over the signal given
world over about India’s attitude towards technology
adoption. They pointed out that US which leads in cotton
production had Bt. cotton cultivates across 2 million
hectares, while India had the largest acreage of land
deployed for cotton at 7 million hectares.
Still its average produce stood at 250-300 kg per hectare
while China was making giant strides with 900-1,000 kg per
hectare produce.
Bt. cotton contains a foreign gene obtained from a
micro-organism called Bacillus thuringiensis which is
supposed to protect plants from bollworm, a major cotton
pest.
While proponents like Mahyco and Monsanto think it would
help farmers save money on chemical pesticides and improve
yields, critics claim it would pose an environmental and
agricultural hazard in the long run.
