June headlines

Return to June article index

Protesters in San Diego oppose 'test tube' veggies

Demonstrators say genetically altered food hasn't been proven safe

June 25
AP

Hundreds of protesters, some dressed as ears of corn or genetically engineered tomatoes, gathered Sunday for a colorful protest of an annual biotechnology trade show.

The protests were largely peaceful on the opening day of the Biotechnology Industry Organization's annual conference, which Gov. Gray Davis addressed in the evening.

Police arrested two people for carrying concealed weapons, which police spokesman Dave Cohen characterized as daggers. The protesters were taken into custody after breaking off from a march to the San Diego Convention Center, Cohen said.

Demonstrators gathered in Balboa Park before beginning the afternoon march to the convention center along San Diego Bay, where the trade show's 15,000 participants were registering.

Police herded the estimated 750 to 1,000 demonstrators behind a chain-link fence, where they danced, played drums, performed street theater and chanted calls for "biojustice."

One man was dressed as a tomato and wore a sign reading, "I was a test tube veggie." Another carried a sign reading "Biocide is Homicide."

Many of the demonstrators said they are concerned that biotech businesses are introducing genetically modified crops and seeds into the food supply without knowing the long-term consequences.

"The biotech industry is conducting a real-time experiment with our biosphere," said 26-year-old Shannon Service of Boulder, Colo., who was dressed as a monarch butterfly. "They don't know the results, they can't possibly know the results. The monarch butterfly represents that well."

Some research suggests pollen from genetically engineered corn can be toxic to the butterflies, whose favorite food, milkweed, grows in and around corn fields.

The corn is altered to produce its own pesticide to kill an insect pest. Earlier this year, a panel of scientists that advise the federal government urged more research into such crops to determine their effect on the environment.

In brief remarks to conference participants Sunday night, Davis focused mostly on defending his role in the state's ongoing power crisis but also mentioned the importance of his administration's support for biotechnology research.

"The idea is to push back the frontier of knowledge," he said. "This, I think, 50 years from now, will be seen as the best thing my administration has done."

Some people came downtown to watch the protesters but disagreed with their concerns about genetically altered crops.

"I have no problem with their right to protest, but they have no clue what they're talking about," said 52-year-old Jessica Van Wert of San Diego. "People are starving. We so desperately need technology to step up and feed the world."

Protest organizers had expected several thousand demonstrators and said they were disappointed with the turnout. They blamed it on police and the media.

They "drummed up a tremendous amount of paranoia and hysteria," said Han Shan, spokesman for the Ruckus Society, a group that trained protesters in nonviolent demonstrations for the event.

"The whole downtown of San Diego has been militarized," Shan said. "There are a lot of people out here who feel we're being criminalized for simply expressing concern with biotechnology."

San Diego police said they were determined to avoid a repeat of the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, which led to more than 600 arrests and caused $2.5 million in downtown property damage.

Officers kept their distance from protesters but maintained a strong presence all afternoon, following demonstrators along their route to the convention center.

Police said their main concern was the anarchist groups that have disrupted previous anti-globalization protests around the country. The groups typically stand out because their members are dressed in black and wrap their faces in ski masks or bandannas. Some carry gas masks.

Several marched with demonstrators Sunday, but Cohen said there were no major confrontations with police. At one point outside the convention center, a black-dressed protester burned an American flag.

"I'm not here to start anything," said an 18-year-old from Sherman Oaks who was dressed in black jeans and black T-shirt and wore a black bandanna around his mouth and nose.

"If I was here to start a fight, I'd have a lot more armor," said the man, who refused to give his name.

Conference organizers acknowledge the protesters' concerns but defended the trade show and their industry.

Michael J. Phillips, the organization's executive director of food and agriculture, said the science showing the safety of the crops is "sound and irrefutable."

Eric Anderson, an ornamental seed farmer from north San Diego County, came to Balboa Park to counter the protesters' message.

"We let the protests define our work for far too long," he said, adding that biotechnology makes his work easier and safer. "We're able to do more with less -- less chemicals and more environmentally friendly."

Spirited debate at biotech meeting

Critics of genetically modified foods share concerns at world's biggest biotech conference

June 25
AP

SAN DIEGO -- Critics of genetically modified foods are letting bioengineers know their concerns at the world's biggest biotech conference here, accusing companies of favoring profits over consumers' health.

Among the products being touted -- and condemned -- ``golden rice,'' has come to represent the hopes and fears about biotechnology, even though not one single seed of it has yet to be planted.

Industry supporters launched a spirited discussion about golden rice, named for its yellow hue and because it is genetically engineered to produce Vitamin A in the hope that developing nations can use it to stave off malnutrition.

``We could not have come up with a better example of what biotechnology is all about,'' said Mike Phillips, a spokesman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. ``It's a wonderful story of the public and private sectors have come together.''

Critics call it ``Frankenfood.'' They view golden rice and other genetically modified foods as potential health hazards, and argue that not enough research has been done to determine whether they are really safe.

It will probably take another five to 10 years before poor subsistence farmers can begin growing the crop in large amounts, and that's ``if everything goes right,'' said Ronald Cantrell, executive director of the International Rice Research Institute.

Its many proponents see the rice, infused with two daffodil genes and a bacteria gene to add vitamin A, as a panacea for starving populations in developing nations where rice is a staple.

Traditional rice lacks vitamin A, and as many as two million children die each year because of vitamin A deficiencies. Another 500,000 go blind. Biotechnology researchers say genetic engineering is the only practical way to fortify the rice.

``It was clear from the beginning that biotech was needed instead of typical crop breeding,'' Swiss plant cell professor Peter Beyer, one of the two inventors of golden rice, said Monday at the annual Biotechnology Industry Organization conference. ``No rice anywhere has vitamin A.''

Opponents call it science run amok. They say no plants should be genetically changed to include elements of other organisms, and particularly not rice. Once the plants are released into the environment, cross-pollination with traditional rice could have unpredictable long-term impacts on the food billions of people eat every day.

``The purported benefits of golden rice are completely fabricated,'' said Brian Tokar, a member of Biojustice, a group opposed to genetic engineering.

Tokar dismissed the golden rice project as merely a public relations ploy to improve biotech's media image.

``The way to cure blindness and hunger should not come from big agribusiness,'' he said.

Still others praise the science but say the distribution system is flawed -- that governments and nonprofit agencies are too big and bureaucratic to properly handle getting the seeds to poor farmers once the product is perfected.

Villoo Morawala-Patel, who owns an India biotech start-up that works on the aroma of Indian rice, says golden rice's keepers should turn to companies like hers to help distribute the seeds.

Still, Beyer and other major supporters of the rice cautioned that years of fine-tuning must be done before poor subsistence farmers will be able to use it on a wide scale. Today, golden rice is grown only in a few greenhouses, including at the Rice Research Institute's headquarters in the Philippines.

``Golden rice is still in the developmental stages and a lot of work is still needed to get into the fields,'' said Sivramiah Shantharam, a spokesman for Syngenta, which owns the commercial rights to the rice.

First order of business: engineering the rice to survive in the tropical climates where it can benefit the most, such as Asia, which grows 500 million tons of traditional rice annually. Right now, the golden rice can only grow in temperate climates such as California's. Cantrell said it will probably take three years for the research institute to develop a rice that can grow in the Philippines.

Beyer and co-inventor Ingo Potrykus also are working on genetically fortifying the rice with iron and vitamin E.

Critics argue that even vitamin-fortified rice will come nowhere close to easing the world's hunger pains, and that people would need to eat dozens of pounds of golden rice a day to meet their daily vitamin needs.

Consequently, the two European scientists are also having problems raising the needed capital to continue their work. Public funding in Europe also is dwindling in part because of the outcry there over genetically modified foods.

``Elected officials are quite reluctant to fund us,'' Beyer said.

So Beyer has turned some of his attention to private companies, partnering recently with Syngenta, which agreed to allow governments and nonprofit agencies to freely distribute golden rice throughout the poorest countries. Syngenta hopes to generate its profits in industrialized countries such as the United States, if the rice meets regulatory approval.

Beyer is meeting with other scientists this week to prepare a pitch for more research money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Currently, the Rockefeller Foundation funds Beyer's work and has promised to do so for the next 18 months, he said.

Outside the convention center Monday, police outnumbered protesters. The crowd of protesters listening to music, dancing and performing street theater numbered no more than 50 -- at times even less.

Elsewhere, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals staged a protest at a Burger King restaurant in the nearby city of Mira Mesa. Police there also outnumbered the 80 protesters who turned up. Two demonstrators were arrested after they stood on the counter and made speeches.

Lack of standards makes 'non-GMO' labeling risky business

June 25
United Soybean Board press release

New Orleans -- Industry experts speaking at a Sunday panel discussion on food biotechnology at the International Food Technologist's (IFT) Annual Expo shared concerns that labeling food products as ``non-GMO'' may put food companies and manufacturers at risk for liability. Increasing pressure from anti-biotech activist groups and product recalls associated with StarLink corn have compelled some food companies and retailers to source ``non-GMO'' ingredients to protect the reputation of their brands.

``It's critical to look before you leap,'' stated liability attorney Thomas P. Redick, one of three panelists who presented at the forum. ``Activist groups have recently 'outed' a number of products promoted as 'non-GMO' resulting in product recalls and negative publicity for these companies trying to meet perceived demands of customers. Without careful legal and scientific management of the process behind 'non-biotech' representations, these companies may face fraud suits over the content of their products.''

Panelists stressed the importance to food companies and retailers of recognizing the difference between consumer needs and the demands of anti-biotech activist groups when deciding to source non-GMO ingredients. Panel moderator Jerry Slocum, a farmer from Mississippi and International Marketing Chair for the United Soybean Board (USB), stressed that most consumers have very little knowledge about how food is produced. According to the United Soybean Board's Annual Consumer Attitudes About Nutrition National Report, 48 percent of consumers responded that they do not know enough about biotechnology to say how they view the use of genetically modified ingredients in food products. Out of the 62 percent who were aware of the term ``genetically modified,'' only 19 percent were aware of activist groups linked to the issue. Out of that 19 percent, 80 percent say they have not taken any action based on information provided by activist groups. ``If you project this back to the total population represented in our survey, less than 4 percent of consumers have taken any action in regard to genetically modified food,'' Slocum stated. ``It seems clear that activist groups are a very vocal, but very small minority.''

Food scientist and panelist Sara Risch, founder of Science by Design, concurred, saying, ``Labeling a food product as 'non-GMO' is misleading. Consumers assume that 'non' means zero, and zero is hard to deliver. Food companies and consumers alike must be educated on the benefits of food biotechnology such as providing more stable oils, healthier fatty acid profiles, and the incorporation of vitamins into products. Bowing to the pressures of a few vocal anti-biotech groups really limits product development options for food companies.''

The forum, titled ``Managing Risk in the Face of the Biotech Debate: What You Need to Know if You Are Considering Going 'Non-GMO''' was organized by the United Soybean Board as part of the IFT Annual Food Expo. Featured panelists included liability attorney Thomas P. Redick of Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C.; food scientist Sara J. Risch, Ph.D., founder of Science by Design; and United Soybean Board International Marketing Chairman Jerry Slocum.

IFT is a nonprofit scientific society with 28,000 members working in food science, food technology, and related professions in industry, academia and government. The IFT Annual Food Expo draws over 900 exhibitors from around the world to present the latest innovations and improvements in products and services for every facet of the food industry.

The United Soybean Board is a farmer-led organization comprising 62 farmer-directors. USB oversees the investments of the soybean checkoff on behalf of all U.S. soybean farmers.

Biotech conference sees few protesters

June 25
ABC News

Police prepared for months, but so far protesters who want controls on bio-engineered foods have made less noise than expected at the year's largest biotech conference.

Genetically altered food, a highly contentious issue, kicked off the biggest annual biotech conference today, but so far protests have been lighter than expected.

Just a handful of demonstrators protested outside the convention in downtown San Diego today, outnumbered by police and reporters perhaps 10 to one. Concrete barricades and chain-link fences blocked access to the convention center.

On Sunday, 500 to 1,000 people marched through downtown, playing music, holding protest signs and dressing up as gene-altered plants and animals to protest what they derided as "frankenfood." Organizers of the conference said protests have been peaceful.

Authorities had expected as many as 8,000 demonstrators to show up.

Eight people were arrested over the weekend, accused of carrying daggers, vandalism and carrying signs outside designated areas, The Associated Press reported.

Frankenfood or Science Marvel?

Besides being alarmed by what they believe are health uncertainties about the food, protesters say they want better labeling of food products that contain genetically modified products.

Shannon Service, 26, of Boulder, Colo. — dressed up as a Monarch butterfly — accused the biotech industry of conducting "a real-time experiment with our biosphere."

"This is about having clean and healthy food for our families," she told ABC affiliate KGTV in San Diego.

"This is about having clean and healthy food for our children," she added. "This is about not letting corporations put fish genes in our tomatoes for profit. This is about not letting corporations kill monarch butterflies to create corn that is unhealthy for humans and untested. They have done no long range testing on the food that they give to the American public."

But proponents say the genetically modified food is safe, and in fact reduces other hazards that have been the target of protests.

"The same people who are marching against biotechnology are the same people who marched against pesticides several years ago," Gene Grabowski, spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, told The Associated Press.

A panel discussing "golden rice," was the first planned for today. The rice, which has a yellow hue, is infused with Vitamin A. It is hoped that developing nations will use the rice to stave off malnutrition.

Other topics on the agenda for the participants at the annual conference included embryonic stem cell research and the use of animal organs and cells to treat human illnesses.

Police Prepared for Protests

San Diego Police Capt. Ron Newman said police went through months of training for the conference, adding that authorities have learned from mistakes made in Seattle during riots in 1999, when demonstrators caused more than $2 million in damage during a meeting of the World Trade Organization.

That's welcome news to Teresa McTighe, who represents 350 downtown businesses as head of the Gaslamp Quarter Association.

"I don't think anyone plans to close," she added. "I think that everyone plans to be open and accommodate the 15,000 to 20,000 people that are going to be here to see San Diego."

Illinois biotech helping feed the world

June 25
Illinois Coalition press release

Illinois' leadership in agricultural biotechnology is allowing underdeveloped nations to improve and increase their food supplies through the development of crops that are more resistant to pests and drought. Biotech companies from Illinois are putting food on the table for citizens around the world who live in countries where the population is exploding and suitable farmland is shrinking.

Illinois was the first state to sow the seeds of agricultural biotechnology. In 1987, Monsanto planted the first biotech field in the world in Jerseyville, Illinois. The original 40-acre site has grown to 328 acres and is still used by the company to this day.

"The State of Illinois, under the leadership of Governor George H. Ryan, is committed to providing crucial public sector support to those researchers who are constantly finding new ways to feed the world. We know that fostering the growth of biotechnology in Illinois is not only good for our economy; it's also vital to combating starvation around the globe," said Pam McDonough, director of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA).

McDonough is leading the Illinois delegation at Bio 2001, June 24-27, the largest international biotechnology convention and exhibit, where more than 15,000 industry leaders have convened to discuss the latest innovations and issues.

One new biotech firm taking advantage of this commitment is AniGenics, Inc., an animal genomics company. Founded in Massachusetts, but moving soon to the Chicago Technology Park, AniGenics represents the kinds of strides being made in Illinois biotech. The company is paving the way in developing new techniques and technologies to enable producers to economically identify superior breeding stock, resulting in lower costs, improved food safety and enhanced food quality.

"We chose Illinois because the commitment, infrastructure and regional knowledge base will help build a strong foundation and ensure our success," said Dr. Steven M. Niemi, president and CEO of AniGenics, when announcing the move to Chicago.

In 2000, AniGenics formed an alliance that included the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, and the Roslin Institute of Edinburgh, Scotland for the purpose of establishing and supporting an integrated, collaborative relationship with the world's top research institutions in animal genomics.

"AniGenics embodies what we are trying to do to help biotech businesses," added McDonough. "All sectors -- government, academia and private businesses -- come together in Illinois to support companies like these so they can deliver solutions that make our lives better."

Other examples of cutting-edge biotech firms taking advantage of Illinois' integrated network of resources include:

• Integrated Genomics, Inc., which combines genome sequencing and bioinformatic services to provide a better understanding of cellular life and a means to improve human life. Current customers include some of the world's leading pharmaceutical, agricultural, and chemical companies.
• ThermoGen, a MediChem Company, develops stable enzymes for industrial applications. Using proprietary techniques from all types of microorganisms, ThermoGen's efforts simplify and accelerate the development of advanced product needs in pharmaceutical, agriculture chemicals and food, specialty and fine chemicals, petroleum refining, petrochemical and environmental applications.

Included in VentureTECH is funding for the University of Illinois Post-Genomics Institute. This facility will help bridge cross-discipline, cutting-edge research in the biological sciences by focusing on the development of new technologies and capitalizing on the biology/engineering interface, growth in the field of biotechnology, and expansion into commercialization. Just a few of the research examples include: new varieties of corn and soybeans, improvements in animal sciences, biofarming, and farmaceuticals -- the production of pharmaceuticals through the modification of a plant's or animal's genetic material.

At the same time, "Illinois is home to the National Center for Food Safety & Technology which works with the world's largest food companies in collaboration with academia and government to help assure the nation's food safety," said Matthew Botos, Director of the Illinois Center for Food Safety & Technology (ICFST). ICFST focuses specifically on food safety in Illinois.

"Illinois biotech companies are giving American consumers more choices while improving food safety," said Shaye Mandle, president of the Illinois Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to strengthening Illinois' economy through science and technology. "Illinois biotechnology, however, is not just about agriculture. All biotech endeavors statewide are ensuring we live longer, healthier lives."

Anchoring Illinois' biotech base are companies either headquartered in Illinois or with significant operations in the state, including Abbott Laboratories, Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, Baxter International, Dade Behring, and MediChem Life Sciences.

Cutting-edge biotech research institutions, including the University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana, Northwestern University's Kellogg Center for Biotechnology, the University of Illinois/Chicago, the USDA agricultural research laboratory in Peoria, the Illinois Center for Food Safety and Technology, the Illinois Institute of Technology, and Fermi and Argonne National Laboratories are helping attract more biotech companies to Illinois. The state also features biotech incubators, including the Chicago Technology Park, a public-private partnership between the University of Illinois and the State of Illinois, located in the heart of the Illinois Medical District, one of the largest urban medical centers in the world. The Chicago area has more colleges of medicine than any other city in the United States.

About The Illinois Coalition

The Illinois Coalition is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization of the state's top leaders from business, labor, government, education, and research dedicated to a single overriding goal: to strengthen

More worries about genetically modified canola

June 21
CBC News

ALISON SMITH: There are more worries tonight about genetically modified canola, a controversial plant that was originally designed to help farmers fight weeds. Well, now in some places, the genetically modified canola itself has become a weed. As Kelly Crowe reports, farmers who don't want it are having a tough time controlling it. 

KELLY CROWE (Reporter): That's it, standing out above the rest of the crop, western Canada's newest weed, genetically modified canola, popping up where it wasn't planted and isn't wanted. And because it's designed to resist a chemical weed killer, it doesn't die with the rest of the weeds. Dan Karen is with Manitoba Agriculture and Food. He says he's been getting calls from farmers who want to know what to do. 

DAN KAREN (Manitoba Agriculture and Food): We're seeing side effects that maybe we haven't seen in the past that maybe raise a few red flags. 

CROWE: In this field, the farmer has never even touched a genetically modified canola seed. Still, the canola is growing here, and now plant scientists are trying to solve the mystery of how it got here. The theory, cattle manure. The seed traveling right through the animal into the manure and onto the field, a sign of how much this plant can spread. 

MARTIN ENTZ (University of Manitoba): The GM canola has, in fact, spread much more rapidly than we thought it would. It's absolutely impossible to control. 

CROWE: Ottawa approved genetically modified canola back in 1996, one of the first varieties to be licensed. In this decision document, the government considered its potential to become a weed of agriculture and its potential to become a plant pest, and decided it would be no worse than regular canola. Today, Steven Yarrow of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency agreed that the canola is now becoming a nuisance, but advised farmers to simply use another chemical. But scientists say it's not that simple. Although other chemicals will kill the canola weed, some can also kill whatever new crop is planted. And in this field, the canola was sprayed with the recommended alternative, and it still survived. 

UNIDENTIFIED MAN (1): Again, this plant has somehow escaped. 

CROWE: And there's another problem. This scientific paper describes a case of a canola that was sprayed with three different chemicals and still won't die. 

ENTZ: It's been a great, a wake-up call about the side effects of these GM technologies. 

CROWE: Monsanto, the company that created a variety called Round-up Ready Canola, says this is not a big problem. Farmers should simply call the company. Monsanto says it will send people out to pull the plants out by hand. But this law professor says Monsanto may be liable to pay for damages if canola spreads. He says it's a legal question that still hasn't been answered. 

MARTIN PHILLIPSON (University of Saskatchewan): I don't see the federal government taking any action at all legislatively or regulatorily at all in this area. I think they will be very reluctant to do so. I think it will have to come down to the cost. 

CROWE: For many farmers, genetically modified canola is still a popular choice. But some are beginning to worry that the crop that was supposed to simplify their weed control is starting to make things more complicated. Kelly Crowe, CBC News, Toronto.