June headlines

Return to June article index

Engineered tree could fight blight

June 27
Montreal Gazette

John Carlson left his job at the University of British Columbia three years ago to return to Pennsylvania, where his family has been working in the forests for decades.

Carlson, a molecular-genetics professor at Pennsylvania State University, is now researching genetically modified trees that he hopes will help preserve the forests in his state and revive populations of trees that have been wiped out by disease.

In the 1920s, a blight fungus wiped out the American chestnut in the eastern United States, destroying food for wildlife in the forests, he said. Now, researchers are trying to find ways to make the tree resistant to the blight.

"With genetic engineering, we could restore it to the ecosystem," Carlson said.

The timber industry estimates it will be at least 10 years before genetically modified trees will be grown commercially, but opponents and proponents agree that the outcry over genetically modified foods is likely pale to in comparison to public reaction to genetic tinkering with trees.

"Trees are the only organism that people ascribe a moral value to; no one gives a moral value to corn," said Steven Burke of the North Carolina Biotechnology Centre. "Without questions, forest biotechnology worldwide will prove to be the most complicated combination of technology, societal implications and ethical issues."

Researchers in Canada and around the world are using some of the same techniques of genetically modified food on trees. They're working on developing hardier trees that will grow more quickly on small plots of land. That means trees that are resistant to certain kinds of herbicides, trees with genes from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium that would be resistant to some insects, and trees that have reduced lignin, a glue-like substance that helps trees stand up straight but has to be removed to make paper. Forestry companies say hey will use fewer harsh chemicals during paper processing if there is less lignin to be removed from the trees.

New trees could be developed that have increased pulp and paper yields or produce things like vaccines or biodegradable plastics, forest biotechnologists say.

Forest biotechnology is increasingly seen as the way to ease demands on natural forests around the world, which range from clearing forests for agricultural land to the growing need for pulp and paper products.

The size of forests on the planet has plummeted from six billion hectares in 6000 BC to 2.3 billion hectares in 1990, said Maud Hinchee of ArborGen, LLC, an alliance of several large forestry companies that is conducting research and development of genetically modified trees. Predictions are that by the year 2050, she said, only 1.8 billion hectares of forest will remain.

"With the continued growth of the world's population - especially in the developing world - we need new technologies to get the growth we need to protect natural stands of trees," Hinchee said.

But not everyone sees it that way. Groups like the Native Forest Network and Greenpeace have begun campaigning against genetically modified trees while small groups of activists have sneaked into universities and other research centers and ripped up genetically modified tree seedlings.

"Trees are the most complex and oldest plants that the genetic-engineering industry has ever taken on," said Anne Peterman of the Native Forest Network in Burlington, Vt. "If they succeed in planting genetically engineering trees commercially around the world, it could cause a massive ecological catastrophe."

Critics say genetically modified trees raise all kinds of potential problems, ranging from drifting nuts, fruits or flowers from genetically modified trees into nearby forests to faster-growing trees sucking up more water because they grow so quickly. And, they say, there's no way to know how the butterflies, moths and other insects that live in forests will be affected by the introduction of genetically engineered trees.

Both sides of the genetically modified tree debate agree that the long-term impact of genetically engineered trees is hard to predict because a tree's life span is so long. Carlson, for example, is working on how the flowering of genetically modified trees can be changed to make sure their nuts and flowers don't mix with the wild population.

But for critics like Mark Des Marets of the Northwest Resistance Against Genetic Engineering, that's not the answer. He said trees - and plants and animals - should not be regarded as products whose genes can be moved or changed in order to make money.

"If we take a hike in the forest we see a wondrously complex system of plants, water and trees with their own right to exist," he said. "The CEOs of these companies see a series of products that can be used to increase their bottom line."

There are other ways to protect existing forests, they say. The demand for wood and paper products could be reduced if more people used paper made from substances like hemp, recycled paper products and kenaf, a fibrous plant similar to cotton. The forestry industry could use agricultural waste like corn stalks, which have lower lignin content, to make paper if it wants to reduce its use of chemicals, and could use new technology to upgrade its paper mills and processing plants to be more environmentally friendly.

Wisconsin farmer John Kinsman said his family grows more than 100 hectares of organically certified trees and has no problems with insects, weeds or pests. He credits good forest management with increasing yields in his forests.

"My trees grow up to 10 per cent faster compare to when they weren't managed," said Kinsman, who attended a weekend of anti-genetic modification activities in San Diego organized to coincide with the BIO convention.

One challenge for opponents of genetically modified trees is building a movement against them, the activists said.

"The biggest thing about genetically engineered trees is that no one knows about them," Peterman said. "There's no way to stop them once they are in the environment, and that's why we're trying to stop it before it starts."

Her group is trying to mobilize global awareness about genetically modified trees and build opposition to it in the same way activists in some countries have succeeded in getting genetically modified foods banned, labeled or severely restricted.

"We have to scare away the investors and corporate stockholders from agreeing to invest in this technology," she said. "The anti-GM (genetically modified) foods movement has been a success around the world and we need the help of that movement."

But Carlson, the Pennsylvania professor, doesn't see it that way at all. He acknowledges there are criticisms that forest biotechnologists have to address, but there is a lot of good they can do.

"We have to convince the public that in the appropriate setting, biotechnology is for the benefit of everyone," he said. "Trees are different from agriculture because of their size, their lifetime and their large genomes. But there are still great opportunities if we can deal with some of the issues."

Philippines plans rules on imported GM products

June 27
Reuters

MANILA - The Philippines, a big importer of feed ingredients, plans to issue rules on the importing of genetically modified products, Agriculture Secretary Leonardo Montemayor said yesterday.

"We have rules on field-testing but we don't have rules yet about testing, for example, imported products," he told reporters after a forum with members of the Makati Business Club.

"That's important because right now we are doing a lot of importation of GMO corn and soybean," he said.

Asked whether Manila planned to introduce labeling to say if grains and meal contained GMOs, Montemayor said: "I'm not saying that we are going to recommend labeling. we will have to discuss it." "If it's labeling, do you label on the basis of the final product? Or do you label on the basis of the raw material used?," Montemayor asked.

It would also have to be determined who would pay for the extra cost of testing the products, if it was introduced.

The Philippines imports about one million tons of soymeal a year and about 350,000 tons of soybeans, the bulk of which traditionally comes from the United States.

In recent months, the country also bought soymeal from Argentina and India.

The country has an estimated corn shortfall of between 800,000 and one million tons a year, and local feedmills, hog and poultry farmers fill the gap by buying imported corn and other substitutes like feed wheat, sorghum and feed peas.

Major suppliers of corn to the Philippines are the United States and Argentina.

Fears over the effects of genetically-modified products on health and the environment compelled policy-makers in some Asian countries, like Japan, to impose guidelines on such products.

But biotechnology companies say such fears are unfounded, as studies done on GM crops have not shown adverse effects.

Organic alternative

'Roots' farming holds its own in high-tech era

June 27
San Diego Union-Tribune

In the beginning, when he hopped on a very tiny bandwagon, Bill Brammer was ridiculed. Farmers smirked at him. Said what? No pesticides?

Brammer was involved in a relatively new and radical approach to farming. Very few markets even considered selling his product.

Because he grew food naturally.

When Brammer started an organic farm on about 20 acres near Rancho Santa Fe in the late 1970s, agricultural experts argued that the world demand for food would never be met if chemicals and pesticides were not used to boost food production, he said.

And that argument can still be heard today, but this time, it also comes from proponents of biotechnology.

That industry's worldwide conference is taking place in downtown San Diego. And the people attending talk of miracles that are happening and other wonders that could result by genetically altering crops.

Brammer and other organic farmers, not surprisingly, aren't buying. They still do the bizarre, the twisted, the weird:

Farm naturally. That means using no pesticides, no growth hormones or any other synthetic assistance. Now one of the largest organic growers in the county, Brammer farms about 400 acres this way.

"It's more labor intensive, no question," he said. "After all, you can't just pull out a silver bullet and kill insects."

He'd be marching in protest against the conference, if he had the time. "But I'm working," he said.

This way of farming is not just a job, it's a cause, it appears. Organic farmers talk of saving Mother Earth, of giving back to the environment, of providing safe, nontoxic food to their fellow man.

They were seemingly well ahead of the curve when it came to questioning the safety of many American farming practices.

That's why many organic growers started their farms in the first place: to give people an alternative and re-establish older eating habits. That is, eat what's grown locally and in proper season.

But some critics say they need to lighten up, already.

The organic farm movement -- which is seeing retail sales increase about 20 percent yearly -- is having such success because it runs an aggressive scare campaign against modern farming technology, critics say.

"To them, it's a religion, but it's an irrational religion," said Dennis Avery, director of the Center for Global Food Issues, which is associated with the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis.

Organic foods -- which, because of the labor involved to grow and harvest such crops, cost more -- have come under greater scrutiny of late as they have become more commonplace. But they are yet to be mainstream. They make up only about 1 percent of the food sold today.

The Farm Bureau of San Diego County estimates 285 organic farms operate locally. Nationally, about 1 percent of farmland is farmed this way.

With this added scrutiny come claims that some food grown this way may be dangerous. For instance, some organic growers use cattle manure as fertilizer, which, if not composted properly, can contain contaminants.

"It's a fraud. There's no evidence that it's healthier," Avery said.

But supporters of organic farming, such as Nancy Casady, the general manager of the Ocean Beach People's Organic Food Cooperative, say the products are not marketed as some sort of miracle food.

"We don't make any claims of our food," she said. "We don't say, 'Eat this peach and go to Nirvana.' "

Organic growers and providers simply note that the food offered is grown naturally, she said. People can make their own decision as to whether such a product is a healthier alternative, she said.

There's no big secret as to why more people are trying organic products, Casady said. It's the same reason many people don't drink tap water, she said.

"They don't trust it." Todd Benson says if you want proof of the beauty of organic farming, come see the small operation he and his wife, Oasis, run in Jamul.

For him, there is no argument here. Organic farming is the way to go.

"We don't play God in his garden," he said. "We work with God in his garden."

Like Brammer, he's been involved in the organic food movement for decades. In the 1970s, he started an organic food distribution business. He, too, was laughed at.

But he was a product of the Vietnam War era, he said, which taught him to question everything.

So imagine how Benson feels about biotechnology. To him and many other growers, biotechnology is but another scary foot forward in the quest to get more from the land unnaturally.

The Organic Trade Association has asked that a five-year moratorium be placed on the production of biotech foods, until more scientific research can be done.

Like Brammer, Benson would love to take his argument to the biotechnology executives gathered in San Diego. But he, too, has work to do, he said.

"I'm protesting every time I plant a seed," he said.

Golden rice sticky topic at biotech conference

June 26
San Francisco Examiner

The so-called golden rice is engineered to produce vitamin A in the hope that developing nations can use it to stave off malnutrition. It has not yet been planted outside of greenhouses, but supporters say its time is nearing.

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 2 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 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.

Monsanto to share soybean genetic knowledge

June 26
just-food.com

Monsanto said it would provide a series of bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC)-end sequences for the soybean genome to the United Soybean Board. In return, the Board has agreed to provide the genetic sequence data to non-profit Better Bean Initiative participants who are funded through public resources.

The initiative was welcomed by industry. "This donation is one of the essential tools we will need to unlock the most beneficial traits within the soybean genome," said Don Latham, chairman of the Better Bean Initiative advisory panel and immediate past chairman of the United Soybean Board. "It will not only quickly accelerate our goal to develop the highest quality soybean for US soy producers, but reduce the amount of time and money it will take to achieve this goal."

In your face, out of our genes: The battle of San Diego

June 25
Environment News Service

A day of reckoning has come for biotechnology. As anti-biotech protesters confronted police to make their views known in the streets outside the San Diego Convention Center, inside Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, welcomed some 12,000 delegates to the annual meeting with an address entitled "Keeping the Faith."

Feldbaum addressed the critics of biotechnology who based their beliefs in religious faith and those who are angry that genetic manipulation is morally wrong and a usurpation of the role of God.

"Science is a method, not a faith, and the two are not mutually exclusive," Feldbaum said. "The technology you will be talking about this week is astounding, and its intended uses are compassionate," said Feldbaum. But, he acknowledged, people are not entirely grateful. "Many are suspicious. Some are even angry."

Feldbaum and the biotechnologists he represents see their work too as a celebration of life as they develop techniques to do things such as transfer cells or organs from one species to another to save human lives. They recognize religious objections to human cloning, and go halfway towards sharing it.

BIO is against human cloning for reproduction, said Feldbaum, but not against the genetic modification of stem cells for therapeutic purposes. He made it clear that the organization will lobby in Washington to win the support of lawmakers for its views.

Two competing bills to ban the live birth of a cloned human being have been introduced on Capitol Hill. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, sponsored by Congressmen Dave Weldon, a Florida Republican, and Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, would ban all uses of "human somatic cell nuclear transfer."

Feldbaum said today, "When Congress considers sweeping bills to ban human cloning, we need to reach people of faith and discuss the distinction between its reproductive and therapeutic applications - and the ethical objections they and we have. When the president withholds money for stem-cell research that carries such great promise in treating Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord damage and other grave health problems, we need to discuss the competing moral issues as broadly as possible," he said.

On the transgenic food issue, biotechnology critics such as those in the Organic Consumers Association say that with little or no legal restraints, labeling requirements, or scientific protocol, biotechnologists are creating hundreds of new genetically engineered "Frankenfoods," oblivious to human and environmental hazards, or negative socioeconomic impacts on the world's farmers and rural villagers.

They point to studies showing that genetically engineered foods can cause unexpected allergic reactions, compromise immune systems, and irritate the digestive tract. They insist that genetically altered foods should be labeled in the United States as they now must be in a growing number of other nations.

Feldbaum has the biotech community's answer to those concerns. He told the faithful in San Diego today, "We will never overcome all objections and satisfy every concern. Fear of the unknown is powerful and persistent, and so we hear protests over biotech foods long after they are proved safe. We can't simply dismiss people's misgivings: There's something primal in people's relationship with their food, their bodies, and we should be thoughtful in responding to that."

Biotechnologist Florence Wambugu of Kenya says, "Those who protest biotechnology do so with a full belly."

Her new book, "Modifying Africa: How Biotechnology Can Benefit the Poor and Hungry: A Case Study from Kenya," is being introduced at BIO2001. It details her experiences as director of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications - African Biotechnology Program.

Wambugu says it is obvious that "biotechnology - more often than not - represents the only lifeline of hope for most poor people in Africa." In addition to having a major impact on poverty and hunger, biotechnology has great potential to alleviate environmental degradation, she says.

The anti-biotech protesters in the streets may be perceived as revolutionaries, but inside Feldbaum sees biotechnology as the true revolution. He said today, "Our revolution is about more than science. Make no mistake, it touches the whole earth, potentially every individual, and we have to keep faith with global society."

Plants could deliver HIV vaccine in the future

June 25
Thomas Jefferson University's Jefferson Center for Biomedical Research press release

HIV-suppressing proteins packed into spinach could be the first step in using of plants as a cheap, safe method of delivering AIDS vaccines.

The idea of using plant "factories" to fight disease isn't new, but Dr. Alexander Karasev of Thomas Jefferson University and his team, who presented the research at a recent meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in Orlando, Fla., are some of the first to focus on HIV.

Karasev's team focused on "tat," a protein that helps HIV reproduce within cells while also suppressing the human immune system. It's role in HIV infection make it an ideal target for preventive vaccine as well as a prophylactic vaccine aimed at treating those already infected.

The researchers introduced a gene expressing the HIV tat protein into a common plant virus and infected spinach with the virus. The plant then began to work as a factory for producing tat. Using plants to produce and deliver a vaccine could reduce the manufacturing cost because vaccines grown in plants are cheaper to harvest then those produced in the lab. Such a plant could be a "particular benefit" for developing nations where logistics make vaccine production and delivery impractical, according to Dr. Karasev.

The center of the biotech world

June 23
Wired News

A massive biotech conference to begin in San Diego on Sunday may be the scene for a large-scale, love-hate relationship.

Companies will try to charm venture capitalists at Bio 2001, while government representatives from the United States and about 30 other countries will try to show they're the next biotech capital of the world.

The mayor of San Diego has officially declared it "Biotech Week," and Prince Andrew will tell attendees why England is poised to be the royal hot spot for biotech on Monday morning.

All hope their efforts will encourage investment in the industry, knowing it will be tough in a tepid economy to repeat the $32 billion garnered last year.

The regularly scheduled love fest will be interrupted by a group of protesters who call themselves BioDevastation. They oppose various products the biotech industry develops -- genetically engineered foods, in particular.

Last week, the Centers for Disease Control announced the results of a study on Starlink corn -- the genetically modified crop that inadvertently made its way into food products for humans, but was only approved for ingestion by animals. According to the CDC, the study found that Starlink does not cause reported allergic reactions.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, which is putting on the conference and represents almost 1,000 companies, quickly issued a press release announcing the CDC results as a victory.

"We don't think the CDC findings prove anything. They tested between 18 and 20 people -- that's certainly not a large enough sample size to say it’s not allergic," said Simon Harris, West Coast field organizer for the Organic Consumers Association and part of BioDevastation.

The protesters expect to peacefully gather between 500 and 1,000 demonstrators to rally against other issues as well, including "globalization."

Harris submits that the biotech industry is just another arm of this globalization, which he says takes away consumers' right to make their own decisions.

"Say I'm on the school board and I don’t want my kid to eat genetically modified mod food at school. Globalization removes my ability as a community member to effect these decisions," he said.

Meanwhile, states and countries plan to peddle the attributes of their respective geographies as the best place for biotech.

Iowa has the best soil, while Virginia has genetically modified pigs. Switzerland officials say the country is in the "premier league of biotechnology." Australia has a huge telescope. And the governor of Missouri is out to educate schoolchildren so they can understand it all.

Dan Jenkins, BIO vice president of communications, said as long as they don't disrupt the meeting, he's happy to open up a dialog with BioDevastation.

"If their message is 'We should question and be careful how we use new technology, I think they would find we have a lot in common," he said. "But if they'll be rappelling from buildings and disrupting the meeting, I'm not sure talking to them will accomplish a lot."