May headlines

Return to May article index

Australia: Aventis reprimanded for GM safety breach

May 3
just-food.com

Trial workers at the controversial Aventis Crop Science field trials of genetically modified canola in Mount Gambier,  SA, have inadvertently breached national security rules, by carrying GM seeds home in their clothing. 

The workers argued that they were not provided with protective clothing, safety guidelines, or even informed that the crop was GM. 

The breach, which is the third of its kind in four years, has prompted conservationists to demand an immediate halt to all GM field trials. In March last year, Aventis was reprimanded after dumped GM contaminated trash was found by the  roadside. A report issued in the same month by the Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (IOGTR) criticized the company after finding uncontrolled re-growth of GM canola in 21 of the 58 Tasmanian trial sites. 

This latest breach is proof, according to many, that Aventis is not taking the voluntary safety guidelines seriously.  Scott Kinnear, spokesman for the Organic Federation of Australia, commented yesterday: "This is a clear indication that Aventis is not fit to hold a license. They have clearly failed to demonstrate their ability to act in a manner that ensures these field trials are contained." 

"Our position for some time has been for a freeze for at least five years on all genetically modified organisms in field trials or commercial release, and this breach only strengthens our case," he added. 

The Organic Federation of Australia made the complaint about Aventis to the IOGTR, where spokeswomen Kay  McNiece commented that Aventis had been made aware of the guidelines. She added however, that the risk to the  environment by this security breach is reasonably small: "The breaches Aventis has had in the past were of major concern to us. This is not of anything like that scale, but it is still a concern, and Aventis has assured us workers are  being contacted and notified of their obligations." 

At the moment, the IOGTR is powerless to do anything other than record the breaches of the government safety  guidelines. The federal government's Gene Technology Bill plans to make all GM companies apply for licenses and publicize the location of their GM trials. It does not become law until 21 June 2001, but after that date, fines of up to A$1m will apply.

Argentina approves GMO seed, first in 3 years

May 2
Reuters

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Argentina approved a genetically-modified cotton seed this week, reopening the door to biotechnology products after refusing to authorize their use in the country for nearly three years.   

The country stopped approving the use of genetically modified agricultural products in July 1998, influenced by rejection of the products by European consumers. 

Europe is the principal consumer of Argentine corn. The de facto suspension was extended to all crops, including cotton.

The Agriculture Department resolution, published on Monday in the official government bulletin, will allow U.S.-based biotechnology company Monsanto to sell a herbicide-resistant cotton seed called ``Roundup Ready'' (RR) in Argentina.      Argentina, Latin America's third-largest economy, is second only to the United States in the use of genetically-modified seeds.

``This shows a different attitude on the part of the (Agriculture) Department,'' Oscar Domingo, president of the Argentine Association of Seed Companies (ASA), told Reuters.

The approval of the genetically-modified cotton brings the total number of genetically-modified products authorized for use in Argentina to six.

Three other Monsanto seeds are approved here, including insect-tolerant corn, cotton and soybeans. Aventis sells a herbicide-resistant corn seed locally and Swiss company Novartis sells an insect-resistant corn.

ASA estimated farmers used genetically-modified seeds for 90 percent of the record 10.4 million hectares planted to soybean in the 2000/01 campaign, more than 20 percent of the area planted with corn and about 8 percent of that sown with cotton.

``According to company estimates, within five years, this seed could be used for 60 percent of the area planted in cotton,'' the local unit of Monsanto said in a statement.

``This means the economic impact of the cotton-growing provinces could rise by $50 million a year.''

AREA PLANTED FALLING

Unlike soybean production, which is expanding, the area planted to cotton in Argentina has been falling despite a small recovery this year.

The government estimates some 410,000 hectares of cotton were planted this year, more than the 345,000 hectares a year ago, but far from the 1.13 million sowed in 1997/98.

 Cotton is produced mainly in the northern province of Chaco, about 620 miles (1,000 kms) from Buenos Aires.

``This is excellent news for the cotton producers of Chaco. This will allow them to grow cotton at a lower cost and in areas where it would be difficult to raise the crop without this technology,'' said Domingo.

Argentina has a three-stage commercial authorization process for GMO products: field tests; a toxicology analysis to prove the product is not harmful; and finally an evaluation of the possible reaction of export markets.

Against the altered grain

Some North American crops grown from bioengineered seeds face bans in certain lucrative export markets

May 2
Boston Globe

The nation's agricultural industry - from farmers to food processors - is bracing for the latest and possibly most far-reaching repercussion of the introduction of bioengineered foods: lucrative export markets closed to unapproved crops grown in North America.

Monsanto Co. announced last week that it had recalled hundreds of tons of bioengineered canola seed from Canadian farmers because the shipments may have contained genetic material not approved for consumption in Japan, one of the leading export markets for Canada and the United States.

A spokesman for Monsanto said the St. Louis-based company is trying to find out how the mistake happened. But experts contend that such mistakes are likely to occur more often and become more costly as long as biotech seeds grown in North America remain banned in markets like Europe and Japan.

''The problem is very serious and it's something we're not prepared for,'' said Neil Harl, an economics professor and farm expert at Iowa State University. ''It's already hurting us on the export side.''

The danger to the United States' nearly $52 billion food export market has prompted even supporters of biotechnology - most recently, the North American Millers Association - to urge a reform in the way federal agencies regulate biotech and what seeds biotech companies market.

Adding urgency to those calls are the mounting number of food processors that are insisting their ingredients contain no biotech material.

Genetically engineered crops - mainly corn, cotton and soybeans - entered the market five years ago. Their benefits were obvious to many: Some varieties could tolerate pesticides or even produce their own insecticides. As a result, their use skyrocketed, in particular in the Midwest. Nearly two thirds of this year's soybean crop is expected to be genetically engineered, up from just over half in 2000. A similar portion of the cotton crop relies on biotech seeds, while just under a quarter of American corn is genetically engineered.

The problem, though, is that many varieties are not approved in other countries. Of 16 bioengineered varieties of canola, for instance, 14 are approved in Canada, but only 10 are sanctioned in Japan and three in the European Union. Corn, whose exports earn the United States nearly $4.5 billion a year, is similar: While 16 varieties are allowed in the United States, only 10 have received approval in Japan and just four in the EU.

That poses the requirement, by default, of separating crops intended for export overseas - a growing challenge for the industry, which admits that the sheer bulk of harvests means they are often freely mixed. In markets where varieties are not approved, the tolerance is zero, and even one kernel could be grounds for rejecting a shipment.

''Zero is a really low number,'' said James Bair, vice president of the millers association, a Washington-based trade group that represents 45 milling companies in 37 states. ''The US system developed over 100 years to handle massive quantities of grain which are basically interchangeable in their suitability for all end uses,'' he said. ''That system is fantastic in its ability to do that. But it's not very nimble when it comes to satisfying special needs.''

His group urged the government last week to coordinate with other countries the licensing of biotech seeds. Unless those seeds are approved in all major markets, it said, they should be kept off US farms. It also urged companies to stop selling seeds that lack ''broad international approval.''

That topic was a focus of attention at a meeting in April of the USDA's Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology, formed in January 2000 to advise the federal government on biotech issues. Some participants raised concerns that the US farm system is increasingly vulnerable to the mixing of biotech and non-biotech crops as well as the risk of bioengineered plants like corn passing their genetic traits through cross-pollination.

Both are likely factors in the resilience of StarLink, a variety the government approved only for animal use out of concern that it might cause allergic reactions in people. It was planted on just a fraction of farmland but has showed up in food ranging from taco shells to corn dogs, forcing the costly recall of more than 300 products. ''That illustrates what happens with bulk commodities,'' said Charles Hurburgh, an Iowa State University professor and director of the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative. ''If one farmer plants it, then everyone has to test.''

Such testing could become more important.

Fearing consumer backlash, McDonald's has told its suppliers it doesn't want genetically engineered potatoes. Other food processors have made similar demands, including Frito-Lay Co. and Novartis AG, maker of Gerber baby food. In April, sugar refiners told farmers to avoid bioengineered sugar beets.

While sugar beets are a minor crop, the decision was the latest setback for biotechnology companies like Monsanto and Aventis SA, which are already struggling with the looming need for segregated crops. ''It's a challenge that we'd rather not have,'' said Loren Wassell, a Monsanto spokesman.

Wassell said Monsanto has sought uniform global standards for biotech products, creating a market with little distinction between genetically engineered and conventional varieties. He said the company would not market seeds unless they were approved in both the United States and Japan, which imports more than $9.3 billion in US farm products.

Without uniform standards, US farmers risk losing more exports. Already, US shipments of corn to Europe have evaporated over the use of bioengineered seeds, closing a $200 million-a-year market.

The Illinois Department of Agriculture has urged seed companies not to sell varieties not approved overseas. And, worrying US farmers, some countries like Brazil are beginning to market soybeans and other products as free of genetically altered material, playing on consumer fears.

''The American farmer loses out on this,'' said Hurburgh. ''This is going to be a running battle for quite some time.''

GM body fails to promise 'clean' food

May 1
The Australian

Organics Federation of Australia spokesman Scott Kinnear said US producers were worried there would not be enough clean seed to allow planting of organic corn, soy and canola for the 2001 season.

As a result it was "highly likely" that US soy and corn products entering the Australian market were contaminated with GM (genetically modified) organisms.

"The OFA recommends importing companies in Australia immediately test batches of product and seed from the US containing organic soy, canola and corn," Mr Kinnear said.

"It's got to the point where I have a letter from Farm Verified Organic (independent US organic certifier) saying they can't guarantee seed purity in planting and are considering the notion of thresholds.

"The implications of that are they will be shut out of the European Community market and maybe even Australia and New Zealand."

The introduction of contamination thresholds within the organics industry was "extremely contentious because it essentially legitimized GE-pollution and flouted the international standard for zero tolerance of contamination of organic seed".

Such a move was opposed in Australia, New Zealand and the European Union.

Mr Kinnear warned the US situation delivered a sobering message to Australian producers that contamination was highly possible and not only posed environmental and health risks but also serious trade implications.

It is now believed that the risk of GE contamination not only existed from pollen drift and harvesting equipment but also through contamination of the seed itself.

"We have been jumping up and down for years about this and now our worst nightmare has come true in the US," he said.

"People buy certified organics because it isn't contaminated and the US situation will undermine people's confidence in organics."

Mr Kinnear said Australia's Gene Technology Bill, which becomes operational from June 21, provided inadequate protection for the organics industry because it had failed to consider the potential impacts on trade along with considerations of public health and safety.

"The whole reason why this is a critical issue is because GE companies always stated people should have the right to choose genetically engineered products. That is now being taken away."

Scientists praise GM crops, backlash cited

May 1
Reuters

Genetic experts Monday hailed the potential of genetically modified food to help reduce the need for chemical pesticides but also warned of a potential public backlash against the use of biotechnology in the food supply.

Several agricultural geneticists said that crops that have had their DNA altered to produce natural pesticides or herbicides are cutting down on farmers' use of chemicals used to kill pests and weeds. Still, others warned of the need for close environmental monitoring to give early warning of inevitable unintended consequences as more and more engineered crops come into use.

Modified soybeans, the most common transgenic crop currently used in the US, have cut the use of herbicides by 12% since 1995, said Dr. Roger N. Beachy, president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, Missouri.

At the same time, corn engineered to produce a natural pesticide known as BT has cut use of insecticides by up to 3% in fields where it is used, he said at a forum on genomics held at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) annual meeting.

But it is the BT-producing corn that last year helped kick off a round of consumer outcry against genetically modified food in the US. A study published in 2000 showed that pollen from BT corn was toxic to Monarch butterflies when it was spread onto milkweed plants the butterflies eat.

While the overall quality of the study has been challenged, the results nonetheless sent jitters into consumer groups and scientists already nervous about the possible impact of genetically modified foods on the environment.

The study was also a setback for the grocery industry, which has been trying to avoid a widespread consumer backlash against genetically engineered foods of the kind that led to severe restrictions on the use of such foods in Europe.

Companies and researchers must be prepared for the potential that genetically modified plants could breed with related native species, thus releasing unnaturally placed DNA into the environment, said Dr. Barbara A. Schaal, a professor of biology at Washington University. Transgenic foods also have the theoretic potential to make some insects and worms resistant to pesticides or to cause weeds to become even more tenacious, she said.

Many consumer groups worry that genetically modified foods will give rise to dangerous allergic reactions in humans. The NAS issued a report last year declaring that no evidence exists to suggest that biotech-derived foods are unsafe for humans, and many researchers believe that the reduction in pesticide use is worth the risk of biotech foods harming the environment or public health.

That report also called for long-term environmental monitoring to measure the impact of genetically modified crops on health and the environment. The report was also criticized by some consumer groups, who accused many of its authors of having financial ties to the biotechnology industry.

``The issue is one of tradeoffs,'' said Schaal, who co-chairs NAS's Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology, Health and the Environment. The committee is planning a series of reports on the safety of bioengineered foods for human use.

GM tomato 'reduces risk of disease'

May 1
Times (UK)

Assembly abandons GM-free campaign

He has also said that he wants those distances to be legally enforced.

With planting of GM maize expected to start at three trial sites - two in Mathry in Pembrokeshire and one at Sealand in Flintshire - within the next few days, the announcement marks the end of a long battle to try to maintain the GM-free status.

The assembly has fought for six months to try to "go it alone" and prevent the crops from being grown at all in Wales.

Scientific studies have failed to give the minister the powers to ban the GM crops, nor can he prevent individual farmers from growing them.

But in the longer term, Mr Jones is likely to look towards Europe, to change the rules on separation distances.

He said: "The risk of legal challenge in the courts were I to act to prohibit the trials in the absence of a legal justification for doing so is assessed as high and could result in an award of very high damages against the Assembly."

He stressed that: "Whilst a ban is not possible we have identified grounds which I can act to safeguard the integrity of organic and conventional production.

"By giving regulation force to the establishment of separation distances between GM and non-GM crops."

At the moment, there is a voluntary distance of 200 meters between GM crops and neighboring organic producers.

The Soil Association says that gap should be six miles while other groups argue that, whatever the distance, it should be a legal requirement.

Any such changes would create an EU-wide conflict between the GM crop and organic regimes, which could take a year or more to resolve.

At the weekend police were called after protesters held a demonstration near a farm at Mathry in Pembrokeshire, west Wales, where GM crop trials are expected to start.

A group of around 100 protesters - led by local organic farmers - marched past the fields chosen for the trials, and then to the home of the landowners.

But the farmers are now resigned to the fact that preparatory work for the sowing has already started.

One of the two fields earmarked for the experiment has already been ploughed and if the weather remains dry the maize seeds could be sown by Saturday.

Organic farmer Gerald Miles, who met landowners Tony Marlow and Gill Chambers on Monday night, said they were at "complete loggerheads".

However, he said that he and his fellow organic farmers would continue to argue the dangers of growing GM crops so close to farms who have adopted organic methods.

The farmers intend to go to London on Thursday to meet UK Environment Minister, Michael Meacher.

Food for thought? It's all in the genes

May 1
Times of India

It`s a classic case of food for thought. Coming as it does under the open general license (OGL) category, genetically-modified food is all set to flow into the country. Now, here`s the twist in the tale. With a number of countries having banned the import of food of this nature, the term `genetically-modified` seems to have become a virtual hot potato in the Capital`s context.

The prevention of food adulteration (PFA) department, for one, seems to have been caught in a logjam. With neither the laboratory equipment nor clear-cut guidelines from the government to tackle the issue, the PFA does not know how to go about defining, labeling and testing genetically-modified food. But that`s not all, if PFA department officials are not aware of the parameters to be followed in the case of genetically-modified food, the health ministry doesn`t either --it is still waiting for the Union government to issue instructions in this regard.

Elaborates a senior PFA official who is associated with the department`s laboratory testing of food samples, ``While we have a list of 121 food items with clearly defined parameters, there are no guidelines as regards genetically-modified food.``

Delhi health minister A K Walia, on his part, lobs the ball into the Centre`s court. ``The PFA Act needs to be amended to incorporate clear-cut parameters for genetically-modified food. As things stand now, the PFA department has neither the facilities nor the authority to deal with genetically-modified food. As for genetically-modified food making its way into the Capital, we have not received any reports in this regard so far. Side by side, we have taken up the issue with the Union government and are hopeful that it will be sorted out sooner than later.``

Informs a senior official of the health ministry, ``We are working on how to define genetically-modified food, besides upgrading facilities at existing government labs.``

While genetically-modified food of the imported kind is, apparently, yet to make its way to the Capital`s table, the fact of the matter is that if spurious stuff seeps in, this city could have a serious case of Delhi belly on its hands. Offers chief commissioner (customs) S P Srivastav, ``To the best of my knowledge, genetically-modified food is yet to make an appearance in the city. Side by side, as a thumb rule, it is mandatory for all imported food consignments reaching Delhi to be tested. Certain specifications need to be complied with before imported food consignments are transported from ports. Of course, once a food item leaves a port, it is the responsibility of state agencies to deal with possible problems.``

Simply put, till such time as there are checks to check the credentials of the genetically-modified food items making their way into the country, Delhi can never be too sure. After all, prevention, like they say, is the best form of cure.

GM seeds 'removed from test site'

May 1
news.com.au

WORKERS at a genetically modified canola trial in South Australia had inadvertently taken seeds home in their clothes and shoes, conservationists claimed today.

They said the incident was a breach of international guidelines and showed the federal Government must impose a five-year freeze on GM testing in Australia.

The Organic Federation of Australia said workers at the Aventis Crop Sciences site at Mount Gambier, in South Australia, had not been told they were harvesting genetically modified crops.

Spokesman Scott Kinnear said workers were taking on average 50 canola seeds off the trial site on their shoes every day, and did not wear protective clothing.

Mr Kinnear said the incident also showed that voluntary regulation of the industry was totally unacceptable.

"We would have expected that the federal Government would have been requiring workers to wear protective clothing, or would be taking a very close interest in how these field trials are harvested," he said.

"Again we say these field trials should be stopped, and our broader view is a five-year freeze (of the trials) at least."

Bob Phelps, director of the Australian Conservation Fund Gene Ethics Network, said the Mount Gambier incident was further proof of the need for a freeze and the introduction of GE free-zones.

He said this would enable the Government and industry to "get this new technology under control and out of our environment".

"We only have one go at this, so let's get it right the first time, and staying GE free is obviously the right thing to do at the moment," Mr Phelps said.

Comment is being sought from Aventis Crop Sciences.