May headlines

Return to May article index

GMOs can be good and bad - FAO chief

May 3
Agence France Presse

The head of the UN food agency on Thursday asserted that genetically modified organisms (GMOs), like all new technologies, can be used to help mankind, or do harm and benefit only specific groups.

"As scientific progress presents us with ever more powerful tools and seemingly boundless opportunities, we must exercise caution and ensure thorough ethical consideration of how these should be used," said FAO Director General Jacques Diouf.

"The benefits deriving from GMOs, for example, should be shared more fairly with developing countries and with resource-poor farmers. Above all, ways must be found to guarantee that increased production benefits accrue to the poor and food-insecure," he added.

"Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), like all the new technologies, are instruments that can be used for good and for bad in the same way that they can be either managed to the benefit of the most needy or skewed to the advantage of specific groups," said Diouf.

Diouf was commenting on two publications by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) -- the first in a new series dedicated to ethics in food and agriculture, and on a report by an independent panel of experts on major issues and challenges facing humanity, including the need for an equitable, ethical food and agriculture system.

The first publication, entitled "Ethical issues in food and agriculture", introduces ethical questions as they relate to FAO's mandate and describes a vision for building an ethical and equitable food and agriculture framework.

"Today ethical concerns are central to debates about the kind of future people want," the paper said.

"A more equitable, ethically-based, food and agriculture system must incorporate concern for three widely accepted global goals, each of which incorporate numerous normative propositions: improved well-being, protection of the environment and improved public health."

The purpose of the second publication, entitled "Genetically modified organisms, consumers, food safety and the environment", is to share the current knowledge of genetically engineered products in relation to consumers, including the safety of their food and protection of their health, and environmental conservation.

FAO has set up a committee on ethics in food and agriculture to provide guidance and determine the scope of ethical issues relevant to the UN agency's mandate.

"FAO is now addressing ethics in a more systematic way, and is giving higher visibility to the ethical dimensions of its work in an interdisciplinary manner across the various technical fields," FAO expert Margret Vidar pointed out.

The agency has also established an independent Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture to advise the organization and raise public awareness of ethical considerations associated with such vital issues as food security for present and future generations and sustainable management of the planet's limited resources.

In their report, the experts said that the FAO should support developing countries in increasing research and development related to socially useful and environment-friendly biotechnologies, including - as appropriate - the possible development of certain GMOs."

The panel includes scientists from Ethiopia, China, Cuba, France, Malaysia, Morocco, Norway and the United States, appointed for a four-year period.

They met, for the first time, in September and will meet again next year.

Tests for genetic corn spur concerns

Amounts of disputed variety found in 10 percent of US grain inspections

May 3
Boston Globe

Washington - StarLink, the genetically engineered corn whose traces prompted the recall of hundreds of snack products last year, has turned up in nearly one-tenth of 110,000 grain tests performed by federal inspectors around the country since November, the US Department of Agriculture says.

Often the amount is low - just a handful of kernels - but the finding has surprised specialists. They worry that the prevalence of StarLink, which was approved only for animal use out of concern it can cause allergic reactions in humans, is far greater than the fraction of crop land on which it was planted.

The tests are forcing grain companies to channel large volumes of corn away from the US food supply and export markets to livestock feed. ''There's more StarLink out there than anyone expected,'' said Anne Bridges, a manager at Medallion Laboratories, a food-testing lab in Minneapolis.

The disclosure is the latest in a series of reports that have left the nation's agricultural industry grasping for a solution to a problem that could persist for years. Aventis SA, the French pharmaceutical company that invented the variety, has acknowledged StarLink will remain in the food supply ''for the foreseeable future'' and has asked the US government to permit its presence at low levels that it deems harmless.

The government, meanwhile, has offered to buy back corn seed contaminated with StarLink at a cost of $15 million to $20 million. So far, more than one-quarter of seed companies eligible have enrolled, although they produce less than 1 percent of US corn seed. Already, the seed's presence has forced companies to divert millions of bushels.

Since Nov. 15, the USDA's Grain Inspection Service has tested more than 110,000 samples of corn. Of those, about 9 percent have tested positive for Cry9C, a unique protein that identifies the corn as StarLink, said John C. Giler, chief of the service's policies and procedures branch.

The tests were carried out by dozens of inspectors across the country in barges, storage bins, trucks or anywhere else corn was stored or shipped, Giler said. In the Midwest, where StarLink was more intensively cultivated, up to 16 percent of samples tested positive, he said. Overall, he said, the share of positive tests has remained steady.

Testing, which takes about 15 minutes, could go on indefinitely, Giler said. Inspectors leave it to the grain company to divert that portion of the crop that has traces of StarLink.

''We'll sample, we'll test, we'll certify the test results and then it's up to the grain company to decide what to do with the corn,'' Giler said.

StarLink is engineered to produce a protein toxic to insect larvae. The Environmental Protection Agency approved it under a split registration, allowing it for livestock and industrial use, but not human consumption, which accounts for less than one-tenth of the nation's 10 billion bushel corn harvest. The agency has now acknowledged that was a mistake and said it will no longer grant split registrations to biotech seeds.

Last fall, StarLink was taken off the market. But removing it from the food supply has proven to be a far greater challenge for regulators, farmers, food companies and the Aventis unit responsible for the seed, Aventis CropScience. The USDA tests can detect one kernel in a sample of 800, and any contamination means the corn must be diverted from the food supply.

''You're looking for the single kernel here or there,'' Giler said. ''This is really something new, something new to the market, trying to segregate out after the fact. In most cases, you know it's coming so you can plan for it.''

StarLink was planted on just 0.4 percent of US corn acres. But it tainted much greater acreage by mixing with other varieties through handling (up to a bushel of corn can remain in a combine after harvest) or by cross-pollinating with other varieties after being carried by insects, birds and wind.

Aventis CropScience has said it has contained 99 percent of StarLink grown in 2000, requiring 1.7 million tests and forcing the rerouting of more than 8,000 trucks, 15,000 rail cars and 285 barges. Even then, company officials say they won't completely remove it from the corn supply any time soon.

Now Aventis has asked the EPA to tolerate StarLink at 20 parts per billion, the equivalent of about one kernel in every 800. Critics call the request a ploy to shield the company from liability.

StarLink's threat remains under dispute. The company's new research filed with the EPA shows that the corn poses no health concern. The EPA has said it will ''carefully evaluate the research.''

Dozens of people have reported getting sick from taco shells and other products containing the corn, and the EPA is awaiting an investigation of those complaints. In December, a panel of independent scientists told the EPA that StarLink shows a ''medium likelihood'' of causing an allergic reaction in some humans. But, it said, given the low levels likely present in US food, StarLink probably would not cause allergic reactions.

Still, the fresh positive tests from the USDA unsettled some.

''The number keeps going up and up, and the concerns continue to grow,'' said Matt Rand, campaign manager for biotech at the National Environmental Trust, a lobbying group that opposes bioengineered foods. ''With an increase in contamination, we're running into the situation where we cannot control genetically engineered crops.''

Even biotech supporters expressed surprise at the number of positive tests, citing the findings as further incentive for the government to abandon zero tolerance for StarLink. To them, the issue is more of a regulatory than health concern.

''That strikes me as high,'' said James Bair, vice president of the North American Millers Association, which represents companies in 37 states.

Bair said it would be difficult to eliminate all traces of StarLink from the food supply in the short term. ''Zero is a really low number,'' he said. ''We try as hard as we can. It's been very expensive, it's a huge burden, it's slowed down commerce.''

Health authorities urged to go slow on GM food ban

May 2
Daily News (Sri Lanka)

The National Chamber of Commerce has appealed to the Health authorities to grant a concessionary period of at least two months to sell the already imported genetically modified food stocks.

Under the ban, which became effective yesterday, food consignments which do not conform to the new regulations, will be re-exported at the consignee's expense. In terms of the regulations, importers are required to furnish a certification authorized by the exporting country's Government, whether the food items were subjected to any GM, using DNA recombinant technology or not.

The NCOC points out that since the ban on GMF was gazetted on April 6, sufficient time was needed to inform the suppliers of necessary certification and for the stocks to be sold.

Subject restriction will be soya beans, soya products, corn, maize and corn products, fresh tomatoes as well as tomato based food products, bakers yeast, brewers yeast, beet sugar and microbiological starter cultures used in food items.

The NCOC wants Health Department Officers conducting raids to refrain from requesting GM free certifications from retailers and distributors but to obtain the documents from importers or the manufacturers directly.

A NCOC spokesman stressed the need for public seminars and discussions involving all responsible parties to raise public awareness on this issue, as this was a health concern for which everyone had to take the responsibility.

He called for an amendment of the food items list compiled by the health authorities since it did not include some items which were GM.

The spokesman said that most of the food items imported to Sri Lanka were genetically manipulated one way or another and would cost more if GM free certification was demanded from producers. He added that soya products which were very nutritious may become expensive and out of reach of Sri Lankans as a result of this ban.

Though storage of GM was banned under the law, the NCOC requests Health Authorities to be lenient during the transitional period as the earlier imported items will be in the market.

Canada proposes 'softer' label at GM foods conference

May 2
CBC

OTTAWA - The phrase "genetically-modified" should not appear on food labels, according to Canadian delegates to a United Nations conference on GM foods in Ottawa.

Canada is against mandatory labeling of GM foods unless the products have been significantly changed to affect nutritional content or increase the risk of allergic reactions.

The federal government's stance is an attempt to confuse consumers, according to groups of protestors outside the meeting. They argue there's not enough scientific evidence to prove GM foods are safe, and consumers should be told what they are eating.

By Friday, the conference is expected to come out with a resolution that covers at least some aspects of the issue.

Scientists fear biotech will harm food supply

May 2
Globe and Mail

The human food supply is in danger of being contaminated by crops genetically modified to create better drugs and industrial chemicals, a group of veteran scientists and academics is warning.

The warning is in a strongly worded letter by four PhDs — among them the former dean of science at McMaster University in Hamilton — who advocate mandatory food labeling and better testing of genetically modified foods.

The letter, obtained by The Globe and Mail, says there is a "high probability" the food we eat could be contaminated as a result of sloppy farming practices and the "arrogance" of biotechnology researchers and regulators.

Genetically modified foods have sneaked up on Canadian consumers, many of whom don't know plants that engineered with foreign genes to be resistant to pesticides or herbicides have been researched, grown and consumed here for years.

The letter specifically warns that the pollen of modified plants can transfer engineered genes to unmodified plants growing in nearby fields and that modified traits can spread by "spillage of seed or dispersion of seed by the wind."

Such questions have long been raised about genetically modified conventional crops. Research into molecular farming — the practice of designing plants that grow proteins used to make plastics or medicines — has added to the fears.

The researchers call Canada's introduction of genetically modified food insidious and argue that the only crops that should be used in molecular-farming experiments are those not consumed by humans or animals.

Already, some molecular-farming projects are considered risky enough to be held in mine shafts or under glass covers to protect against the spread of seeds and pollen.

The letter — signed by retired Agriculture Canada scientist Bert Christie, former McMaster University science dean Dennis McCalla, McGill University animal-science professor Dick Beames, and Hugh Lehman, an expert in agricultural ethics at the University of Guelph — is a submission to the federally appointed Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, which is gathering feedback on genetically modified foods as it prepares to advise federal cabinet ministers.

Some of the letter's authors have previously written essays for a group called Genetic Engineering Alert, whose Web site is maintained by the Council of Canadians. Mr. Christie says his name was put forward for a seat on the advisory committee, but he did not join it.

The submission will likely further fuel the debate over genetically modified foods. Earlier this year, a Royal Society panel of experts looked at the issue and argued that Canada's food-safety system is plagued by conflicts of interest, a lack of transparency and ambiguous testing.

The four PhDs make frequent reference to the findings of the Royal Society, a national body of distinguished Canadian scientists and scholars, and criticize the advisory committee both for favoring the views of industry and underplaying the panel's importance.

Peter Phillips, co-chairman of the advisory committee's genetically modified food group, said the Royal Society's report is a part of wide-ranging feedback it is gathering and that a few members of the expert panel now are part of his committee.

He said market forces may help ensure rigorous testing continues on plants modified to produce the protein building blocks of drugs or industrial materials.

"Anybody that does that [research] is going to want to contain that stuff anyway," he said. "They're going to bear the liability if they fail. Nobody is going to want a product in the market that's going to hurt anybody."

Most genetically modified crops so far have been bred to be pesticide- or herbicide-resistant. Worldwide, a number of experiments are under way, including ones that involve adding a strand of human DNA into alfalfa plants, causing canola plants to produce plastic-making polymers, and trying to make a blood protein grow in rubber plants.

As with all matters pertaining to genetically modified foods, no one disputes that safeguards are needed: The question is whether emerging and existing regulations are adequate, and whether genetically modified crops are inherently more risky than traditional crops.

"The reality is the food system has a lot of risk now," Mr. Phillips said. "Some of the new technologies may be less risky than the existing technologies; some may be more."

Genetically modified crops, which some critics denounce as "frankenfoods," are seen by proponents as profitable, a natural evolution of farm science that could help feed a hungry world.

There have not yet been any health disasters stemming from altered crops, but modified corn intended for animal feed has ended up in the human food supply in the United States, and a Brazil nut gene was transferred to a soya bean, bringing with it an allergen.

In Alberta, three different strains of herbicide-tolerant canola grew in close proximity to one another, creating triple-tolerant canola. The fear is that sloppy agricultural practices could result in the resistance being passed to weeds, creating superweeds.

Countries stalled over labels for genetically altered foods

May 2
Canadian Press

Ottawa — Despite almost a decade of talks, the countries of the world are making little progress over how to label genetically modified foods. Discussions at the annual meeting of Codex Alimentarius, the UN body that sets food labeling standards, were bogged down Tuesday over terminology.

Canada has proposed to eliminate the words "genetically modified foods" from the text of the draft agreement, replacing them with the words "food and food ingredients obtained through modern biotechnology."

Protesters outside the conference hall said the wording is intended to confuse consumers.

"They know that consumers are afraid of genetically modified food so the industry doesn't want that term used," said Mike McBane of the Canadian Health Coalition.

Protesters carried signs demanding full information for consumers.

"Unfortunately both Canada and the U.S. seem to be obstructing calls for mandatory labeling," said protester Lucy Sharratt of the Sierra Club.

Canada opposes mandatory labeling of foods produced through biotechnology unless they have been significantly changed in terms of nutritional content or allergic effects.

"We say there's not enough scientific evidence to say what the effects are of the genetically altered foods already on our shelves," said Ms. Sharratt. "What we're looking for is a label that indicates the process through which a food was made."

Michael Sligh of the Rural Advancement Foundation International said that Canada, the United States and Argentina — the main opponents of mandatory labeling — produce most of the world's genetically modified foods. He added that if these three countries had clear methods of tracing the foods, mandatory labeling and a comprehensive approach it would provide clarity for the rest of the world.

Bruce Silverglade, president of the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations, said the struggle over food labeling fits into the current controversy over economic globalization.

"What [Codex Alimentarius] is about is to harmonize standards to facilitate trade so that companies can comply with one law around the world instead of lots of different laws," he said. "What the corporations are doing here is trying to find the weakest standard and make that the international standard.

"What we're saying is, if we're in a global economy, then let's harmonize the standards upward."

Discussions are to continue Wednesday, with a declaration from the conference expected Friday.

Report says Roundup could become victim of its success

May 2
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

A new report by a biotechnology consultant suggests that Monsanto Co.'s premier product could soon become a victim of its own success.

Roundup, a herbicide produced by Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, has been hugely successful in recent years. Since the introduction of crop plants that resist the chemical, sales of the product have skyrocketed.

Roundup and other glyphosate products made up $2.6 billion of Monsanto's $5.5 billion in sales last year. Glyphosate is the herbicide's generic name.

Farmers have flocked to the technology, buying and spraying more Roundup and planting more herbicide-resistant crops each year. Most of the beans are "Roundup Ready" - Monsanto's designation for crops that have been genetically modified to withstand herbicide treatment.

Last year, 54 percent of the U.S. soybean acreage was genetically engineered. This year soybean farmers say that 63 percent of their soybean fields will be genetically engineered - most of that being Roundup Ready soybeans.

But a report posted Wednesday on the Ag BioTech InfoNet Web site by consultant Charles M. Benbrook of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center in Sandpoint, Idaho, contends that farmers' embrace of the technology could become a death grip, causing wide-spread herbicide resistance in weeds and spreading crop diseases.

"There's a clock ticking now for Roundup," Benbrook said.

Farmers are using more herbicide than ever before, despite biotech industry claims to the contrary, Benbrook said. Using U.S. Department of Agriculture data from 1998, Benbrook found that farmers sprayed 11.4 percent more herbicide on Roundup Ready fields than on fields treated with conventional herbicides.

Extrapolating to the 2001 growing season, Benbrook predicts that farmers will spread 0.5 pounds per acre more herbicide on Roundup Ready soybean fields than on fields planted with conventional varieties of soybeans.

"You just can't say with a straight face that the Roundup Ready system reduces herbicide use if the measurement you're talking about is pounds per acre," Benbrook said.

Other analysts dispute Benbrook's claims. The differences in herbicide use on Roundup Ready and conventional soybean fields are too small to worry about, said Leonard Gianessi of the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy in Washington. The think tank conducted its own analysis of the same data.

"We call it a draw," Gianessi said. "It's not worth arguing about."

Benbrook's report says that shifts in the types of weeds growing in soybean fields and decreased susceptibility of weeds to the herbicide are causing a slip in Roundup's efficacy. As a result, farmers must use more herbicide, accelerating the build-up of resistance in weeds.

Monsanto disputes the contention that Roundup is losing its potency.

"We have no evidence that performance is decreasing," said Harvey Glick, Monsanto's director of global product management.

While a few isolated incidents of weeds developing resistance to Roundup have been documented, most scientists agree that weeds are more likely to become resistant to conventional herbicides, Glick said.

But there are other problems associated with the Roundup system, Benbrook said. University field trials indicate that Roundup Ready soybeans typically yield 5 percent to 10 percent less than conventional soybean varieties, the report states.

That drag on yield may be due to the herbicide's effect on a soybean plant's metabolism, and could be a direct result of genetic engineering, Benbrook said. His report cites studies that show that the Roundup system makes soybeans more susceptible to disease and insects and reduces the plants' ability to fix nitrogen.

Soil scientist Robert Kremer and his colleagues at the University of Missouri at Columbia conducted a four-year study of Roundup and fungal infections in soybeans. The researchers found that Roundup Ready soybeans treated with Roundup were more likely to get infected with fungi than the same variety of beans treated with conventional herbicides.

Higher incidence of fungal diseases in soybean crops may be a long-term ecological consequence of using the herbicide, but more studies and large-scale monitoring systems are needed to make the determination, Kremer said.

"We could see problems," Kremer said. "But with the data that we have, we can't definitely say it's going to increase disease."

Results of university studies don't often agree with what farmers see in their fields, said Monsanto's Glick.

Some farmers are finding that the Roundup system helps them slash production costs.

Don Latham, a soybean and corn grower in Alexander, Iowa, said that it costs him $22 more to treat an acre of soybeans with conventional herbicides than it does to treat with Roundup. That means it cost Latham 45 cents per bushel more to grow conventional varieties of soybeans than Roundup Ready beans. At a time when soybeans fetch about $4.20 per bushel, it's a cost difference farmers can't afford to ignore.

"If I can save 45 cents per bushel in production costs, I'm going to do it," Latham said.

That's short-term thinking that could backfire, Benbrook said.

"If Roundup continues to be used the way it is, it won't be good for anything," he said.

Roundup Ready soybeans approved for consumption in Thailand

May 1
AgWeb News

Of course, consumer-protection groups, such as Greenpeace, disagree with the conclusion, saying the research was not scientific.

According to press reports, a scientist with Thailand’s National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology said the conclusion was based on scientific papers published in international journals - and documents obtained from Monsanto.

Committee members also said that information from state agencies and countries which have already approved the soybeans, played a role in the decision.