October headlines

Return to October article index

FDA widens biotech corn testing

October 3
Reuters

The Food and Drug Administration plans to test snack chips, breakfast cereals and other foods to see if they contain the same unapproved variety of biotech corn found in taco shells, a government source said on Monday.

The FDA decided to take the action after its own tests confirmed the presence of a gene-spliced corn variety made by Aventis in Taco Bell shells.

The corn, sold to farmers under the brand name StarLink, is allowed in animal feed but has not been approved for use in human food because of concerns about allergenicity.

``The agency does plan to test other processed corn products in the near future but the details have not yet been worked out,'' said an FDA official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The contamination of taco shells with an unapproved biotech corn has ratcheted up public and congressional concern about the adequacy of US regulations for genetically engineered foods. It has also contributed to a growing split between food companies determined to protect their brand names and seed companies, who contend gene-altered foods have passed countless safety tests.

Anti-biotech activists with a coalition known as GE Food Alert met on Monday with FDA officials to urge them to take tougher measures to protect human food. The coalition initially discovered the contamination of taco shells two weeks ago through their own scientific tests.

Chips, Cereal To Be Tested

``The FDA told us they agreed to start testing other processed foods containing yellow No. 2 corn,'' such as chips, cereal and other brands of taco shells, said Matt Rand, coordinator for the coalition. ``They aren't certain of the scope and breadth of the testing yet.''

Kraft Foods, a unit of Philip Morris Cos Inc. that manufactured the Taco Bell brand shells, announced a voluntary recall of the product more than a week ago. At that time, Kraft also said it may be time for federal regulators to modify rules to prevent another occurrence.

The FDA, which has been criticized by some groups for its slow response, will officially announce a recall of the same taco shells on Wednesday, Rand said.

A key issue for regulators -- and the thousands of U.S. farmers who grow various biotech varieties -- is how to keep the gene-spliced crops separate. Kraft purchased corn flour for the taco shells and other products from a Texas miller, who acquired corn from a grain elevator, which in turn purchased bushels of corn from various farmers.

``The FDA told us they have no idea how it entered the human food supply,'' Rand added.

To reassure Japan and other big foreign buyers of US corn, the US Agriculture Department said last week it would spend between $90 and $100 million to immediately purchase all the remaining StarLink corn from farmers. The corn will be carefully segregated and stored in facilities, until it is used for animal feed.

The USDA said Aventis would reimburse all the costs of the unprecedented buy-back of gene-spliced crops.

Farmers Paid Bonus For Corn

Keith Pitts, a special assistant to Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, told reporters that letters were scheduled to be mailed to some 2,500 growers of StarLink corn on Monday. Each farmer will be offered a 25-cent a bushel premium above local prices for their corn.

The USDA, the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency share responsibility for regulating various aspects of biotech foods.

All three regulators, Pitts said, have come to a ``general agreement'' that future biotech crops will be more closely scrutinized to make sure they are edible by both humans and animals.

``It's going to need to be approved for human food use or until we have a greater level of confidence that the marketing channels can deal with segregation,'' Pitts told reporters.

A protein contained in the StarLink corn, which is engineered to resist European corn borers, is safe for animals but EPA scientists worry that it may cause allergic reactions in humans such as fever, rashes or diarrhea. The protein, known as Cry9C, is not in any other bioengineered crops.

The FDA has been trying to complete a set of regulations that will convert the now-voluntary consultations between seed companies and agency scientists into mandatory consultation. The agency, which has resisted calls to require labels on all gene-spliced foods, is also preparing guidelines for food companies that may wish to use voluntary labels.

The rules, expected by late September, are unlikely to surface now until after the November presidential election.

Green groups have criticized the expected rules as failing to go far enough to boost consumer confidence in the products.

Those rules ``are a completely separate issue'' from the StarLink corn contamination, the FDA official said. ``Once they are published, the public will have a chance to comment on our proposed rules.''

Modified foods get mixed reviews as industry tries to separate fact, fiction

October 3
San Diego Daily Transcript

Aiming to improve the perceptions of an increasingly misunderstood field, San Diego's biotech industry held a taste tests of sorts last week for restaurateurs and food critics to compare genetically modified foods against their more traditionally grown cousins.

Two articles in Sept. 26's New York Times were the perfect illustration of just the sort of image problems the agricultural biotech community is facing, said Joe Panetta, chairman and CEO of Biocom/San Diego, the regional trade association that put on the dinner.

On the Times' front page was an article about the difficulty of labeling food with genetically modified ingredients in the wake of Kraft's recall of taco shells that included altered corn not approved for human consumption.

But buried deep in the paper's Science Times section was an article about a draft Environmental Protection Agency report saying that a different type of genetically modified corn did not pose a serious threat to monarch butterflies. The significance is that a study conducted one year ago has been hailed by activists as scientific proof that genetically modified organisms are dangerous to the environment.

"There you have the perfect example of fact and fiction," said Panetta, who was involved with the research. "When the first study came out on monarch butterflies, it was based on incomplete information -- a preliminary study done in the lab, at dosages far above the exposures monarch butterflies would receive.

"All of that being the case, the story that came out was that BT corn kills monarch butterflies."

So Biocom/San Diego is embarking on a mission to get its message out to "thought leaders" and others who might be able to spread the word about the benefits of biotechnology for the food industry.

Last week, Biocom hosted a taste test of sorts at Pamplemousse Grill in Solana Beach, giving invitees willing to fork over $50 the chance to try genetically modified foods against their more traditionally grown counterparts.

Event planner April Bailey, Biocom's manager of legislative affairs, said the organization was trying to target people like restaurant chefs, critics and trade association members to attend the dinner.

"If you heard some of the questions we get, you'd be very surprised at how little people know about GM foods," Bailey said. "We wanted to show that it's normal, it's healthy and it's appetizing."

Of the 240 invitations Biocom sent out, 115 people came to the event, including chefs from the La Jolla Country Club, the Four Seasons Aviara and the Marine Room in La Jolla, along with several local food critics.

Eleanor Widmer, a restaurant critic for KPBS and KNSD-TV and 26-year veteran reviewer for the San Diego Reader, said she was pleasantly surprised by the genetically modified foods intensity.

"I really was won over immediately," Widmer said. "I took some of my entree home, and the next day I could savor again when I had the zucchini and potato courses, and found them to be extremely pleasing to the palate."

But Widmer said it was the chefs who would make the difference.

"The best way to do it is to have a small group of chefs and let them taste the food," she said. "The chefs are the ones who have to be won over, in my opinion."

Many at the event commented on how little they knew before the dinner, including Jeffrey Strauss, chef/owner of the upscale Pamplemousse, who put together the menu from a carefully selected group of ingredients, reflecting foods grown traditionally, organically and foods that had been genetically modified.

"My knowledge was very limited in genetically altered food before the project," Strauss said. "With government regulations and FDA approvals, I believe in the system."

Biocom is planning several other educational endeavors to spread the word of genetically modified foods this year, including some aimed at elementary and secondary schools, and some events to go along with CalBio Summit, the groups annual trade show at the end of October.

But at Pamplemousse, the reviews of the modified foods against more traditionally grown ingredients were mixed.

Bernard Guillas, executive chef at the Marine Room, was not convinced to stop shopping from his favorite local farmers, whose products he felt tasted better than the genetically modified foods.

"What we have in San Diego, with the little farmer, the quality is really incredible," Guillas said. "(For genetically modified foods to succeed in high-end restaurants) we need to have the product that is really going to be equal to what we are getting ... with the high quality, interesting flavor and consistency."

All were in agreement that using bioengineered crops was a necessity in instances where it could improve crop yields in third world countries.

"I'm not crazy about playing with nature," Guillas said. "I am definitely for (genetically modified food) when it comes to saving the world of hunger, if you do not have any side effects in the future, which they did not know yet."

Guillas also pointed out that genetically modified farmers could have greater efficiencies than traditional farmers, causing economic upheaval.

"As a Frenchman, we do believe more in the natural way of growing," Guillas said. "It could unbalance the little farmers, because the little farmers will be doing it the old-fashioned way."

Strauss did come out strongly against so-called terminator seeds, which are genetically modified to be infertile after one growing season, so that farmers buy new seeds every year.

"There is no reason for that to happen other than financial gain," Strauss said. "Change the price of your seed (to pay for development)."

All in all, the event was a good way to bring about enlightenment about the foods, which have been a mystery to many.

"The public, as well as the chef's, need to be educated," Guillas said. "What I got was a good crash course, but it was only two hours."

Science award winners hope to dispel GM fears

October 3
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

The winners of the Prime Minister's Science Award say the recognition should help dispel fear about genetic modification techniques.

The Prime Minister will present CSIRO scientists Jim Peacock and Liz Dennis with his award tonight for their discovery of the gene that controls flowering in plants.

The research can be used to boost the world's food supply by making crops less susceptible to bad weather.

Dr Peacock hopes the award will show the benefits of such technology and convince the community to dismiss some opponents of genetic modification.

"Greenpeace is among them, Gene Ethics is another group that often uses shoddy and often misleading information to try and grab the headlines against us," he said.

"The organic farming groups in Australia I think have been conned actually into taking a position quite contrary [to what]...they really should be taking. This is a very positive thing for organic farming."

Meanwhile, Dr Dennis says it is imperative that the Government does not allow research funding levels to fall any further.

"If we don't do the research, don't get some of the intellectual property for Australia, we're just going to be left behind," he said.

"This sort of research is absolutely critical for modern agriculture and for us...well us being Australian scientists, to actually be able to do this research is critical for the future."

Debate flares over engineered foods in New York

October 2
Albany Democrat and Chronicle

Some scientists and farmers are urging the state not to impose new regulations on the use of genetically engineered crops on New York farmers, despite some consumer unease about the safety of the products.

But an organic farmer who is the Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate wants lawmakers to slap a five-year moratorium on the practice of genetic engineering so its impact can be assessed.

Such a delay could spell disaster for New York farmers, the president of the state Farm Bureau said.

"If our consuming public wants to keep local farms and access to produce and dairy products grown within this state, we need our state

Legislature to keep us on an even playing field with our competitors," said John Lincoln, an Ontario County dairy farmer and Farm Bureau president. 

Lincoln spoke last week to a group of Assembly members who are  holding a series of hearings around the state on genetically modified foods. 

Other hearings are slated at 2 p.m. Tuesday at Ithaca City Hall, 11 a.m. Thursday at Rochester City Hall and on Oct. 24 in Queens.

"We're concerned about the consumer from a food-safety viewpoint," said Assemblyman Clifford Crouch, R-Bainbridge, Chenango County. "But we also know that the New York agriculture industry is fragile and we don't want to hurt farmers."

Foes of the practice have raised concerns about the effect of such altered plants and animals on the health of both humans and animals.

They're also concerned about the environmental consequences and ethical implications of making such changes in living organisms.

Scientists from Cornell University and the school's extension service told lawmakers that genetically altered soybeans and corn are already being grown in the state and used to feed animals.

"This technology can be used successfully," said Herb Aldwinckle, a Cornell Cooperative Extension professor of plant pathology. "I regard genetic modification as an inherently safe technology, but it needs to be closely monitored."

Because of the uncertainty over the effects of the engineering, the state should ban any further activity for five years, said Mark Dunau, an organic farmer from Delaware County who is the Green Party's U.S. Senate candidate.

"It's five years to take stock of what's going on," he told the lawmakers.

Tempest in a taco shell

October 2
Time magazine

Killer tacos they ain't. But so hot are the politics of genetically modified food that the folks at Kraft Foods last week took the extraordinary step of pulling tons of innocent-looking Taco Bell taco shells off the shelves. Reason? Someone may have been fooling with their genes.

It was the first recall of what the industry calls GM food--and others call Frankenfood. Critics have long warned that once bioengineered genes get into any part of the food chains there's no telling when they'll turn up on our plates. Sure enough, early last week Genetically Engineered Food Alert, a consumer and environmental group, reported that traces of DNA from GM corn not approved for human consumption had been discovered in Taco Bell's tacos. The corn, known as StarLink, contains a gene from a bacterium that makes the corn deadly to corn borers but not to cows. It was approved for use as cattle feed but not for human consumption, for fear it could trigger allergic reactions.

How did the tainted seed get into the tacos? They are sold by Kraft but made by a Mexican company whose corn comes from any number of U.S. farms. Farmers who grow StarLink do so on the condition that they'll keep it out of human food supplies--a promise that's easy to elicit but hard to enforce. 

Kraft is pushing for new regulations that would prevent GM food not fit for humans from being approved for any use. Taco Bell, for its part, prefers to err on the side of caution. The last thing it wants is for taco eaters to start saying, "Yo quiero McDonald's!"

Anti-GM vigilantes marshal forces in India, push for 10-year moratorium

October 2
Xinhua News Agency

NEW DELHI - They have come from different parts of the world and have different professions, but they have one common enemy -- genetically engineered products and one common cause -- to "save" India from the disastrous end of " genetic pollution".

Though dubbed "Genetic Engineering or Organic: Which Future For Agriculture?", the press conference hosted by Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) and International Forum for Agriculture (IFA) here this afternoon turned out to be a gathering of pure critics of the introduction of genetic engineering (GE) in farming and foods.

"We are trying to form an international coalition against GE products, which are being introduced across the world," said Dr. Vandana Shiva, director of RFSTE, an India-based environment activist group.

They might sound a bit radical and biased, but one after hearing their stories would surely feel they are not worrying for nothing.

"Five years ago, genetically engineered rape seeds were introduced in our region, which were claimed to be more nutritious with better yields and less use of chemicals. But now they have turned out to be less yielding and less nutritional and the chemical cost goes up 6 times more than originally thought," said Percy Schmeiser, a farmer from Saskatchewan, Canada.

Moreover, Schmeiser, who claimed to have spent 15 years developing his own rape seeds and have chosen not to use the GE seeds, was sued by Monsanto, the world's leading GE seeds distributor, for "intellectual theft" as the GE seeds crossed into his land from his neighbors' fields.

"I was forced to launch a counter-suit against Monsanto for developing a 'super-weed' they themselves cannot control," said Schmeiser, who is still fighting the legal battle.

Revealing a more appalling story, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a nutritional scientist from Scotland, claimed that studies he and his colleague conducted on animals showed genetically engineered potatoes "interfere with" the normal development of internal organs, tissues and immune system of young rats, thus having "a potential harmful effect" to health.

As soon as he released his report, he found himself against the "whole scientific establishment" and faced enormous pressure from the biotechnology industry, said Pusztai, adding that "some scientists are also genetically modified by the genetic modification industry".

Ellen Hickey, one of the founders of the U.S.-based Genetic Engineered Food Alert Organization, said that contrary to the impression that GE food is warmly welcomed in America, many consumers have no idea what the supermarkets are selling to them, and that "once they learn the truth, their reaction range from sorrow to anger".

While consumers in rich countries are rejecting GE foods and forcing the authorities to recall them from store shelves, developing nations like India are "being flooded with untested unlabeled genetically engineered foods", said a leaflet distributed by the RFSTE.

Genetically modified seeds and crops could also infuse toxins in the soil, contaminate genes of native plants and reduce bio- diversity, heighten the financial burden of poor farmers and lead to agricultural monopoly by multinational bio-tech corporations, said participants of the press conference, some of them also from Peru, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

"We are seeking a 10-year moratorium on commercialization of genetic engineering in food and farming in the country," said Vandana Shiva. She was echoed by Glenda Lindsay from South Africa, who is also heading a coalition in her country seeking a five-year freeze on GE products.

Dr. Pushba Bhargava, former director of India's Central Council of Microbiology, said that efforts should be made to prompt the government to strengthen testing of GE products and educate the farmers not to sign "blind contracts" while purchasing seeds.

However, all the opponents of GE products should know exactly what a mighty enemy they are fighting with, especially when there are still so many governments and so many people in the world that view genetic engineering as a fruit of hi-tech revolution and a propeller to agricultural production, in both quantity and quality.

Will Allen, a farmer from the United States, claimed that he and his fellow cotton growers had no other choice but genetically modified seeds, although such seeds had caused yield losses in all 18 U.S. southern states.

"We were forced by banks and seed companies to do so," said Allen, adding that while he and other farmers voluntarily formed a research group on organic farming, they could get no money from either the government or research institutes.

In India, Agriculture Minister Nitish Kumar has stated that it is imperative to adopt genetic engineering in Indian agriculture because of increase in productivity. The minister, however, also called for a debate on biotechnology.

In the southern state of Karnataka, state Chief Minister S M Krishna has bluntly called opponents of GE "quacks who spread rumors about the ill effects of biotechnology" and accused them of conspiring to "curb India's growing power". The state had formally started field trials of Biotech cotton from September 20.

Still, Shiva, Allen and their fellows believe they have every reason to be optimistic.

"We have great chance to win the battle," said Allen, who claimed that more and more farmers are joining his group and one day they will force the bank to allow them to go back to the track of organic farming.

Shiva noted that the Indian government has started bio- technology training for officials in relevant departments since four years ago and has also imposed strict procedure for GE products import clearance.

What's more important, she said, people across the world are becoming more cautious with their bio-safety awareness enhanced, as indicated by the fact that the use of genetically engineered seeds was down by 25 percent last year.

China says GM crops are answer to future food supply

October 2
Xinhua News Agency

CHANGCHUN, China - Genetic technology, instead of chemical fertilizer, will help realize an increase in the amount of corn produced in China in the coming years, expert said.

It is unlikely to achieve an increase in corn output using chemical fertilizer since it has been widely used and, in some areas, has reached a "usage saturation point," said Dai Jingrui, a corn expert. Genetic improvement technology will replace chemical fertilizer and be the main force in increasing corn production, he added.

It is predicted by national agricultural organizations that China will need 160 billion kilograms of corn in 2005. To meet the demand, China's corn production should increase annually by 10 kilograms per mu (0.06 hectare) if corn field keeps its area at its current 375 million mu (75 million hectares). This increased rate surpasses that of the past 50 years.

China's corn production increased from 1,350 kilograms per hectare to 5, 203 within 44 years between 1952 and 1996. But the increase was mainly made by the use of chemical fertilizer, while the genetic contribution was less than 40 percent.

The country began genetic research on corn in 1920s and almost stood at the same level as the United States. Corn seeds cultivated using genetic technology developed fast since the founding of the People' Republic of China in 1949, according to experts.

In the mid-1980s, Chinese researchers produced a corn species with a high oil content, having the highest oil proportion in the world. China set up a corn genetic engineering project system in 1995, and will soon realize large-scale commercial production of genetically modified pest-free corn.

Law review hint after GM protesters cleared

October 2
Ananova.com (UK)

Shadow Agriculture Minister Tim Yeo has accused the Government of "losing public confidence over GM crops".

Mr Yeo was replying to concerns at a Conservative Party fringe meeting in Bournemouth, over a recent court case involving Greenpeace protesters who were found not guilty of damaging a GM crop trial in Norfolk.

Mr Yeo told the meeting organized by the Country Landowners Association that: "It was a most extraordinary decision and does have very alarming implications. There will have to be a review of the law if it appears this was a correct interpretation which is likely to be repeated. "

He added: "The Government has completely lost the confidence of the public in the handling of the whole GM issue.

"The public have good reason to believe there have been cover-ups, that the separation distances between crop trials and conventional organic crops are inadequate.

"So those people like ourselves who want to see the crop trial program completed, so we can understand exactly what the environmental impact is going to be, have now got serious worries and it is going to get harder and harder to have trials anywhere if they carry on the way they are at the moment."

Mr Yeo called for the current Government-backed field trials to be completed so the impact on wildlife could be assessed.

Edward Greenwell of the CLA said the Greenpeace court case decision meant that: "Anyone who disapproves of anything you do on your land, be it shooting or growing cabbages, is entitled in law to go and pull them up. It's a most extraordinary decision in our opinion."

Mr Yeo assured the meeting that the only guarantee rural dwellers have that hunting would remain lawful was with a Conservative victory at the next general election. He was commenting on the Government's plans to introduce a foxhunting Bill in the next session of Parliament.

But he stopped short of spelling out Conservative plans if the bill is passed at Westminster. He added: "It would be defeatist to say we are not going to see it off first. We will have to review the situation after that happens."