Subject: U.S. unlikely to require labels on biotech foods

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:55:29 -0500

Wire Service: RTna (Reuters North America)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The federal government is not likely to require U.S. manufacturers and grocery stores to put labels on genetically modified food, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said on Monday.

"I, at this stage, do not see any of what I call mandatory or regulatory activities taking place from the government which will order anybody to do anything with respect to these issues, whether its labelling or anything else," Glickman told reporters at a news conference to discuss USDA's priorities for this year.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently completed a series of public hearings on what, if any, changes should be made in how the federal government regulates genetically modified foods and crops.

American consumer and environmentalist groups have pressed the government to tighten up regulations and require labels on foods made with altered soybeans, corn and other ingredients.

Labels are required in the European Union and several other countries, where consumer resistance to biotech foods has been much greater.

The FDA's regulation of biotech food and crops is shared with the USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Top officials of all three agencies have been "discussing these issues," Glickman said. "We want to hear from our FDA friends some more formal reporting about how they view these particular (public) hearings."

Glickman also said that the U.S. food industry has been trying to find ways to give consumers more information about genetically modified foods.

"The industry has become very engaged with us on trying to see if there are ways they can work these issues themselves," he said.

The USDA's new biotechnology advisory committee, formed last year, should have some proposals "within the next 30 to 60 days" to help guide public policy, Glickman said.

The group is made up of representatives "from various sectors of both agriculture and non-agriculture to help us deal with these particular problems," he said.

REUTERS

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Fight against labeling of biotech products may only delay its requirement
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:53:29 -0500
WINDOW ON WASHINGTON:
Fight against labeling of biotech products may only delay its requirement
By Bill Lambrecht
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

WASHINGTON - From cake mix to Spam, the Grocery Manufacturers of America keeps the goods of its members displayed behind glass at its Georgetown headquarters like artifacts in the Smithsonian.

In 2000, the goal of the trade association -- made up of giants like Kellogg's and General Mills -- is to beat back efforts to require labels on the packaging of genetically modified food. A lot of what we eat, especially fast food and processed food, has ingredients from gene-altered soybeans and corn.

From his office overlooking the Potomac River, the trade group's Gene Grabowski spends 75 percent of his time combating anti-genetic engineering efforts by consumer groups and environmental activists. Grabowski brings a pugnacious tone to his task, fitting for a cousin of football great Jim Grabowski, whose career as a running back took him from the University of Illinois to the Green Bay Packers.

Gene Grabowski described December as a month of conflict with genetic engineering's opponents. "They hit us with everything they had, and they couldn't put us down," said Grabowski, 45. "Now, we strike back."

Grabowski was referring to the protests against modified food that took place at the World Trade Organization talks in Seattle and to hearings sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration that concluded last month. The food industry had feared, he said, that the demonstrations might be even more effective than they were.

At the World Trade Organization, the message of anti-biotech protesters got lost amid the cacophony of broader environmental and worker protests, the industry thinking goes. And nothing emerged at the FDA sessions to prompt the government to change its rules about labeling -- so far, anyway.

As for striking back, what Grabowski meant was a coordinated industry offensive, anchored by advertising campaigns by St. Louis' Monsanto Co. and others.

A broad campaign could be risky, if mishandled, and expensive -- in the tens of millions of dollars. Those who have viewed some of Monsanto's prospective ads, featuring farmers and scientists speaking eagerly of biotechnology's promise, say they are effective.

But some of Monsanto's image-building efforts have backfired, as recently as last month. At an FDA hearing in Washington, a public relations company hired by the company paid people to stage a pro-biotech protest and wave signs that read, "Biotech equals jobs."

Monsanto denounced the practice and said it would investigate. Last week, Monsanto spokeswoman Lori Fisher said the episode had caused Monsanto to curtail work that the company, Burson Marsteller, was doing on its behalf.

Meanwhile, other companies are jumping into the fray. Novartis, Monsanto's Swiss-based rival, scorned Monsanto's early and aggressive approaches in Europe. Now, Novartis is sending out "We Back Biotech" caps and asserting on its Web site: "The pro-biotech voice has barely been heard above the din. We want that to change."

Agribusiness companies and groups like Grabowski's want to buy time until the day when gene-tinkering produces healthier foods, which presumably would blunt the critics' attacks.

"The longer span of time we have before a rush to judgment, the better off we are," Grabowski said.

Buying that time could be challenging. Last week, the nation's two leading natural food retailers, Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats Market, announced plans to rid their shelves of private-labeled foods that contain gene-altered ingredients.

That declaration contributes to suspicion about modified foods, even if it is nothing more than smart marketing.

As far as labeling goes, marketing may be why mainstream grocers and biotechnology companies give in. Even as the industry publicly opposes labeling, privately its representatives discuss how to move to a system that is voluntary, doesn't scare shoppers and avoids giving advantages to competitors.

Sooner, rather than later, those goods in the trade group's glass case and any other genetically modified food that doesn't tell consumers where it comes from may, indeed, be museum pieces.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Millions at risk from CJD, say EU scientists
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:32:48 -0500

http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,120023,00.html
THE GUARDIAN, Saturday January 8, 2000

Millions at risk from CJD, say EU scientists

James Meikle

Millions of European consumers may be at risk of catching Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (CJD), the fatal human version of BSE - despite their governments' assertions that their countries are free of the cattle disease, the European Union's most senior scientists warned in a report yesterday.

Up to 400,000 people in some member states could be exposed to infected material from a single cow if it were allowed to enter the food chain because it had displayed no clinical signs of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

The EU's scientific steering committee believes that Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece and Sweden should introduce bans on the most infective parts of cattle, including brain, spinal material and intestines, while Italy and Spain should extend their measures to cover beef from all countries, not only from those known to have BSE.

Only seven countries, including Britain and France, at present operate such anti-BSE measures. In Britain all meat from cattle more than 30 months old is banned from being used in food. Even so, a handful of infected animals not showing "mad cow" symptoms are still thought to slip into food production.

The European commission has failed to introduce precautionary measures throughout the EU because some countries claim they have no BSE or that it has been evident only in imported cattle.

The new advice is likely to undermine European confidence in beef as the legal wrangle between the commission and Paris over the safety of British beef continues.

But the committee, which cleared British beef for export after a 40-month ban, is worried by cross-border trade in live animals, organs, offal and processed foods. It says the risk of exposure to BSE "is not necessarily linked" to geographic incidence of the disease.

"Recent evidence suggests that in countries with a reported low incidence, the actual rate of BSE-infected animals entering the food chain is not nil," the report says.

It says many people within the EU are eating potentially dangerous material contained in common meat products such as pt=E9s and sausages.

Tests to identify BSE in cattle carcasses in its early stages do not offer reliable screening. But the removal of risky parts of animals significantly reduces the potential for infecting humans. The scientists conclude: "Failure to do this is likely to expose a large number of consumers to an unnecessary risk."

Their bleak warnings give added significance to the reluctance of British scientists to predict the eventual size of the CJD outbreak, which has killed 48 people in Britain, two in France and one in Ireland so far. Those victims are believed to have become infected before most controls were introduced in 1989, though the first death did not occur until 1995.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: COWS COULD SOON MAKE HUMAN BREAST MILK' SAY SCIENTISTS

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:21:57 -0500

Wire Service: PA (PA News)

By John von Radowitz, Medical Correspondent, PA News

Genetic scientists are working towards creating cows which produce human breast milk from their udders, it was disclosed today.

Already a 20-strong herd exists whose milk contains a protein component of human milk.

Researchers believe adding this to commercial infant formula will make it more nutritious and closer to the "real thing".

If treated as a novel food and not a pharmaceutical product, baby milk powder containing the protein could be available in as little as 30 months, it is claimed.

The biotechnology company PPL Therapeutics is said to be negotiating partnership deals with three major infant formula companies in the United States and Europe.

Ultimately the scientists hope to "knock out" genes producing animal protein in cow's milk while elevating the levels of human protein.

The result would be a cow whose milk is virtually the same as that from a human mother's breast. Babies allergic to proteins in cow's milk would be able to drink it safely.

Details of the work being conducted at the Edinburgh-based company's subsidiary in Virginia, USA, will be broadcast on a Channel 4 programme tomorrow (Thursday) night.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: US consumers favor GM crops to curb pesticides - ...

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:36:50 -0500

Wire Service: RTbr (Reuters Business Report)

US consumers favor GM crops to curb pesticides - survey

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Nearly three-fourths of American consumers would support genetically modified crops if the technology means farmers can reduce pesticide use, according to a survey released Tuesday by the American Farm Bureau.

The private survey was commissioned at a time when some environmental groups have followed the lead of Europe and are pressing U.S. policymakers to tighten regulation of biotech crops because they say not enough is known about the long-term effects on human health.

Farm and food industry groups contend that the new technology improves crop yields and reduces the amount of chemicals needed to prevent insect and bacterial damage.

Some 1,002 consumers were interviewed for the survey in July and August, with the majority indicating they had heard more about the drawbacks of biotechnology rather than benefits.

More than half said they would support gene-altered corn, soybeans, squash and other crops if the technology would improve the taste and nutritional value of foods.

Some 73 percent of consumers surveyed favored biotech crops if they would help farmers cut back on pesticides.

"This research shows that many of us in agriculture have miscalculated where consumers' most pronounced concerns exist," said Jay Poole, vice president of agriculture for Philip Morris Cos Inc Inc.

Philip Morris, which owns Kraft, Oscar Mayer, Post and Miller food brands, helped fund the survey.

Consumers also said they were willing to pay higher prices and have a smaller selection of foods in grocery stores if that would help reduce farm pesticide use.

"Some of these results really surprised us," said Dean Kleckner, president of the American Farm Bureau, which released the survey results at its annual meeting in Houston.

"It's clear that the agricultural industry has not done a good job educating consumers about the benefits of pesticide use. It's important we don't make the same mistake with bioitechnology and other new farming practices."

A related survey, conducted at the same time, asked 704 U.S. farmers to assess how well they have explained the benefits of biotechnology to consumers. Some 71 percent of farmers surveyed said they had done a fair or poor job.

REUTERS

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: VATICAN SAYS YES TO PLANT, ANIMAL ENGINEERING, agnet edited

Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 00:31:15 -0500

January 13, 2000

Business World (Phillippines)

http://www.biotechknowledge.com/showlib_us.php3?2695

Reference No.: 2695

Despite controversy surrounding the ill effects of biotechnology, top Catholic Church officials are convinced that this latest progeny of science is a gain rather than a loss to humanity. Biotechnology, or the use of biological techniques to improve agricultural products and medicine, has been in hot water since news broke that some of its practical applications in the market such as Genetically Modified Products (GMPs) could cause cancer, gene mutation and other health hazards.

"I have stopped all those who demand condemnation of these ( genetically modified ) products," said Bishop Elio Sgreccia, Vatican director of Bioethics and vice-president of the Pontifical Academy of Life (PAL). He emphasized that biotechnological research could resolve global problems such as hunger since it enables agricultural productivity even in arid lands.

"We (PAL members) are increasingly encouraged that the advantages of genetic engineering of plants and animals are greater than the risks," explained Bishop Sgreccia. "The risks should be carefully followed through openness, analysis and control, but without a sense of alarm."

Another PAL fellow, Giuseppe Bertoni, criticized the "catastrophic sensationalism" of press reports that substantially contribute to biotechnology's current infamous image. "It's true that ethical limits must be respected but, above all, the reality of biotechnology must be known," said Bertoni. "If you know biotechnology, you don't fear it." He further pointed out that the "idea of conceiving scientific progress is something to be feared" should be rejected.

PAL, being an authority on science's moral and ethical issues, presented two volumes of documents two months ago regarding biotechnology. Though clearly not in favor of human cloning, PAL scholars gave a "prudent yes" to plant and animal engineering since it is a potential mechanism to alleviate certain human problems such as world hunger, incurable diseases and the like.

Though not part of PAL, theologian Daniel McGee shared PAL's view that "God is a presence who continues in the marvelous creative process" and mankind partakes in all of these divine efforts.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Bt corn article in Washington Post...

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:13:48 -0800 (PST)

EPA Restricts Gene-Altered Corn in Response to Concerns Farmers Must Plant Conventional 'Refuges' to Reduce Threat of Ecological Damage

By Rick Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, January 16, 2000; Page A02

The Environmental Protection Agency has placed new restrictions on the cultivation of genetically modified corn, a response to concerns that gene-altered crops may be causing ecological disruptions.

The new restrictions, which were released late Friday and are effective immediately, make unprecedented demands on the producers of biotech seeds and on farmers who wish to plant so-called Bt corn, which has been endowed with a gene that allows the corn to make its own insecticide.

Among the new restrictions is a requirement that farmers plant 20 percent to 50 percent of their acreage in conventional corn, which some farmers have said would be burdensome and some experts said could lead to a decline in plantings of the high-tech seeds.

Bt corn has enjoyed a meteoric rise in popularity among farmers since it was approved for sale in 1996, and was planted on more than one-third of U.S. corn acres last year.20

But some experts have warned that large-scale plantings of Bt corn may be speeding the evolution of "superbugs"--insects resistant to standard insecticides.20

Then, last summer, Cornell University scientists presented preliminary evidence from laboratory studies that pollen from Bt corn could blow onto milkweed plants and kill monarch butterfly caterpillars. Although field studies aimed at measuring the true ecological impact of Bt corn on monarchs are not yet complete, the EPA suggested Friday that farmers voluntarily plant their conventional cornfields upwind of their biotech fields so the Bt corn pollen won't blow onto these refuges.

Milkweed, the only plant on which monarch butterflies lay their eggs, grows around cornfields.

Environmentalists praised the new regulations, which the EPA negotiated with the biotechnology industry, as a step in the right direction, if not as strong as they might have liked.

"Many of the companies and industries have gone to great lengths to belittle concerns about toxic pollen on butterflies and the development of resistance in insects," said Rebecca Goldburg, a scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund in New York and a member of a National Academy of Sciences panel that is preparing a report on the environmental impact of gene-altered corn. "What EPA has done is to confirm that there are some serious environmental problems concerning the widespread planting of Bt corn."

Several varieties of genetically modified corn have been rejected by European consumers and others because of environmental and health concerns, costing U.S. farmers more than $200 million in exports last year. With trade tensions increasing over the crops, and insect populations holding at modest levels in many parts of the American corn belt, some experts were already predicting that sales of engineered corn might decline this spring for the first time.20

A straw poll of 400 farmers conducted by Reuters last week at the annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation found that some farmers are planning to call it quits with biotech varieties. Farmers said demands by U.S. consumers that engineered food products be labeled, and ongoing European rejection of the crops, could depress the prices farmers will get at harvest for the costly new varieties.

The poll results predict a 24 percent decline in plantings of Bt corn compared with last year, and a 26 percent decline in plantings of Bt cotton. They also predict a 15 percent decline in RoundUp Ready soybeans--a gene-altered variety of soy that protects the plants against the popular weed killer made by St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. and was planted on more than half of all U.S. soy acres last year. And it predicts a 22 percent drop in RoundUp Ready corn.

Representatives from major producers of biotech seeds could not be reached for comment, but a spokesman for Monsanto told Reuters last week that farmers have been pleased with the new varieties and that it's too soon to say what farmers will do in the spring.

The new EPA restrictions, described in letters to biotech seed producers from Janet L. Andersen, director of EPA's biopesticides and pollution prevention division, could influence those decisions for corn.

They demand that farmers plant large "refuges" of conventional corn near their Bt corn to reduce Bt pressures on insects and delay the evolution of resistance in pest populations.

Farmers will not be allowed to spray refuges with conventional insecticides unless they can prove that pests have exceeded certain levels.

And biotech seed producers and farmers will have to monitor insect populations for the emergence of insecticide resistance. At the first sign that such resistance is occurring, sales of the new seed varieties must be halted.

The rules also demand that seed producers develop grower agreements that farmers must sign or produce educational materials and programs such as workshops and publications to ensure compliance with the rules. Companies must submit details of those plans to the EPA for approval by Jan. 31.

A9 Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Genetically modified crops, from Economist (Jan. 2000)

Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 00:23:38 -0500

The Economist

UNITED STATES

Genetically modified crops, to plant or not to plant

C H I C A G O

JANUARY should be a quiet time for mid-western farmers. Instead, they find themselves facing one of the hardest farming decisions of the year: should they risk putting genetically modified (GM) crops in the ground, or not? For some, the agronomics are easy; they believe that GM products expand yields and lower costs. But if American consumers were to become suddenly concerned about Frankenstein foods, as some Asians and Europeans already have, then, come the autumn, farmers may be sitting on a bountiful harvest that has lost much of its value.

What if no one will eat it?

For a farmer like Darl Baumgardner, who grows maize (corn) and soyabeans in Illinois, there is much to like about GM crops. Bt corn, for example, uses a gene derived from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, to make the whole corn plant toxic to the corn-borer, a caterpillar that drills into the corn cob and destroys the crop. Herbicide-resistant soyabeans are engineered to be immune to a powerful herbicide that will kill all other vegetation on the cropland, making it easier for farmers to get rid of weeds.

All in all, it is hardly surprising that the percentage of American soyabean acreage planted with GM soyabeans grew to over 50% in the four years after commercial introduction, an adoption rate nearly twice as fast as that for the most dominant agricultural technology of the past, hybrid corn. Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, a professor of agribusiness at the University of Missouri who has done those calculations, also reckons that the benefits to farmers of GM soyabean technology alone were in the order of $400m-$1 billion in 1999. When your correspondent drove into the heartland two years ago, farmers were effusive about the potential of biotechnology.

Consumers, particularly those outside the United States, have not been so keen on the idea (see article). There is no credible evidence yet that GM foods present a health risk to consumers. But the European Union has withheld approval of some GM crop varieties until exhaustive trials are done, and many Europeans have decided that they would rather not buy those products that have been approved. Some large supermarket chains have refused to stock the stuff.

The EU allows GM soyabeans, but it is increasingly looking to non-GM suppliers, such as Brazil, and to alternative ingredients. As a result, American soyabean exports to the EU have plunged from 398m bushels in 1997-98 to an estimated 221m bushels in 1999-2000 (see chart). Bob Wisner, an Iowa State University economist, reckons this is the equivalent of losing a market for one out of every three bushels of soyabeans grown in Iowa. Nor is the problem just in Europe. Both Japan and Korea have announced plans to begin labelling certain GM commodities (unprocessed corn and soyabeans) in the spring of 2001. A prominent Japanese soy-sauce manufacturer announced in December that it would use non-GM soyabeans in future. South of the border, Mexico's largest tortilla maker has announced that it will no longer purchase GM corn.

American farmers find all this terribly frustrating. Hysteria, they say, has replaced science. Seed companies, such as Monsanto, have been ineffective in defending their new technology; some governments are using the biotechnology issue as an excuse for protectionism; environmentalists are attacking GM products even though some of them reduce the need for conventional pesticides and herbicides. But only one pressure group really matters to farmers. When it comes to deciding what to plant this spring, "the consumer is king," says Neil Harl, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University.

The biggest consumer of all, both literally and figuratively, is American. So far, there is no evidence of a widespread backlash in the United States against GM products. (Although "organic" standards in America are supposed to exclude GM products, one organic food store in Washington, DC, happily offers fruit and vegetables "grown without pesticides" which, in fact, have been genetically modified not to need them.)

Still, there are small signs that should give farmers pause. In November, a bill was introduced in Congress that would require labelling for GM products. Purdue Chicken, one of America's largest poultry producers, is positioning itself not to use any GM feed, says Mr Harl. A farmer with a crop six weeks in the ground may well fear that he will wake up and read that a large American fast-food company will no longer buy beef that has been fed GM corn. "Once the crop's in the ground, you know, you can't back it up,"" says Roger Janssen, an Illinois seed dealer: you are stuck with it, like it or not.

Farmers bear the bulk of the risk as consumers sort out what they want. Food processors do not have to commit themselves to a price until the crop comes in. A spokesman for Archer Daniels Midland, one of America's largest food-processing firms, says the market is a "moving target." Cargill said in a December letter that it will buy whatever American farmers grow this year, but noted that premiums may be paid for identity-preserved grains and oilseeds [ie, any grains and oilseeds that have been handled separately from the bulk] that meet specific customer requirements. With farm prices at historic lows, the premium paid for growing the right crop might mean the difference between making money and not making money (or between losing a little money and losing a lot).

Mr Baumgardner says his GM corn yielded 30 more bushels per acre last year than the non-GM corn he planted. Still, he plans to trim his GM corn this year from 70% of his acreage to 30%. Tamara White, director of commodities for the Illinois Farm Bureau, travels around the state discussing the issue with farmers. "Each week more people are deciding that they're not going to risk it,"" she says. The American Corn Growers Association has predicted a 20-25% reduction in GM corn acreage.

But picking the right crop to grow is only the beginning of the problem. "It's one thing to say, "We want all GMO-free products." It's another thing to deliver," says Mr Baumgardner. All crops, conventional or GM, contaminate one another. Pollen can drift a quarter of a mile or more; one farmer's GM crop can cross-pollinate his neighbour's. Farmers selling non-GM grains are asked to certify the purity of their product at the point of sale; they fear being held liable for grain contaminated in storage, in transit, or at other points in the supply chain.

The only solution is testing for purity at every point in the supply chain, says Mr Harl. Even then, some level of impurity must be tolerable. Experts reckon a 5% tolerance for contamination is feasible; the 1% level discussed in the EU, or the 0.1% level under discussion in Congress and among certain European retail groups, may be too costly.

One possible result is that the current generation of GM products will be driven off the farm, not because they are unsafe or ineffective but because the costs of segregating them are too high. The next generation may fare differently. By then, GM crops may well have properties (say, medical, nutritional, or even industrial) that will be of greater interest to consumers, and the cost of segregating them could be passed on in the final price. Until then, Mr Baumgardner and his colleagues will just have to hang on.

(c) Copyright 2000 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All Rights

Reserved

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: US renews debate over biotech foods

Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 00:10:36 -0500

By James Cox, USA TODAY

http://www.usatoday.com/money/bcovthu.htm

01/13/00- Updated 11:14 PM ET

BASEL, Switzerland -- When activists dumped a pile of genetically engineered corn at its headquarters here, Novartis quickly turned the protest into public relations grist.

The pharmaceutical and biotech giant trucked in cows from outlying dairy farms to clean up the mess. The sight of the animals grazing amid the city's trams and office towers was irresistible to the Swiss media, which gobbled up the story as fast as the cows could munch the grain.

That's the full extent of Novartis' public relations derring-do these days. Europe's battle-weary biotech firms have hunkered down until the public furor over bio-engineered crops blows over. They have halted public-image advertising, mothballed applications for regulatory approvals and focused on researching genetic advances that won't come to market for five to seven years. But as they wait out the storm, many are horrified by signs that Europe's biotech backlash may be spreading to the USA.

"What's happening in your country?" asks an incredulous Arthur Einsele, public relations chief at Novartis Seeds, a leading developer and marketer of bio-engineered seed.

Until now, Europe's biotech industry has viewed the USA as an island of sanity in the debate about the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods. The U.S. government has OK' d far more varieties of biotech crops than any other country -- more than 30 vs. only nine in the 15-nation European Union . U.S. and Canadian farmers last year planted 81 million acres of bio-engineered seed, which accounted for 47% of the U.S. soybean harvest and 37% of the U.S. corn crop. GM ingredients are contained in hundreds of grocery items, from salad dressing and soft drinks to tortilla chips and cooking oil.

European biotech firms, meanwhile, have had to cope with threats and vandalism from anti-biotech radicals, along with a regulatory stonewall that has blocked their products from both field and food store. Public outcry over biotech foods has prompted thousands of European supermarkets to remove them. Share prices of industry leaders such as Novartis have been pummeled.

"We thought you already had this debate in America. But I guess we were wrong," Einsele says.

The U.S. biotech industry suddenly faces:

Protests. Opponents costumed as mutant ears of corn took to the streets last month in Seattle, where they and other protesters disrupted the World Trade Organization summit. Other noisy demonstrations took place last fall at U.S. Food and Drug Administration hearings on biotech foods in Washington, D.C., Chicago and Oakland.

Environmental and consumer groups fighting bio-engineered foods have recruited Hollywood celebrities such as Jane Seymour and Roseanne to the cause.

Washington scrutiny. This spring, Congress is likely to consider a bill to require mandatory labeling of foods that contain GM ingredients. Labeling is required in the EU, but the labeling issue has split U.S. biotech firms and others close to them. Many U.S. supermarket chains quietly favor labels; most farm groups and food manufacturers oppose the idea.

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said Monday the federal government wants consumers to have more details about bio-foods but is unlikely to require labels.

Farmers' uncertainty. U.S. farmers are expected to plant fewer acres of biotech corn this spring, despite heavy lobbying and discounting by Monsanto, DuPont and other seed companies. Most say they still believe in GM seeds but worry about their ability to sell their grain or keep conventional and GM crops separated, as some buyers have asked.

European farmers, many of whom want to try GM crops, understand the predicament of their American counterparts.

"You have to follow the tide, and the tide is completely against GM crops," says French farmer Xavier Beulin. "It's not a rational issue."

Finicky customers. Japanese trading companies are the biggest foreign buyers of U.S. soybeans, which are used to make tofu. They have quietly shifted suppliers to ensure that they get non-GM beans.

Similarly, European food retailers and farm cooperatives are shunning biotech corn and soybeans when they buy in the USA. U.S. officials say EU buyers' insistence on non-GM corn cost American farmers an estimated $200 million in lost sales in 1999, a figure certain to grow this year.

Wary retailers. Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats Markets, the USA's two largest natural-foods retailers, want manufacturers of their private-label foods to stop using GM ingredients. Observers are watching to see if any mainstream supermarkets follow suit.

Wall Street scorn. Shares of many biotech firms have taken a beating. Shares in St. Louis-based Monsanto traded as high as $50 13/16 last March. Wednesday's close: $36 3/16.

Investors in the biotech sector expected a quick pay off from the technology, but have been spooked by anti-biotech activism, regulatory inertia and negative publicity, says Jay Hickman, analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston.

Investor pessimism has forced big players to consider spinning off or selling their seed and crop-protection businesses.

Last month, Novartis and Anglo-Swedish concern AstraZeneca announced plans to merge and spin off their agriculture operations. In the USA, Monsanto and Pharmacia & Upjohn took a similar approach last month in announcing their marriage. Their combined agriculture business is quickly being distanced from core pharmaceutical and life sciences operations: It will have a separate board and headquarters; 20% of its shares will be issued in a public offering.

Behind Europe's backlash

European mistrust of GM foods is largely a reaction to events of the past decade, particularly Britain's Mad Cow disease and last year's dioxin chicken and Coca-Cola scares in Belgium. Health officials were slow to react and initially understated the risks to the public.

There are other factors. Many of Europe's anti-biotech "greens" hold public office and are well placed to influence policy. And European supermarket chains have tight control over the supply chain -- dictating farming methods and food-manufacturing specifications.

U.S. officials are furious with European regulators for ducking the GM issue. The EU has resorted to "a variety of ploys and political maneuvers to delay and deny" approval of GM products because it can't find scientific grounds to reject them, Commerce Undersecretary David Aaron told European officials last fall.

He said a decade of U.S. experience shows biotech foods are as safe as those made with conventional ingredients .

There has been "not one sneeze, not one cough, not one rash," Aaron said. "There is simply no evidence to the contrary."

That's a story the U.S. biotech industry is eager to tell. It is mounting an expensive image campaign, reaching out to scientists, food retailers, regulators, Congress and anti-biotech activists. U.S. seed companies are holding town-hall meetings with farmers and financing independent scientific research into crop genetics.

In Europe, the approach is different. Novartis, AstraZeneca and others have made a strategic decision to wait for perceptions to change gradually. They are taking small steps -- opening their research labs to the public, for instance -- but are exerting little public pressure on regulators to untangle the approval process. They're banking on products with clear consumer benefits -- better taste, more nutritional value, disease-fighting capabilities -- to change public opinion.

"We see this as a very, very long game," says Nigel Poole, external relations chief at Zeneca Agrochemicals, a division of AstraZeneca, until he retired last month. "This is just the start of the biological revolution."

****************************************************************

Subject: Mutant food (about lawsuit against US FDA)

Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 00:10:03 -0500

salon.com News Jan. 12, 2000

URL: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/12/food

Mutant food

A lawsuit against the FDA reveals documents that show even the agency's own

scientists have doubts about the safety of genetically modified foods.

By Kristi Coale

When Steven Druker filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its negligent oversight of genetically modified foods in May 1998, the act was written off as just another stunt by some anti-GM food activist trying to make a point. But now, the GM foods industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have reason to be nervous.

A federal judge is reviewing witness statements and previously undisclosed FDA documents before issuing a summary judgement of a lawsuit Druker is leading on behalf of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, nine university scientists and 12 religious leaders. The Washington-based International Center for Technology Assessment, a nonprofit organization that has brought previous lawsuits against government agencies on food and environmental safety issues, collaborated with Druker and has provided the lead counsel.

The suit charges the FDA with violating the very federal statute that created the agency, the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, because the FDA does not mandate the testing and labeling of GM foods. For its own part, the FDA asserts in its policy on GM foods that genetically engineered crops are no different than those created through traditional breeding methods. The agency bases its position on the fact that foods derived from traditionally bred crops have a history of safety. Thus the FDA takes the position that genetic engineering is just another traditional breeding method, and reasons that GM foods should be considered safe.

Whatever the judge's decision, Druker's actions have made public information that is very damning to both the FDA and the companies selling GM seeds simply because it highlights the central point in the controversy over GM foods: No one has proved beyond a doubt that GM foods and other products are not safe, nor has anyone proved beyond a doubt that these products are safe.

By now, most everyone in the U.S. has probably eaten GM foods in some form. According to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, genetically engineered crops accounted for 25 percent of the corn acreage planted in the U.S. in 1998, 38 percent of the soybean acreage and 45 percent of the cotton acreage. Because the FDA makes no distinction between GM crops and traditionally bred varieties, food producers are not required to separate or label their GM crops in the U.S. So without knowing it, you've probably eaten GM soybeans in the breakfast cereal you had this morning, in the chocolate bar you knoshed on this afternoon, and perhaps your baby has had it in his soy-based formula..

The very notion that people are eating foods derived from GM crops without their knowledge -- or consent -- offended Druker both as a lawyer and as a religious person when he realized this was happening back in 1996. He came upon this information while researching a book examining the relationship between science, religion and ethics. The more he researched, the more he became concerned about genetic engineering and the basic assumptions government regulators were making about the products of this science. Eventually, the 50-year old lawyer set aside his book and took up the cause of suing the FDA.

While he awaits the summary judgement of his lawsuit, Druker has kept a pretty packed schedule that has included an appearance before a panel selected by the FDA to discuss the safety and labeling issues of GM foods. Ironically, the agency has taken Druker's arguments more seriously than much of the news media. What has made Druker's lawsuit noteworthy to many editors is that it contends the FDA's policy on GM foods infringes upon religious freedom rights and is in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

This focus on the religious angle has had the effect of putting Druker in a camp with the anti-establishment fringe, a characterization that has stuck. In an Aug. 18, 1999, profile of the lawsuit, the Wall Street Journal covered only the religious aspects of the action, describing Druker as something of a small-town, Torah-thumping fanatic who was "gathering his Noah's Ark of plaintiffs, many of whom share his mystical spirituality and distrust of authority."

To be sure, 12 clergy leaders from a variety of established denominations are co-plaintiffs in Druker's lawsuit -- along with nine university scientists. Druker says the university scientists and the clergy leaders were each aware of both the religious and scientific aspects of the lawsuit before signing on. The religious aspects are important, Druker says, but have been overblown. The overriding concern of both clergy and scientists is that the FDA's handling of GM foods has been unethical.

The lawsuit seeks to force the FDA, at the very least, to label GM foods, to inform consumers of the genes that have been inserted in their foods so they can make a informed dietary decision. At most, Druker and the others would like to see a recall of these products and mandatory testing. To achieve even part of their goals, Druker and the CTA counsel must prove that the FDA has not followed the law to ensure the safety of consumers regarding GM foods.

Druker and the CTA may have already won the war, even if the battle is still undecided. As part of the lawsuit, the FDA was required to turn over to Druker some 44,000 internal documents. These include memos from agency scientists criticizing the FDA's developing policy on GM foods.

The policy, which was published in the Federal Register in May 1992, is regarded even by the FDA's own scientists as an industry cheat sheet: "The initial intent of the document was to present scientific considerations and to avoid telling industry what tests to run and how to go about doing it," said Louis J. Pribyl, an FDA microbiologist in a February 1992 memo.

Yet a major part of this policy is a flowchart that effectively tells a company not only what to test in a crop but what results will be needed for the product to be considered safe. By including the flowcharts and telling the companies what to test and what results to get to meet safety standards and by listing all the tests and the answers, Pribyl felt that the FDA made it possible for companies to tailor their tests to get the results they would need.

Prior to Druker's lawsuit, evidence that FDA policy was written largely to favor industry was a set of loosely connected dots. Besides the published policy in the Federal Register, there were Bush administration statements about the FDA regulations between 1991 and 1992. Vice President Dan Quayle in particular said the policy was part of a "regulatory relief program" that was intended to ensure the dominant position of the U.S. biotechnology industry.

And finally, there was a special investigation by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, of the FDA in 1994 that focused on potential conflicts of interest regarding several agency officials who had once been employed by the agro-pharmaceutical corporation Monsanto. Chief among the targets was Michael Taylor, whose job it was at the FDA to oversee and approve the very policies that would regulate GM products. Prior to joining the FDA, Taylor was a partner at King & Spalding, Monsanto's external counsel on regulatory issues. The GAO report found no improprieties on Taylor's part. But the document did make the connection between Monsanto and one of the main authors of FDA policy.

Now, with the newly disclosed FDA documents in Druker's hands, the holes in this picture are filling in. The published policy is based on the idea that genetically engineered crops are no different than those created through traditional methods. Yet in previously undisclosed FDA memos, at least 10 of the 17 scientists who took part in shaping the Federal Register document along with other FDA researchers invited to comment -- including head scientists from the agency's Division of Food Chemistry and Toxicology, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Biological and Organic Chemistry Section -- cast serious doubts on the scientific evidence for this assumption.

As Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, noted in a memo dated Jan. 8, 1992, the FDA's approach to writing the policy was the equivalent of "putting a square peg in a round hole -- are we asking the scientific experts to generate the basis for this policy statement in the absence of any data? It is an exercise in hypotheses forced on individuals whose jobs and training ordinarily deal with facts."

Even the FDA official with approval authority over the policy, Biotechnology Coordinator James Maryanski, raised questions about the agency's assumptions. In a letter to a Canadian government official dated Oct. 23, 1991, Maryanski acknowledged that there was no scientific consensus about the safety of GM foods. He also admitted that the potential for genetic engineering to introduce new compounds into foods that could trigger allergic reactions "is particularly difficult to predict."

In these documents, Druker and the CTA counsel believe they have proved that the FDA disregarded warnings of many of its own scientists about the unique risks posed by genetically engineered foods; that it covered up these opinions; and took a public stance that was entirely the opposite in tone and message than the private, internal memos.

In October 1999, the FDA announced a series of meetings around the country to discuss the safety of GM foods. Maryanski, who participated in these panels, asserted, "We are meeting our goal of ensuring that these new products meet the same safety standards as traditional foods."

One model GM product that agency officials like Maryanski hold up as proof of the safety of GM foods is the Flavr Savr tomato, but the new memos have bruised the product's reputation. The Flavr Savr tomato was engineered to ripen slowly, to give tomatoes a longer shelf life. It had to undergo more stringent food testing because its developer, California-based Calgene, had applied for market approval prior to the enactment of the FDA's new policy on GM foods.

In 1994, Flavr Savr failed as a consumer product because all the genetically engineered advantages were lost in the shipping and packing stage, which bruised the tomatoes and gave them an aged appearance. According to an FDA internal memo, Flavr Savr also failed to meet the agency standards of safety.

In an assessment that went to Maryanski and others, Robert J. Scheuplein, director of the agency's office of special research skills, found a problem with some of the testing data on the Flavr Savr. Scheuplein was unsatisfied with the explanations of Calgene scientists about one difference between regularly bred tomatoes and the Flavr Savr.

Although he regarded the effect as small, Scheuplein did say: "The data do not show the Calgene product to be unsafe but the data fall short of 'a demonstration of safety' or of 'a demonstration of reasonable certainty of no harm' which is the standard we typically apply to food additives."

With regard to how the agency was instructing its scientists to regard GM foods in testing, Scheuplein said, "It has been made clear to us that this present submission [the Flavr Savr] is not a food additive petition and the safety standard is not the food additive standard. It is less than that, but I am not sure exactly how much less."

The chilling implication revealed in this memo is that all other GM crops have undergone less stringent testing. In fact, testing is handled not by the agency but through voluntary consultations between the companies and the FDA with company scientists running the tests.

Previously undisclosed papers such as these tell the story of how the FDA flouted its own laws and ignored the advice and warnings of its own scientists in the process of pushing through a food technology that seemed to have immediate benefit only for the producers -- namely agrochemical companies including Monsanto, DuPont and Novartis.

The ramifications stretch far beyond the U.S. borders. Together, these documents with the resulting FDA policy confirm the very fears expressed last November by WTO protesters in Seattle: that globalization will lead governments to speed up industry growth at the expense of thorough public health precautions. This is precisely what has happened with GM foods.

"Before Druker, we had no hard evidence that our regulatory system was favoring industry," explains Gabriela Flora, program associate on Agricultural Biotechnologies, at the Minnesota-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

By connecting the dots between U.S. regulators and industry, the hard evidence from the Druker case along with public outcry could put the breaks on the once fast-moving industry that the U.S. government has tried so hard to foster. Already, GM crop producers are reeling from partial and complete bans of GM crops throughout the European Union and Asia.

And in the U.S., where GM food fights have paled in comparison to sentiments expressed by Europeans, the tide is turning. Major food producers like U.S.-based Archer Daniels Midland have cut back on the use of GM foods or agreed to segregate and label these foods in their exports to Europe. The recent failure of the WTO negotiations, which were intended to reduce trade barriers, has forced the Clinton Administration to step back from its goal of broadening markets for GM products.

"People from the U.S. Trade Representative's office stand up and say we have the safest food supply and the strictest regulation in the world, but Druker is showing this isn't the case," says Flora. So countries that once questioned the integrity of the U.S. food supply and the integrity of U.S. regulators now have ample ammunition, thanks to Druker, to prevent GM foods -- produced mainly by U.S. corporations -- from entering their borders.

It is somewhat remarkable that an individual such as Druker would eventually have such an impact on the high-stakes development on the GM foods industry. As he describes it, his involvement began with a simple realization of serious ethical concerns. "What I could see was that there were plans to very quickly restructure a large percentage of the world's living organisms and that the U.S. government had given it a green light," Druker says.

In fact, a large community of government officials and scientists -- including Gordon Conway and Gary Toenniessen of the Rockefeller Foundation -- seemed to hold the same, favorable view. Druker said he was surprised to find that "these presumptions appeared to be dubious to eminent scientists who were not indentured to the biotech industry." Druker sought out these scientists, many of whom hold faculty positions at some of the most prestigious universities in the U.S. and Europe -- including the University of Minnesota, Northwestern University and the University of Leeds.

Before long, nine of these same scientists became plaintiffs in Druker's lawsuit. What makes their action unusual is that the atmosphere inhabited by molecular biologists and other scientists engaged in biotechnology research is a clubby one. Dissenting views about genetic engineering are discouraged, says Phillip Regal, professor of ecology, behavior and evolution at the University of Minnesota.

Regal is one of the plaintiffs in Druker's lawsuit. Having a negative view of biotechnology, Regal warns, can cost a researcher his chances at tenure, future employment in industry, and certainly can dry up his resources for research funding. The scientists joining Druker in suing the FDA have done so at great personal and professional risk.

Why are these scientists and Druker doing this? Because they take issue with the way in which the government, corporations, and a significant portion of the scientific community, appear to speak with one voice. T hat one voice consistently tells the public that the industry must move forward quickly to preserve the U.S. dominance in biotechnology. At the same time, it tells us not to worry -- government and industry have already taken care that public health and the environment will not be endangered as we move forward with this technology.

By suing the government, Druker feels he is getting at the major source of the biotechnology juggernaut. The publication of these documents, which Druker has gradually added to the Alliance for Biointegrity Web site since last summer, will have the effect for biotechnology that the tobacco papers had for the cigarette industry: Others will gain ammunition that can be used in later litigation and export restrictions on GM foods.

So in many ways, Druker has already won even before the final judgement is in on his case. "[The FDA memos] are out, and they can never be covered up again," he says. "If we cannot turn the tide against genetic restructuring within the bounds of science and law, perhaps economic realities will come into play."

Economic realities have struck. Last month, Novartis and AstraZeneca announced plans to spin off and then merge their agricultural businesses into a new company called Syngenta and Monsanto followed suit nearly two weeks later with Pharmacia Upjohn. T he message in these moves is clear: The companies have taken enough of a financial bath with their investments in GM products and are, in a way, washing their hands of these ventures. salon.com | Jan. 12, 2000

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer

Kristi Coale is an associate with the San Francisco-based Center for Investigative Reporting. Her work for this story has been supported through the center's Fund for Investigative Reporting on the Environment.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: 2000-01-20 Proclamation on National Biotechnology Month
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:07:41 -0800 (PST)

NATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY MONTH, 2000

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

As we stand at the dawn of a new century, we recognize the enormous potential that biotechnology holds for improving the quality of life here in the United States and around the world. These technologies, which draw on our understanding of the life sciences to develop products and solve problems, are progressing at an exponential rate and promise to make unprecedented contributions to public health and safety, a cleaner environment, and economic prosperity.

Today, a third of all new medicines in development are based on biotechnology. Designed to attack the underlying cause of an illness, not just its symptoms, these medicines have tremendous potential to provide not only more effective treatments, but also cures. With improved under-standing of cellular and genetic processes, scientists have opened exciting new avenues of research into treatments for devastating diseases -- like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, AIDS, and cancer -- that affect millions of Americans. Biotechnology has also given us several new vaccines, including one for rotavirus, now being tested clinically, that could eradicate an illness responsible for the deaths of more than 800,000 infants and children each year.

The impact of biotechnology is far-reaching. Bioreme-diation technologies are cleaning our environment by removing toxic substances from contaminated soils and ground water. Agricultural biotechnology reduces our dependence on pesticides. Manufacturing processes based on biotechnology make it possible to produce paper and chemicals with less energy, less pollution, and less waste. Forensic technologies based on our growing knowledge of DNA help us exonerate the innocent and bring criminals to justice.

The biotechnology industry is also improving lives through its substantial economic impact. Biotechnology has stimulated the creation and growth of small businesses, generated new jobs, and encouraged agricultural and industrial innovation. The industry currently employs more than 150,000 people and invests nearly $10 billion a year on research and development.

Recognizing the extraordinary promise and benefits of this enterprise, my Administration has pursued policies to foster biotechnology innovations as expeditiously and prudently as possible. We have supported steady increases in funding for basic scientific research at the National Institutes of Health and other science agencies; accelerated the process for approving new medicines to make them available as quickly and safely as possible; encouraged private-sector research investment and small business development through tax incentives and the Small Business Innovation Research program; promoted intellectual property protection and open international markets for biotechnology inventions and products; and developed public databases that enable scientists to coordinate their efforts in an enterprise that has become one of the world's finest examples of partnership among university-based researchers, government, and private industry.

Remarkable as its achievements have been, the biotechnology enterprise is still in its infancy. We will reap even greater benefits as long as we sustain the intellectual partnership and public confidence that have moved biotechnology forward thus far. We must strengthen our efforts to improve science education for all Americans and preserve and promote the freedom of scientific inquiry. We must protect patients from the misuse or abuse of sensitive medical information and provide Federal regulatory agencies with sufficient resources to maintain sound, science-based review and regulation of biotechnology products. And we must strive to ensure that science-based regulatory programs worldwide promote public safety, earn public confidence, and guarantee fair and open international markets.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fourth.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Julian Edwards, Director General, Consumers International . . .

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:36:53 -0500

FOOD IN THE FUTURE

Jan. 22 2000

The Economist

Julian Edwards, Director General, Consumers International, London, writes that your assessment of Monsanto and Robert Shapiro (Face value, December 31st) continues to promote the myth that the company's vision of a genetically engineered future for food production, based on sound science, has been undone by poor PR, bad luck and opponents who have whipped up public emotion by appealing to irrelevant and ill-defined social values.

The facts tell a different story. The science, while theoretically appealing, is seriously incomplete and ill-supported by appropriate evidence, particularly in relation to long-term effects on human health and the environment. Even the short-term benefits to farmers of the current generation of genetically engineered crops are in question (though since Monsanto imposes by contract a rule of silence on its customers, details have been slow to emerge).

Grandiose claims to be providing the key to feeding the world have been challenged by development agencies from the start, as hunger is mostly caused by failures of distribution, not the total level of world food production. Monsanto's limited safety research, excessive claims, and business methods which signal the possibility of controlling large parts of world food production through an unproven technology, have been exposed to public scrutiny by a wide range of well-informed critics. As a result consumers, and increasingly farmers, are exercising the right to choose.

Most critics recognise and welcome the potential benefits of genetic engineering. But they expect serious scientific and public-policy issues to be properly assessed, not massaged away by slick marketing and public relations in the interests of private profit.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

MONARCH BUTTERFLIES MAY BE AT RISK

Jan. 23 2000

Ottawa Citizen

Dr. Lincoln Brower and Julia Langer

A17

Dr. Lincoln Brower, Research professor of biology, Sweet Briar College, Virginia, and Julia Langer, director Wildlife toxicology program World Wildlife Fund Canada, write that Monarch butterflies may well be at significant risk from genetically engineered corn, despite how some preliminary results of a narrowly-focused research are being ``spun'' (``Altered corn no threat to monarch butterfly,'' Jan. 16).

Peer-reviewed research confirms that the pollen of genetically engineered corn contains a toxin that can kill or impair monarch butterflies.

Monarchs pass through the corn belt on their northward migration from Mexico to Canada. During pollination, a vast amount of pollen is released, some of which will land on milkweed plants that commonly grow in or near corn fields. Since milkweed is the only plant upon which the adult monarch lays its eggs and the larvae feed, there is great potential for exposure.

Studies on how many grains of pollen might stick to a given milkweed leaf are interesting, but do not shed light on how much biotechnology-induced damage the monarch population can withstand along its migratory route.

The monarch butterfly is officially listed in Canada as ``at risk'' because of threats to the fir forests where they winter in Mexico. As the acreage of genetically-engineered corn increases by leaps and bounds in the U.S. and Canada, will these beautiful creatures, and other butterfly species, be at increased risk? The onus is on regulators to re-asses the acceptability of genetically engineered corn.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:36:16 -0500

Subject: Pastry Uprising Against Genetix Continues in Montreal

Canadian Federal Minister of Health and president of biotech coalition pied at biosecurity protocol conference!

[Communiques Received by Biotic Baking Brigade from Les Entartistes]

--------------------------------------------------

Montreal, friday January 21st 2000

FRANKENFOOD

Where you find eugenism.... there`s no fun !

This morning, at around 10:30, in the Salon des Huitres of the Intercontinental Hotel in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Joyce Groote, president of BIOTECanada and also president of the World Coalition of the Biotechnology Industry, got our sweet natural cream pie at the opening of the conference on the biosecurity protocol being held in Montreal until January 28th.

Miss Groote doesn`t have to worry : our genetically modified pie was tested on a dozen of other guinea-pigs before hers. Were added to this pie, a democracy gene, a respect of the natural world gene and finally a gene that will heal the divine superiority complex over nature. Isn`t the desire for improving the vegetal world, the animal world, and now the human world an insanity? These capitalo-scientists, financed by public funds (fiscal treatement in Canada for research and development in this sector is the best among industrial countries) are forcing their frankenfood on us - we`re lab rats - without any public consultation nor debate. What about the transnationals in this coalition (2300 of them in 130 countries, like the unfamous Monsanto that doesn`t even serve its frankenfood in its own cafeteria!) that are using a "profit" gene while patenting all forms of life?

60 to 75% of all modified food in our supermarkets contain GMOs. BIOTECanada is proposing a new form a "voluntary labelling" - please, we`re foolish but not stupid - but this measure was implented years ago! No one yet has had the courage to use it. This is not a surprise to us. The Entartistes, pionners as usual, have just offered the very first product in North America being voluntarely labelled as transgenic : behind the dessert plate was written the word "Biotarte" (Biopie).

We now wish that the industry will be inspire by our pro-active action because we need to know what is going into our stomachs

This pie is being dedicated to those that are taking part in biotech resistance all around our beautiful spaceship called "Planet Earth".

www.dsuper.net/~aboyeur/tarte.html

entartiste@multimania.com

-----------------------------------------------------

Montreal, Monday January 24th 2000

FRANKENFOOD PART 2

Operation "Rock This Town"

This morning around 10:00 AM in West Montreal, Allan Rock, Minister of Health received his just desserts from Agent S'Pie of Les Entartistes (The Pie-Oneers) in the form of a sweet lemon merengue pie. This was another gesture to denounce our government's position on GE foods as they attend the Biosecurity Protocol Conference being held this week .

We are being force fed GE foods with the consent of the Minister of Health, so we decided to force-feed him with the finest of pies. Rock could not tell whether the pie was made with transgenic ingredients, that is precisely the problem with GE Foods. We never know. But don't worry, the Minister of Health has approved all of this.

Minister Rock seems very concerned about people's health in the arena of tobacco (the first transgenic plant) and is planning a strong labelling regime. However, Rock allows GE foods to be sold without any long term testing for human health or environmental safety. Our tax dollars are used to subsidize the genetic engineering industry, and the public are used as lab rats. Over 200 of Health Canada's own scientists said that there were inadequate resources to properly evaluate the safety of GE foods.

Industry and government are promoting "voluntary labeling," and though this option has been open to companies for years, they have not chosen to label products in North America. Would tobacco companies put diseased lungs on their packages if it was only voluntary?

Last year Robert Shapiro (Monsanto CEO), last friday Joyce Groote (President of BIOTECanada and of the Global Biotechnolgy Industry Coalition), today Allan Rock, tomorrow who knows? We hope that all of the delegates enjoy the week as they decide our fate behind closed doors.

Pie High!

The Pie is the Limit!

Que Qui Peut Puisse!

pictures available at: www.dsuper.net/~aboyeur/tarte.html

email: entartiste@multimania.com

-------------------------------------------------------------

"Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something."

--- last words of Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa (1877-1923)

-------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: US STANDS FIRM FOR ITS GENETICALLY MODIFIED GOODS, agnet edited
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:27:57 -0500

By Helene Cooper
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- A year ago, the U.S., according to this story, blocked a proposed international pact that would have included language U.S. officials feared would greatly reduce the nation's imports and exports of genetically modified products.

This week, the warring sides are set to replay the whole thing again, as officials meet in Montreal to take another stab at coming up with a so-called biosafety protocol.

Not much has, the story says, changed: The U.S. still says it will seek to block a broad agreement, for fear that American pharmaceutical and food companies would face onerous regulations of an estimated $60 billion in annual agricultural trade.

The story goes on to say that while the U.S.'s negotiating stance hasn't changed, the politics in the U.S. regarding the environment and trade -- particularly genetically modified agriculture -- is starting to change. Indeed, at the WTO's disastrous meeting last month in Seattle, thousands of environmentalists, some dressed as mutant strawberries, demonstrated in the streets, upstaging the trade delegates.

Last week, the story says, 20 mostly protectionist congressional representatives sent a letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stating that "the United States must not seek to subvert global environmental priorities in favor of the multinational biotechnology industry."

Rep. Bernard Sanders (I., Vt.), who signed the letter, was quoted as saying, "It is absolutely essential that the United States lead the way in making sure that our first and foremost concern is the health and safety of the environment. By trying to ensure that the WTO is the supreme referee of this environmental treaty, our country is unfortunately doing the exact opposite. The WTO is an undemocratic and secretive institution whose role is to advance socalled free trade."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Engineered crops face barren season. Farmers fear controversy over genetically altered seed may make harvest unmarketable.

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:15:03 -0500

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/article/0,2669,SAV-00012400
52,FF.html

By Peter Kendall
Chicago Tribune Environment Writer
January 24, 2000

Last spring, half the soybeans Terry Wolf planted on his farm in central Illinois were genetically engineered, technologically wondrous crops that gave him an edge in the never-ending battle with cocklebur, water hemp and other pernicious weeds.

This year, though, he'll plant none of the high-tech beans.

As Wolf and other farmers across the state buy bags of seed and ready their tractors for spring planting, many are turning away from genetically engineered plants for the first time since the crops stormed the market in 1995.

They fear that the crops they sow might be hard to sell if controversy over genetically modified organisms grows over the summer along with their corn and soybeans.

"I would hate to raise 1,200 acres of soybeans and find out I can't deliver them anywhere," Wolf said. "The issue is going to be too volatile to take that risk."

Farmers are pinned in a scientific, political and emotional debate over the new crops, souped-up with genetic traits borrowed from other organisms. These plants have remarkable traits, growing their own insecticides or helping farmers control weeds.

Sometimes to the dismay of farmers, the crops have also raised environmental and health concerns, leading to a backlash against genetically engineered foods in Europe and Japan. No one can predict whether a similar, though currently much smaller, backlash might grow into something big in this country too.

The seed companies have staked their futures on the technology and say sales of genetically engineered seeds are on par with last year and in some cases are stronger.

But across Illinois, grain elevators, mills and corn processors are telling farmers there is no guarantee the crops grown from the seeds will fetch top dollar in the fall.

Some, including Frito-Lay Inc., have begun telling their Illinois farmers not to plant any genetically engineered crops at all.

Last year, 168 million pounds of corn--some of it genetically engineered--was processed through Frito-Lay's plant in Downstate Sidney. This year, none of it will be genetically engineered.

"There is some consumer confusion out there, so we thought it was an appropriate time to step back and wait and see," said Lynn Markley, a spokeswoman for Texas-based Frito-Lay.

Illinois Cereal Mills, owned by Cargill Inc., is increasing its contracts for crops that aren't genetically engineered, a company spokeswoman said.

Decatur's Archer Daniels Midland Co., one of the world's largest grain buyers, is paying premiums on every bushel of certain varieties of corn and soybeans that aren't genetically engineered, a company spokesman said.

The Illinois Corn Growers Association surveyed river terminals, processors and mills to determine if the companies had set policies for buying or handling genetically engineered grain this fall. Many declined to respond, and others wouldn't commit one way or the other, said Mark Lambert, a spokesman for the association.

"That is not what farmers want to hear," Lambert said. "That sent a pretty strong message. We have definitely gotten the impression that compared to last year, you are going to see less (genetically engineered) corn."

The federal government, too, is signaling that regulations might tighten on engineered crops. The Food and Drug Administration has been holding hearings on genetically modified foods, and in January the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with seed companies, placed new restrictions on plantings.

On Sunday, Greenpeace activists in Denmark climbed two cranes to block the unloading of a ship from Argentina that carried genetically modified animal feed. The protest came as delegates from more than 130 nations gathered in Montreal to resume negotiations Monday on a proposed treaty to regulate trade in genetically modified products.

The U.S. and five other big grain-exporting nations rejected a treaty last year that would have required exporters of genetically modified crops to obtain permission in advance from the importing country.

Farmers, who must read markets as well as they read the weather, are seeing plenty of indicators that the marketplace might have a bias against genetically engineered crops by the time the harvest comes in.

"We have to plant in April and May, but the marketplace has until October or November until it has to decide," said Ken Dalenberg, a farmer in Mansfield, Ill.

Because of that uncertainty, Dalenberg will plant about half as much genetically engineered corn as he did last year.

Doug Whittaker, a seed dealer in Peoria County, said farmers are buying about half as much genetically engineered corn as they did last spring. "They don't want to be stuck with a crop the market doesn't want," Whittaker said.

Instead, the farmers are going back to varieties bred and developed through more traditional means.

Whether the trend is hurting the high-tech seed companies remains to be seen.

The seed companies say they are seeing no decline in demand for genetically engineered seeds nationally. Spokesmen for bio-tech heavyweights Monsanto and Novartis said sales are similar to last year's and in some cases better.

Since 1995, these companies have been selling varieties of corn, soybean, cotton and other crops that have qualities nature never put into those plants.

Some bacteria--known by the shorthand Bt--are toxic to caterpillars. So scientists plucked out the genetic material that gives the bacteria that trait and implanted it in the genetic code of plants.

Now, a farmer can plant corn that produces its own "worm"-killing insecticide.

Other genetically engineered crops are immune to certain herbicides. Farmers who use Roundup Ready soybeans can spray their fields with the herbicide called Roundup and wipe out just about every plant in the field--except their soybeans.

Farmers like the products because they can reduce the need for pesticides, a fact they thought would appeal to environmentalists.

"We are taking a lot of the pesticides that people have cussed us for years for using and taking them out of the system," said Plainfield farmer Floyd Schultz. "Why all this folderol is totally beyond me."

Some environmentalists aren't convinced the plants don't pose more of a threat than the pesticides do. They were given more cause for concern when a Cornell University study published this spring suggested that pollen from genetically engineered corn plants could potentially drift to milkweed plants and kill the caterpillars of Monarch butterflies. Some studies since have shown that the likelihood of Monarchs being killed by corn pollen is low, however.

Others are worried about the potential for the immunity to herbicides to be picked up by weeds through interbreeding. Should this happen, it could create "superweeds" able to shake off the best chemicals farmers have to spray on them.

By and large, these aren't the concerns shooing farmers away from high-tech seeds, however. And many of the farmers forsaking the new technology for marketing reasons say they will miss it.

Wolf has had great success with the Roundup Ready soybeans he's giving up. "I know I will be fighting more of a weed problem this year," he said.

But he'd rather battle giant ragweed than face an uncertain market for his beans. "There will be no question if I raise non-Roundup Ready beans that people will buy them," Wolf said.

To some extent, Illinois farmers are a special case.

First, the corn borer that genetically engineered corn is designed to kill hasn't been much of a problem in the last two years, reducing farmers' economic incentive to use the more expensive high-tech seeds.

Also, Illinois is hooked into international markets more than many other Corn Belt states, exposing Illinois farmers to vagaries of the European and Japanese markets.

"They are reading the tea leaves and seeing that there are not many advantages to genetically engineered crops, so they will perhaps go the other way," said Emerson Nafziger, a crop scientist at the University of Illinois.

"A lot of farmers hope this issue goes away so they can produce whatever is appropriate to produce. It doesn't look very realistic at this point that that is going to happen."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: U.S Senator says misinformation blurs biotech ...

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:32:38 -0500

Wire Service: RTw (Reuters World Report)

WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Misinformation and "reactionary" debate are overshadowing the potential benefits bioengineered crops have for consumers, Senate Agricultblican at a Congressional briefing.

Lugar blamed some news reports for confusing and factually inaccurate information on genetically modified crops such as Bt corn with adequate investments."

Biotechnology is perhaps the hottest topic in the U.S. farm industry as producers try to decide whether they should rely on conventional seeds for this year's crops. Farmers are keeping a wary eye on a vocal backlash, which has erupted worldwide, against foods made with gene-spliced soybeans, corn, squash, potatoes and other crops.

Critics have said the crops, whiaid the technology will some day be the only way to provide enough food for a quickly expanding human population.

Negotiators from more than 130 nations were meeting in Montreal this week to try and reach an agreement to regulate tst week at a meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation found U.S. farmers said they planned to plant less genetically modified soybeans, corn and cotton this year in response to the controversy.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Licensing procedure for GMOs turns out to be fallible

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:29:59 -0500

Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research

The procedure used by Dutch, European and global authorities when granting licenses for genetically modified organisms is a flawed one. Although applicants are required to provide information about the dangers of the newly developed biotechnology to man and the environment, they themselves decide to some extent what information is relevant. This has been demonstrated by an analysis carried out by philosophers at Leiden University as part of a project funded by the NWO s Council for the Humanities. The applicant--who is naturally an interested party--is therefore in a position to influence the outcome of the approval procedure by deciding that certain information is irrelevant to the risk assessment.

The explanatory notes accompanying the questions on the current (Dutch) application form show that the government's decision whether or not to grant a license is based on the information provided by the applicant. It is stated, for example, that "synthesis of all the information provided in this application form is intended to result in a complete analysis of the risks." The questions which a biotechnology company is required to answer are phrased in general terms. For instance, applicants are asked about differences between the modified plant species and the original species and whether they expect hereditary changes to be spread within the environment.

By formulating the questions in this way, the body awarding the licenses places the responsibility for the provision of information in the hands of the applicant.

The Leiden philosophers say that licenses can only be awarded in a responsible manner if the authorities have a list of questions which are relevant in assessing the dangers to man and the environment posed by modified organisms. As a start, they have drawn up a definition of the hazards posed by a modified organism, according to which a danger exists if "it carries an agent P which can produce an effect Q which is considered undesirable in context R on an affected item S by means of a mechanism T in an environment X as a result of application Z".

By making use of these categories, the relevant questions and the arguments for their relevance can be listed in a systematic manner. In the case of an agent, for example, the following question is in order: To what extent can the transgene survive without the genetically modified organism? The argument for the relevance of this question is that the transgene may constitute a danger by being transferred to other organisms.

The relevance of questions needs to be discussed by such parties as ecologists, molecular biologists, license applicants and the bodies granting the licenses. This would minimise unexpected environmental risks. In the past, the environmental dangers associated with DDT, CFCs and some synthetic chemicals have mainly been discovered by alert individuals and not by research institutes and companies. According to the philosophers, expert discussion in such leading periodicals as Science and Nature has to a large extent involved artificial controversies because the matter of the relevance of certain research questions was hardly considered. The omission in the bureaucratic licensing procedure is also to be found in the European Union's Directive 90/220/EEC and In the Familiarity policy pursued by OECD. The philosophers have now passed on their findings to the Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM), the body which advises on license granting in the Netherlands.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: U.N. Biosafety Protocol talks begin in Montreal
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:19:52 -0500

Wire Service: RTna (Reuters North America)

By Robert Melnbardis

MONTREAL (Reuters) - Fresh talks aimed at getting an international deal on trade and safety for genetically modified food got started in Montreal Monday as green groups staged loud but peaceful protests outside the meeting hall.

About 360 delegates from 134 countries began discussions on a proposed Biosafety Protocol which, if ratified, will produce an agreement among the world's main trading blocs on rules governing the international movement of genetically altered organisms.

The five-day talks are being held under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

Greenpeace and other environmental and public-interest groups chanted loudly outside the conference hall in downtown Montreal where the talks are being held, erecting a 23-foot (7-meter) genetically altered corn cob eating butterflies.

The about 40 protesters also unfurled a banner reading: "Stop genetic pollution, Biosafety Now!" above the main entrance.

Greenpeace spokesman Mika Railo said demonstrators would keep a daily vigil outside the talks. But he added that unlike the protests that degenerated into riots at World Trade Organization talks in Seattle in November, there would be no attempt to prevent delegates from reaching the talks.

"On the contrary, we want the delegates to be there. We want a strong Biosafety Protocol," Railo said. "We would rather run a limousine service to make sure they get there."

Green groups fear that international trade considerations could weaken the proposed protocol, which is aimed at protecting the world's plants and animals from the potentially adverse effects of genetically modified organisms.

One of the key uses of genetically organisms is in crops such as grains, corn and soybeans that have been altered to allow greater productivity, or to be more resistant to pests and disease.

Up to 700 people are expected at the Montreal meeting, including observers from environmental, public-interest and industry groups. Some 30 environment ministers are also expected to attend.

The observers will be allowed to monitor open discussions and ask questions, but conference officials said most of the actual negotiations would be in secret.

"Apparently during the last few days in the informals, they were already getting quite serious," Michael Williams, spokesman for the United Nations Environment Programme, told Reuters, adding that the talks were likely to intensify during the week.

Juan Mayr Maldonado, Colombia's environment minister, is heading the talks, which follow a meeting in Colombia last year that ended in a deadlock on a number of key issues.

"The world needs this protocol and the people of the world want this protocol," he told the delegates in his opening address Monday.

"Rest assured that I am determined to achieving our goal and that I do not intend to leave Montreal without having adopted the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety."

Maldonado added that the agreement will have to strike a balance between the benefits of biotechnology and the protection of health and biodiversity. He told reporters that the talks have already progressed from the Colombia impasse through a series of informal discussions.

The Colombia talks stalled when the U.S.-led "Miami Group", which includes Canada, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia and Chile, refused to accept European Union demands for the labeling of genetically modified bulk commodities.

U.S. delegation head, David Sandalow, assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment and science, said the United States met with other members of the Miami Group during the informal meetings that began Thursday.

It also exchanged views with other negotiating blocs, including the EU, developing countries and the Compromise Group, which includes Japan.

"It's too early to know what the final result will be, but certainly we're working hard to try to address the concerns of other countries and better understand them," Sandalow said.

The EU has demanded precise labeling for genetically modified crops and foods derived from them. It has been slower at approving new genetically modified products than the United States because of broad consumer concerns about food safety.

European countries also insist that the protocol should allow it to keep products off its market if it believes they present a health risk.

The Miami Group wants to include a savings clause to ensure the Biosafety Protocol does not override other international treaties, such as those under the World Trade Organization (WTO). WTO rules prevent countries from blocking food imports unless there are compelling scientific reasons..

REUTERS

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Subject: Genetic Modified Products Debated
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:34:57 -0500

Wire Service: APO (AP Online)

By MATT CRENSON
Associated Press Writer

MONTREAL (AP) -- International negotiations over trade in genetically altered products resumed Monday, nearly a year after breaking down over what products the new rules should cover.

Still, leaders expressed optimism that the weeklong talks can produce an agreement.

The talks broke off last February after the United States -- backed by Canada, Australia, Argentina and Chile -- would not agree to a draft accepted by 125 other countries.

Monday's negotiations centered on the same issue that frustrated last year's talks, held in Cartagena, Colombia -- the scope of products that should be covered by the new rules. Less developed nations argued for coverage of most genetically modified products, from canned food to vaccines.

"It should cover everything," said Ethiopian delegate Tewolde Egziabher. "We cannot chip away at the contents one by one."

But the countries led by the United States -- known as the Miami group -- insisted on a more limited agreement that would cover only seeds and other products intended for release into the environment.

Raw commodities such as unprocessed genetically modified grains and soybeans were also a topic of discussion. Less developed nations want the right to refuse shipments of genetically modified commodities altogether -- something the Miami group worries could lead to abuses and thwart free trade in agricultural markets.

"Our view is that such a proposal would rewrite the rules of world trade," said U.S. negotiator David Sandalow.

Left for the end of the week's talks are even more contentious issues, especially how the agreement will relate to the World Trade Organization and other international agreements. But so far most of the parties have expressed willingness to negotiate and are optimistic that an agreement can be reached.

"We have come here ready to negotiate and hoping to make a deal," Sandalow said.

Louise Gale of Greenpeace International, who attended last year's Cartagena meeting, noted that the same good will prevailed in the early days of those negotiations. "We'll have to see how long this smile can last," she said.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Report on Montreal Biotech Conference
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:45:50 -0500

UN biosafety talks shift into high gear

By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON, Jan 25 (Reuters) - Negotiations to regulate thorny trade issues surrounding genetically modified food were to shift into high gear on Wednesday with the arrival in Montreal of environment ministers from four dozen nations.

With European and Asian consumers balking at foods made with gene-spliced crops and about one-third of U.S. corn and one-half of U.S. soybeans grown with genetically modified varieties, the United States has an enormous amount at stake in the talks.

Negotiators from 138 nations hoped to complete the proposed Biosafety Protocol by the end of the week.

``There is a good atmosphere of cooperation, but governments are still far apart'' in many of their positions, David Sandalow, assistant U.S. secretary of state for oceans, environment and science, said in an telephone interview from Montreal. He stopped short of predicting an agreement would be reached by Friday, when the talks are set to conclude.

The talks were to escalate on Wednesday with the arrival of environmental ministers from 46 countries. A large portion of the ministers will be from developing nations and the European Union.

Similar talks with less-senior negotiators last year in Cartagena, Colombia, ended in a deadlock over divisive issues, including whether the pact should apply to altered commodities, such as corn and soybeans, in addition to seeds and other GMOs (genetically modified organisms) intended for release in the environment.

``The old issues are basically still on the table,'' said Michael Williams, a spokesman for the U.N. Environment Programme. ``The mood is good... Generally, people remain optimistic there will be an outcome.''

But green groups said the positive public comments officials have made glossed over the many difficult issues that remain for negotiators to sort out.

``They have all been awfully polite in public and my guess is they won't be by the end of the week,'' said Adrian Bebb, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth.

At the meeting, three separate groups were set up to work on various issues, including the scope of what GMOs would be covered by the pact and whether the agreement would supercede World Trade Organisation rules.

``That is the key issue of the whole protocol,'' Bebb said.

US FEARS TRADE BARRIERS

As part of the Miami Group of six farm exporting countries, Washington opposes including commodity shipments in the pact.

The Miami Group -- which also includes Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile and Uruguay -- contends that only GMOs which are intended to be introduced into the environment, such as planting seeds, should be covered by the pact. But talks continue on a possible compromise that would address the concerns of developing nations, Sandalow said.

In another area, the so-called Compromise Group of negotiating countries has put forward a new proposal aimed at helping developing countries build their capacity to address biosafety issues, Sandalow said.

Many developing countries lack financial and other resources to assess and manage risks associated with biotechnology.

Washington also has resisted efforts by the European Union to address food safety concerns in the biosafety pact, and wants it to clearly state the protocol will not supersede the rights of countries under the World Trade Organisation.

Without that clause, the Miami Group fears the EU and others could use the protocol to block imports of bioengineered crops, even if there is no scientific evidence they cause any harm.

The negotiations are taking place under the 1992 U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity.

Because the Senate has not ratified that agreement, the United States is not officially part of the talks. However, it has worked through the Miami Group to protect its interests.

19:58 01-25-00

************************************************************

NGO Position Statement

Extraordinary Conference of the Parties:
Biosafety Protocol Negotiations
25 January 2000

We, members of civil society from around the world, have high expectations for this meeting. We seek the adoption of a strong precautionary Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity, as do millions of other world citizens. We are increasingly concerned about genetically modified organisms put in our food and being grown in our countries without anyone fully understanding the effects of these organisms on our ecosystems and food chains.

For these reasons, we expect governments to reach a final agreement on a Biosafety Protocol and ensure that the Protocol reaffirms and reinforces the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity by establishing rules to protect biodiversity. It would be irresponsible of our governments, our formal representatives, to ignore the obligations to protect our biological heritage and global food security undertaken when they ratified the Convention.

A minority of countries, only interested in protecting their industries' commercial investments in GMOs, stalled the Biosafety Protocol in Cartagena last year. These countries must not be allowed to obstruct our work again this week. Unfortunately, we do not see any change in their intentions.

1. After years of dismissing the potential hazards of genetically modified organisms, these countries still attempt to render the Protocol meaningless by reducing its scope. We appeal to all governments to recognize that adverse impacts on biodiversity and human health may arise from any activities involving GMOs - including transboundary movements, handling, or use, especially centers of origin and biological diversity. Scientifically, all GMOs pose the same kinds of risks to biodiversity and human health, whether they are from transgenic crops, vaccines, artificial vectors, or other amplified nucleic acid sequences. Thus, there should be no exclusions to the Protocol's scope - all activities involving GMOs should be included in a single process for assessment and advanced informed agreement.

2. We are extremely concerned that several negotiating groups are promoting an unworkable distinction between GMOs transferred for planting and GMOs transferred for direct use as food, feed, or processing. A maize kernel will not respect its legal status, nor will it respect political boundaries: once sown, it will grow intentionally or unintentionally, with or without approval. The intention behind a transfer is irrelevant; a Protocol must create a precautionary process to assure that the consequences of a transfer are acceptable. It is reasonable to expect that, at minimum, the Biosafety Protocol will set out three essential obligations for countries wishing to export GMOs: notably, to provide advance notification, to disclose full information, and to require explicit consent from the receiving country before any transboundary movement occurs. Without such a precautionary process, developing countries are likely to become the dumping ground for GMOs and products which cannot be sold anywhere else.

3. We are disappointed that certain delegations continue to undermine the need for the Precautionary Principle, a principle which rightly seeks to prevent harm to the environment or human health from GMOs. The Precautionary Principle is consistent with sound science since it promotes rational and prudent decision-making in the absence of conclusive scientific knowledge. The lack of scientific consensus over genetic engineering's potential environmental and health impacts necessitates placing the burden of proof on those who want to introduce these organisms.

Past experience with the overly hasty release of toxic chemicals and ozone depleting gases demonstrates the enormous effort and expense involved in cleaning up after ill-considered actions. Living organisms represent even greater risks; once released, GMOs cannot be recalled if they damage the environment -- they multiply, migrate, and mutate.

4. For ensuring biosafety, traceability is critical for governments serious about pursuing the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. There are no credible reasons to refuse to label and segregate these products. Labelling and segregation of GMOs in food and agriculture has already become the market reality in many industrialized countries. We must enable national authorities, farmers, and food buyers to identify GMOs at any stage of distribution.

5. Despite being a non-party to the Convention, the United States government acts to subordinate this Protocol to international trade rules, such as those of the World Trade Organization. We offer our support to the vast majority of countries which, by ratifying the Convention, are committed to upholding environmental values. Even a member of the U.S. Congress recently observed that "when the health and safety of consumers and the environment is the price, free trade is just too expensive." These negotiations are not primarily about trade; they concern biodiversity and the life support systems for the world's people. Protection of biological diversity is an imperative, not a luxury or an afterthought.

6. There is increasing evidence that introducing GMOs has significant socio-economic impacts. Without a strong liability regime, those suffering serious impacts - particularly indigenous and farming communities -- would be subsidizing the biotech industry. The Protocol must include mechanisms for all affected peoples to obtain fair compensation.

We welcome the delegates' determination to leave Montreal with a Protocol signed by the end of this week. We share their commitment to place the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity at the heart of this Protocol. Failure to establish a strong precautionary Protocol would betray the needs and expectations of citizens world-wide. We urge our representatives to adopt a strong precautionary Protocol mindful of the wisdom attributed to Chief Seattle:

"We do not inherit the Earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children."

German NGO Forum on Environment and Development
World Development Movement (U.K.)
Grupo de Reflexion Rural (Argentina)
Red Alerta Sobre Transgenicos (Argentina)
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg (S.Africa)
RAFI -- Rural Advancement Foundation International (Uruguay, Canada)
Council for Responsible Genetics (USA)
Tinker Institute on International Law and Organizations
Washington Biotechnology Action Council (USA)
Institute for Applied Ecology (Germany)
Institute of Science in Society (U.K.)
Friends of the Earth International
Third World Network
Biotech Action Montreal
Women's Environmental Network (U.K.)
Genetics Forum (U.K.)
Biolatina.org
Greenpeace International
Greenpeace Argentina
Australian GeneEthics Network
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (USA)
Council of Canadians
The Edmonds Institute (USA)
Sobrevivencia (Paraguay)
Biowatch (S. Africa)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: News from Montreal Negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:12:28 -0500

Today's Updates from the Montreal Biosafety Protocol Negotations:

BAM GE Petition:

<http://bam.tao.ca/eng/index.html>http://bam.tao.ca/eng/index.html

__________________________________________________

UN BIOSAFETY TALKS SHIFT INTO HIGH GEAR

Jan 25/00

Reuters/AP

WASHINGTON - Negotiations to regulate thorny trade issues surrounding genetically modified food were, according to these stories, to shift into high gear on Wednesday with the arrival in Montreal of environment ministers from four dozen nations.

David Sandalow, assistant U.S. secretary of state for oceans, environment and science, was quoted as saying in a telephone interview that, "There is a good atmosphere of cooperation, but governments are still far apart" in many of their positions. The stories note that he stopped short of predicting an agreement would be reached by Friday, when the talks are set to conclude.

Michael Williams, a spokesman for the U.N. Environment Programme, was quoted as saying, "The old issues are basically still on the table. The mood is good... Generally, people remain optimistic there will be an outcome."

Adrian Bebb, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth was quoted as saying, "They have all been awfully polite in public and my guess is they won't be by the end of the week."

Matthias Jorgenson, a delegate for the European Commission, was quoted as saying, "Now I think we are around 80 percent, at least on commodities." Canadian head delegate Richard Ballhorn was quoted as saying Tuesday that, "The outcome here could be even more positive than the proposal that didn't make it in Cartagena."

Jo Dufay, a campaign coordinator for the Council of Canadians, was quoted as saying, "Canada has allowed itself to be a mouthpiece for the United States," said. "It's shameful."

__________________________________

CITIZENS SLAM MIAMI GROUP STALLING OF BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL

January 25/00

MONTREAL - Representatives of civil society groups from the countries stalling the Biosafety Protocol spoke out today. They said the Protocol must protect biodiversity and human health, not promote trade.

These groups come from the countries of the so-called Miami Group that has been seeking to weaken the agreement currently under negotiation in Montreal. This protocol will set out rules governing international movement of genetically engineered organisms (GEO: plants, animals, microbes) and products thereof.

``Our governments are obstructing a strong agreement,'' said Jorge Rulli of Argentina. ``We're here to say that the people of our countries want an agreement that really protects people and the environment.'' Millions of citizens around the world have voiced concerns over GEO's and opposition to their release.

The Miami Group of governments (US, Canada, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina and Australia) want a protocol to promote trade interests and minimize environmental safeguards. They want to make the agreement subservient to World Trade Organization rules, to exclude the precautionary principle and to exclude GEO's used as food and agricultural products, when exported. These provisions would render the Biosafety Protocol useless in protecting the environment and preserving the diversity of life on this planet.

``On Saturday, thousands of people in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver took to the streets in protest over GE foods and organisms. A national poll released last week showed that 94% of Canadians want to be able to refuse GEO imports over health or environmental concerns. ``The Canadian government has no mandate to put commerce before safety,'' said Nadine Bachand from Canada.

The Miami Group countries say human health and socio-economic impacts would not give countries the right to ban GE imports under this agreement. If they win, exporting nations and their corporations would have no liability under the Protocol for the damage that a product may cause in a receiving country.

``We must be safe rather than sorry with organisms that, once released, cannot be returned to the laboratory and go on reproducing themselves eternally,'' said Bob Phelps from Australia. ``Our government must ensure that the precautionary principle is central to the Biosafety Protocol. They must not play roulette with the environment and public health. We are proud to be part of this group of citizen groups which have called for a real environmental Biosafety Protocol,'' he said.

-------------------------------

PUBLICATION Agence France Presse English
DATE Tue 25 Jan 2000
BYLINE by Griffin Shea

HEADLINE: Global biotech treaty talks off to good start, delegates say

MONTREAL, Jan 25 (AFP) - As talks on a global biotechnology trade treaty enter their second day here Tuesday, delegates from every major negotiating group were optimistic about the chances of finalizing the deal this week.

Much of the hopeful attitude was based on the decision of 38 ministers -- including 12 of the 15 EU ministers -- to attend the final two days of the talks on setting trade rules for genetically modified products.

Initially, Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson had not even planned to attend the UN-sponsored conference in his home country. But late Monday a spokesman for his office announced that he had changed his mind.

"We are very encouraged by the Canadian minister's decision to come," said one senior EU delegate.

"It shows clearly the political will of all the parties to reach an accord," said Colombian Environment Minister Juan Mayr Maldonado, who is president of the conference that is drafting the treaty.

"It's a very positive mood in here right now," said the chief Canadian delegate Richard Ballhorn.

Because the US Senate never ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, through which these talks are being held, the United States is not an actual party to the talks, and cannot speak for itself in formal negotiating sessions.

Instead, the US team must rely on Canada to head the group of major grain-producing nations that also includes Argentina, Australia, Chile and Uruguay -- known here collectively as the Miami Group.

The Miami Group was widely blamed for shooting down a generally accepted proposal almost one year ago at a similar conference in Cartagena, Colombia.

But the consensus this time around is that the Miami Group is working to find a compromise.

"The Miami Group is being constructive. It has not moved much, but it hasn't blocked," said one senior EU delegate. "The world wants an agreement on biosecurity."

"We hope the Miami Group won't block it," the delegate said.

The thorny issue of how the proposed Biosafety Protocol will work with other international pacts, especially the World Trade Organization, has yet to be addressed.

But Maldonado said progress in other areas -- such as which genetically altered products to exclude from the deal and how to determine their safety -- could provide enough momentum to find solutions with the WTO issues as well.

The main holdout Monday was the group of developing nations, which still wants a much broader treaty than what most of the industrialized world seems to be considering at this point.

That group made "a very strong proposal to try to expand the scope of the protocol," a senior US delegate said Monday.

Developing nations fear that environmental safety tests in North America might not reveal risks in other regions, such as the tropics.

"In Cameroon, we are worried about our forests," said one delegate from that country. "We don't buy (genetically modified) seeds because you don't know what you're getting. We need more information."

Ballhorn said that industrialized nations were considering ways to resolve that problem for countries that cannot afford a rigorous testing regime -- either by helping countries establish their own programs or creating an international regime that would do the tests for them.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

PUBLICATIONThe Gazette (Montreal)
DATE Wed 26 Jan 2000
PAGE NUMBER A6
BYLINE GRIFFIN SHEA

HEADLINE: Bio-tech talks on track: Canadian delegate encouraged: `They're going well'

The U.S. and Canada said yesterday that a compromise could be reached on a global biotechnology trade treaty, almost one year after both countries were blamed for shooting down an earlier deal.

``We are strongly supportive of a Biosafety Protocol that protects the environment without disrupting'' the world's food trade, said chief U.S. delegate David Sandalow.

The talks, in Montreal, are going ``surprisingly well,'' said chief Canadian delegate Richard Ballhorn. ``We're quite encouraged.''

But a large group of developing countries - which includes China and India - complained that the compromises proposed did not address enough of their concerns about the dangers that bio-engineered foods and medicines might pose.

Sandalow said the negotiating teams were ``having very serious discussions on commodities'' that include genetically altered components.

That topic had hardly received any serious consideration at a meeting last year in Cartagena, Colombia, that failed to reach a deal.

That conference also stumbled on disagreements over how to test genetically altered products for safety, with many countries wanting to be able to reject such products as a precaution against possible environmental or health risks.

The U.S. had wanted a different standard that would allow trade in genetically modified organisms until they were proven unsafe.

But yesterday, Sandalow said Washington and the five other major grain-producing nations known as the Miami Group could accept some version of the precaution approach.

He also said the U.S. wants the Biosafety Protocol to have the same status as other international pacts, which could ease European concerns that the U.S. team would insist on World Trade Organization rules taking precedence.

The talks continue today.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

GLOBE AND MAIL - Document 7 of 24
WED JAN.26,2000
PAGE: A6
BYLINE: KIM HONEY
EDITION: Metro DATELINE: Montreal

HEAD: Organic farmers fret over spread of modified crops
HEAD: Cross-pollination serious threat, groups say
HEAD: as some progress made at biosafety talks

KIM HONEY

Science Reporter

Montreal Janet Duncan has an organic farm outside Ottawa where she grows corn, soybeans and rye, among other crops, and tends 50 head of beef cattle.

Less than a kilometre down the road, her neighbour grows Bt corn, a crop that has been genetically modified to produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium toxic to an agricultural pest called the European corn borer. For four years, Ms. Duncan has taken great care not to use any chemical pesticides or herbicides on her 240-hectare farm in Almonte, Ont.; now she can't be certain her crops -- particularly the corn -- will not be subject to genetic pollution from her neighbour's land.

"There's GM product all around us, so what we're constantly trying to do is find out what's being grown and make decisions about what we grow on our ground in order for it not to cross-pollinate into our field."

She said even the tiniest bit of genetically modified DNA in her corn is unacceptable to the organic farmer.

That is why Ms. Duncan, a spokeswoman for the National Farmers Union, travelled to Montreal this week to convey her concerns about genetically modified products to delegates negotiating the Biosafety Protocol.

Her worries are shared by many non-governmental organizations also attending the talks, including Greenpeace, which released a report yesterday detailing how the United States approved a genetically modified bacterium called Rhizobium meliloti in 1997 despite the objections of five of six scientists on the Environmental Protection Agency's biotechnology scientific advisory committee.

The main concern is that genetically modified organisms will escape into the environment and cause profound changes in ecosystems that will lead to the loss of natural biodiversity.

"The U.S. claims to be the world leader in assessing the risks of genetically modified organisms, but this example tells a completely different story of flaws and guesses rather than sound science," Greenpeace spokesman Benedikt Haerlin said.

It was just one of many potshots taken at the Miami Group, which represents the main exporters of genetically modified crops and is seen to be the main proponent of biotechnology at the biosafety talks. Its members include the United States, Canada, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.

Meanwhile, the chairmen of two working groups, one dealing with the scope of the protocol and the other dealing with genetically modified commodities, both reported some progress after talking long into Monday night.

The commodities group expected to present something on paper to the whole group -- about 600 delegates in total -- last night. Canada's lead negotiator, Dick Ballhorn, said it was likely to include the idea of a clearing-house -- most likley a Web site -- where countries could go to get information on any product that was about to cross their border.

Delegates began working on another controversial section of the draft report that deals with the relationship of the Biosafety Protocol to international agreements such as the World Trade Organization.

The Miami Group has expressed its concern that the Biosafety Protocol should not supersede the WTO agreement, which sets out international trade rules.

But the European Union, backed by more than 80 countries from Africa, Asia and most of South America that represent an estimated 80 per cent of the world's population, believes the Biosafety Protocol should not be subordinate to the WTO.

The big stumbling block still to be discussed is the precautionary principle, or whether a country has the right to block the import of genetically modified organisms even though it has no proof of harm to the environment. Canada and the Miami Group prefer a risk-assessment approach, which would rely on scientific evidence to decide the probability of something affecting the environment.

Mr. Ballhorn said if the precautionary approach were going to be included in a section dealing with how countries decide to ban import of a GM product, that clause needed more details.

"How do you apply it? That's the basic problem here. . . . What level of scientific uncertainty allows you to invoke it?"

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

PUBLICATIONThe Hamilton Spectator
DATE Wednesday January 26, 2000
PAGE BB02
BYLINE Lisa Grace Marr

HEADLINE: Farmers seek biotechnology edge; Genetically altered crops will help, but retailers may avoid them as a way to score points with consumers

Biotechnology and other high-tech innovations are some of the tools farmers hope will give them a competitive edge in the future global economy.

Mary Lou Garr is a provincial director of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. She lives on her family farm in the Grimsby area.

Garr says the reliance on new technologies to produce faster, better, cheaper food is not a new concept for farmers.

The switch from horse to tractors is one very old example.

"We've become very efficient (over the years) by adopting new technologies.

"We're just doing it now in the midst of strong public scrutiny. We would like to see consumers make decisions based on fact," she says.

Jan Griffioen is president of the Hamilton-Wentworth OFA. He says some of the commodity prices -- especially grain crops -- are the lowest in decades and that makes it tough going.

He says the failure of the talks at the recent World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle was a disappointment for those in the agricultural industry.

"Everybody is pointing fingers at everyone else. That's not helpful.

"(Farming) isn't as easy as it used to be."

Griffioen says subsidies need to be levelled so that farmers can all compete fairly. Canadian farmers complain that subsidies are much higher in the U.S. and other countries. That coupled with the spotty and strange weather that has plagued both the West and Ontario have created an unusual set of challenges for farmers.

For those older farmers without a mortgage or large debt load, the current dip in the market might be survived. But for younger farmers with those heavy debt loads, bad weather or further drops in prices may be devastating.

"The machinery costs are going up but the market prices aren't at all," Griffioen says.

But Garr says the new genetically engineered seeds can be helpful to farmers, particularly those in cash crops, which are experiencing low prices.

The problem, however, is public skepticism over the possible harmful effects of consuming foods which have been genetically altered. Critics have become increasingly vocal in their opposition to the selling of bioengineered foods.

Gord Surgeoner is the president of Ontario Agrifood Technologies and a professor at the University of Guelph.

Surgeoner said biotechnology has been around since humans have been making bread and beer. But this new controversy has come to centre on the moving of genetic traits between species.

"What is fundamental is we can identify the genetic base for traits."

For example, take BT potatoes -- named after a common soil micro-organism. Researchers have found a way to take the bacillus thuringensis organism and put in into a potato to resist the Colorado beetle. It's better for the environment as it greatly reduces the need for pesticides, it's cheaper for farmers and it's completely safe, according to Health Canada. Despite this, McCain Foods has issued a ban on BT potatoes.

Garr finds this frustrating.

"This stuff is not untested. Health Canada is part of this process," she says.

"If people are confident of pharmaceutical products, then they should be confident of this process," she says.

As Surgeoner points out, "(McCain) had no problem with the technology. What McCain failed to tell the consumer is that they were going to use broad spectrum pesticide."

Garr says retailers may see avoiding biotech as a way of scoring points with consumers. And that's what farmers are afraid of.

"That's where the dilemma lies for farmers. If enough retailers get on the bandwagon, then that has its effect on the rest of the industry.

"Much of our argument is that this biotechnology accrues a benefit to the farmer. Very little of it appears to be of benefit to the consumer. The problem is this is the kind of thing that could be stopped before we see those benefits."she says.

In fact, Surgeoner points out that there is actually very little food in the market now that is genetically modified. In Canada now, only genetically modified grains and are being sold, accounting for about 35 per cent of corn, 60 per cent of canola and 25 per cent of soybeans.

But that will change, predicts Garr, as researchers attempt to make food more nutritious through biotech. Or increase the quality of certain vitamins.

"Agriculture has always been in the business of human health. It was at one time, can we get enough nutrition? Now it's, can we get better nutrition?" Surgeoner says.

But Surgeoner said while biotechnology can help farmers reduce input costs, another major benefit is the possibility of discovering new markets for agrifood products such as plant oils.

"The change this technology can bring is that we can think of agriculture in a way we never have before. We need to think of agriculture as a current industrial base stock.

"We exist on a fuel-based economy that is non-renewable. The technology exists to make plant-based plastics and other materials," he says.

Aside from biotechnology, farmers are hopeful further research into the use of global positioning systems (GPS) to spray herbicides or pesticides only where it is needed will also be helpful to farmers.

There are many changes taking place in agriculture with new environmental farm plans, the licensing of pesticide sprayers, nutrient management planning and a myriad of other innovations.

Garr says, "Most of this has come about because farmers want this kind of equipment."

A relatively new phenomenon in Ontario agriculture is vertical integration, where the same company handles the product from the field to the table. Garr says this is most evident in the pork industry.

Above all, however, she says the family farm has become an increasingly efficient and environmentally friendly operation.

"We grow food and we grow it by co-operating with Mother Nature. We can't destroy water or soil.

"Being good stewards of the land is what we do best."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

PUBLICATIONAgence France Presse English
DATE Wed 26 Jan 2000
SECTION/CATEGORY International News
STORY LENGTH 163

HEADLINE: Canadian health stores ask government to label genetically altered foods

OTTAWA, Jan 25 (AFP) - A group of Canadian health food stores has asked the government to require labels identifying foods that contain genetically altered components.

"There has been no long-term testing to determine the impact of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) on human health and the environment, and no clinical trials have ever been held to prove that there are no health consequences," said Domne Herringer, head the Canadian Health Food Association.

"Canadians are being used as a scientific experiment," she told a news conference here.

Herringer's group of stores presented the federal agriculture minister a petition signed by more than 30,000 of their clients, asking for the labeling.

The stores in the association have decided on their own to label products that have no bioengineered ingredients.

The debate about genetically altered foods has gained steam in Canada, as representatives of 138 countries are meeting in Montreal in a bid to finalize an international trade pact for all types of bioengineered products.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

PUBLICATION The Gazette (Montreal)
DATE Wed 26 Jan 2000
PAGE NUMBER A1 / FRONT
BYLINE PAULINE TAM
STORY LENGTH 951

HEADLINE: Religion at heart of U.S. lawsuit

No one was more surprised than Steven Druker when, in 1996, his synagogue in Fairfield, Iowa, backed his bid to sue the U.S. government over genetically modified food.

A wealthy member of the congregation was so moved when he heard Druker's religious objections to such food that he provided seed money to get the landmark lawsuit off the ground.

Since then, Druker, a lawyer-turned-activist who is in Montreal to attend a United Nations-sponsored conference on genetically modified products and the environment, has managed to rally the support of religious leaders, not just within the Jewish community, but also those representing Catholics, Protestants and Muslims.

Along with a coalition of scientists and consumer advocates, Druker and his religious supporters are forcing a U.S. court to rule on the controversial issue of genetically modified food.

The lawsuit, which concluded hearings last July and is now in the hands of a judge, is aimed at forcing U.S. regulators to set higher standards for testing the potential impacts of genetically modified food on human health.

It is also demanding that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration - the agency in charge of safeguarding what Americans eat - compel manufacturers to clearly label foods altered by biotechnology.

More specifically, Druker argues that by not telling consumers what genetically engineered ingredients are in their food, regulators are violating a constitutional right to religious freedom that is protected in U.S. law.

In launching his legal challenge, Druker has singlehandedly opened up a broader debate within religious circles about the ethical principles that should guide society's use of a powerful tool such as genetic engineering.

``I really believe that any religious individual who understood the full facts about genetic engineering would develop great concern about what's going on,'' he said in an interview.

As a devout Jew who needs to avoid foods with substances from non-kosher animals, Druker says he fears the day when genes from pigs, shellfish or insects might be genetically spliced into fruits or vegetables, resulting in the reshuffling of their genetic code.

``As consumers, we have the right to know what we're eating so that we can freely practice our religious beliefs.''

From Druker's point of view, this alteration through what's known as recombinant-DNA technology not only destroys a product's kosher quality; it defies ``the integrity of a species'' - a religious principle founded in Jewish law.

``To my knowledge there aren't any genetically modified foods on the market right now that contain genes from non-kosher species,'' he said.

``But I and our rabbi plaintiffs still believe that just the recombinant-DNA technology itself and this unnatural transferring of genes from very distant species, through force and disruption into another species, is far away from the original plan of life.''

What's more, he argues, because humans already have the capacity to improve food and create a wide variety of edible crops through traditional plant breeding, genetically engineering food is morally unjustifiable.

That's especially true, he said, since there are no substantial indications that countries suffering from malnutrition and starvation will benefit from the technology.

``We have to learn that there are some limits. And when the genetic engineers claim that recombinant-DNA splicing techniques are just basically a simple extension of sexual reproduction through God-given pathways, I say no. That is morally wrong.''

While he characterizes the genetic engineering of food as a reckless and irresponsible use of biotechnology, Druker is not willing to dismiss genetic engineering altogether, especially when it comes to the technology's potential to save human lives.

``Jewish law does allow for distinctions. For example, there's a general principle that if life is at stake, then you can even break the laws of the Sabbath or any of the strictest laws. So if it means transgressing the laws of the Sabbath for a doctor to go drive across town to save somebody's life, it's his duty to do that. But if it's not a clear case of life being in danger, the basic set of laws should be followed.''

At 53, Druker, a onetime corporate lawyer in California, is an unlikely and somewhat reluctant crusader. He acquired his interest in - and knowledge of - biotechnology in the early 1990s while researching a book on science, ethics and religion.

``The more I learned, the more I got concerned,'' he said.

His initial worries were not just based on religious concerns. Druker says he was also driven by the realization that U.S. regulators routinely approve genetically modified foods without adequate safety testing.

He approached public-interest groups, hoping they would take up the legal fight, but got little support. In 1996, Druker finally decided to abandon his book, live on his savings and devote his energies full time to fighting the U.S. government.

In addition to the donation from the benefactor at his synagogue, Druker raised about $50,000 for his cause, most of which went to pay for a team of public-interest lawyers in Washington, D.C., who are now working for free.

** Among mainstream environmental groups that share Druker's goals for adequate safety testing and mandatory labeling of genetically modified food, there is little support for his spiritual views. Indeed, Druker's strongest critics accuse him of exploiting religious positions based on unscientific and untrue information.

``I, too, have profound feelings about the sanctity of life and the moral responsibility of humans to exercise strong stewardship of the planet,'' said Val Giddings, a vice-president of BIO, an association grouping some of the largest biotech companies in the United States.

``I am also a passionate and fervent environmentalist myself and I am outraged that activists have presumed to occupy the moral high ground with positions that in fact will do incalculable damage to the environment and to humanity.''

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

PUBLICATION The Ottawa Citizen
DATE Wed 26 Jan 2000
PAGE NUMBER A4
BYLINE Pauline Tam

HEADLINE: Two views on food biotechnology: Scientists are closer than ever to genetically engineering rice with vitamin A which, some believe, can be a powerful tool to fight malnutrition and child blindness in the developing world. As in the rest of the world, activists from Africa and Asia are divided on the merits of food biotechnology. Citizen writer Pauline Tam spoke with two activists from the developing world about their views.

Chee Yoke Ling is a lawyer who works for the Malaysia-based group Third World Network. The non-profit think-tank and advocacy group focuses on environment and development issues.

Citizen: Scientists recently announced a genetically engineering rice with vitamin A and iron. What's your response to this development?

Chee Yoke Ling: Just from the reports, one is not really able to assess whether this represents the success scientists are talking about. What are the full implications from the scientific point of view? ... Are there unpredictable side effects to that kind of genetic engineering?

Secondly and more fundamentally is that malnutrition is an issue of poverty and food distribution. And if the majority people are poor and have no access to food, then how can this new rice help them, even if it works?

Citizen: What would prevent this rice from reaching people?

Chee: With a rice like this, the first thing that will happen is that it will be patented. And if it does work, it will be something that can bring a lot of money to the parties involved and we just don't see how this will benefit poor countries. Already we see this in the area of drugs for HIV. Recently, because of fear of an AIDS epidemic, some African countries led by South Africa tried to get the WHO (World Health Organization) to agree that HIV drugs should become generic drugs so that they can then be available ... at a cheaper price. And the U.S. led the protest against that because the pharmaceutical industry did not want lose out on the premium.

So the same thing will happen with the food industry. If this rice works, it will not be available for free. And if they want to make some of it available, it will be tied up with subsidies from aid.

Citizen: What role do you see for genetically modified food as a development tool?

Chee: The more groups like ours at the Third World Network look into the issue of genetic engineering ... the more we have come to the conclusion that genetic engineering is not the option for food security (or) biodiversity conservation.

Genetic engineering focuses on the interactions of particular genes as opposed to the whole organism. And it does ignore ... the interactions with the environment and with other species and the whole socio-economic fabric of agriculture. In agriculture and food production, there are so many alternatives that already exist, from organic farming to different kinds of farming systems, which are diverse and which are productive.

Citizen: Do you see any benefits in food biotechnology?

Chee: At the moment, it's really hard to say. We haven't found any convincing benefits because every supposed benefit has either been overrated or the products have not worked. The more we look into it, we realize the long-term risks to biodiversity and to health outweigh the benefits. We need to pull together biology, ecology, sociology so that we can look at food production and agriculture in the way that it should be looked at.

Citizen: What is the mood in Asia concerning genetically engineered food?

Chee: In the last one or two years, the public awareness from farmers and consumers has grown tre-mendously. People are asking questions. Farmers who have moved to ecological farming are worried about genetic engineering and how that might contaminate their fields. Consumers are finding out about problems of health.

The problem is, governments and agencies of developed countries have also promoted the mantra of the biotechnology industry that this is the way forward.

Citizen: What would you like to see come out of these talks on biosafety that address the interests of the developing world?

Chee: We want a biosafety agreement that says before any (genetically engineered) product leaves (a) country, we have to have all the food information so that we can assess. And yes, there is a need for the capacity of developing countries to assess. But the more we've learned about how regulatory systems work or don't work in Europe and North America and Japan, we realize that it is so unscientific.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

PUBLICATION The Toronto Star
DATE Wednesday, 26 January 2000
BYLINE Tan Ee Lyn

HEADLINE: Modified food conflict grips Hong Kong; Local demand for

healthier choices growing

HONG KONG - Hemmed in all around by surging skyscrapers, a tiny organic garden sits defiantly in one of the most densely populated and most polluted places in Hong Kong.

In Causeway Bay, a district often choked by auto exhaust, restaurant owner Helen Wong hopes to make consumers see the light in healthier foods.

Her small organic garden on a balcony outside her 10th-floor restaurant, "Vogue in Paradise," looks like a sad joke, encircled almost entirely by a giant glass and marble tower.

But Wong's simple message could not be more serious.

"This garden is for education. I want people to know the importance of healthy, natural foods," said Wong, whose 200,000-square-foot organic farm in Shenzhen supplies her restaurant and some other food outlets in Hong Kong and China.

"We have had so many food problems in the past few years: too much pesticides in vegetables, problems with our pork, chicken, fish. If we eat more natural foods, our health will be better protected," Wong said.

Hong Kong, a magnet for gourmets and food lovers the world over, has been besieged by food scares in recent years and local demand for healthier foods is clearly growing.

Mainland Chinese vegetables, coated with excessive chemical pesticides, have landed people in hospitals while staples of the Chinese diet such as pork and fish have been found to be contaminated by banned growth drugs and pollutants.

Of late, the worldwide controversy surrounding genetically modified food has gripped the territory of 6.8 million, triggering calls from green groups for compulsory labelling of GM food. In an effort to raise public awareness, local Greenpeace activists stormed into some supermarkets in recent months saying certain brands of soy and milk-chocolate products they sold contained GM ingredients.

"More people now realize the issue and are beginning to ask questions. We consume a lot of soybean products and a lot of it comes from Canada and the U.S., but do we know if they are genetically modified?" Greenpeace's Lo Sze-ping asked.

While there is no scientific evidence to prove GM food is harmful to human health, environmentalists argue there is also not sufficient evidence to show the release of GM organisms into the environment is safe.

Hong Kong lawmakers this month passed a motion calling for compulsory GM food labelling and the government has said it would do a feasibility study on setting up such a system. Labels are required in the European Union and other countries where consumer resistance to biotech foods is greater.

Up north in the rural New Territories and in Shenzhen, modest-sized organic farms have been quietly sprouting up, winning a small but growing band of faithful consumers.

Hong Kong now has nine organic farms and it is not uncommon to find vegetable stalls in the territory selling only organic produce - at a premium of at least twice the price of nonorganic crops.

Deep in the valleys of Hong Kong's mountainous Tai Po region, the organic Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Gardens grows up to 140 types of vegetables and plants.

Insect-repelling plants such as mint and rosemary help control pests. An estimated loyal customer base of just 500 in all of Hong Kong means farmers have to plant small amounts of everything.

"When the market is so small, you can't plant a lot of any one type, thus ruling out economies of scale. And you have to plant many varieties, so the cost is high," said Angus Chi Kwong Lam, 28, a horticulture officer at the Kadoorie farm.

For now, organic farmers in Hong Kong get their naturally grown seeds from mainland China and elsewhere, but the supply is getting short.

"Organic farming is only possible if we keep our own seeds but that's difficult as there is never enough. We get organic seeds from the U.S. and China but with GM seeds becoming popular in China we can't be sure of supply in future," said Penny Chan of Produce Green Foundation, another organic farm.

Kadoorie's Chi said: "You might be using GM seeds and you don't even know."

ILLUSTATIONTORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO / FOOD FEARS: The seafood in a Hong Kong shop looks tantalizing but some fish have been found to be contaminated by drugs and pollutants. Mainland Chinese vegetables are often coated with excessive pesticides.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

PUBLICATION The Toronto Star

DATE Wednesday January 26, 2000

BYLINE Stuart Laidlaw

HEADLINE: Stances toughen at food talks. Canadian-led group stands firm at meet on gene-altered products

Richard Ballhorn, Canada's chief negotiator

MONTREAL - The early optimism at United Nations talks on trade in genetically modified foods has turned to tension as a Canadian-led group drifted back toward a hard line.

Canada, which earlier in the week was discussing how a country might go about blocking imports of genetically modified foods, yesterday returned to its position questioning the need for such measures.

"I don't even know why we need this," Richard Ballhorn, Canada's chief negotiator, told a press conference.

Ballhorn said Canada will bargain hard to make sure countries cannot block trade in genetically modified foods too easily.

"We will be very difficult," Ballhorn said, using much tougher language than he had earlier in the week.

At question is the so-called precautionary principle, which would give countries the right to stop imports of genetically modified foods if they feel there is a risk to health or the environment.

Ballhorn said Canada is willing to include the principle in a deal only if there are strict limits on when a country can invoke it. As it stands, he said, the principle is too vaguely worded to be acceptable.

"Go around this hotel and ask people what it means. You can get as many definitions as there are people," he said. "How do you apply it in reality?"

He said there may not be time this week to work out a better definition.

"We haven't started dealing with it yet," he said, adding talks have so far dealt with only the less contentious issue of what commodities the deal would cover.

He suggested that negotiators set aside the issue in the interest of reaching a deal, and return to it later in another round.

The Montreal talks are considered a last chance to salvage a deal after talks were derailed a year ago at a meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, where negotiations toward a United Nations Biosafety Protocol fell apart over the same issue.

About 600 people are attending the Montreal talks representing more than 130 countries, with the talks themselves taking place between five groupings of countries.

Canada heads the Miami Group of major agricultural exporters, including the U.S., Australia, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, and Ballhorn speaks for the group.

But a spokesperson for the largest group of countries, the Like Minded Group of 77 developing nations, said in an interview that Canada's bargaining position is doomed to failure and could scuttle a deal.

"The precautionary principle should be the basis of the protocol," said Imeru Tamrat, a negotiator from Ethiopia, which heads the Like Minded Group.

Representing more than half the countries at the talks, the Like Minded Group has the numbers to block any deal. The objections of many of the same countries helped kill World Trade Organization talks last month in Seattle.

Tamrat said his group would not sign any deal that does not include the precautionary principle.

So far, the European Union has supported the Like Minded Group in its efforts to get a precautionary principle into the protocol. European consumers have shown a great reluctance to buy genetically modified foods and a number of companies have refused to sell them.

Against that background, the Miami Group has for the past year resisted efforts to include the precautionary principle in the protocol, saying countries should block genetically modified foods only if there is scientific evidence of a risk.

The Miami Group was also the target of criticism by environmentalists from member countries, who urged the group to support the precautionary principle.

Eric Darier of Greenpeace pointed to Ottawa's about-face on financial aid for National Hockey League teams, and called on Canada to make a similar turnaround.

He said consumers in the Miami Group of countries are showing increasing uneasiness toward genetically modified foods.

Darier said the protocol talks are supposed to be about working out a deal to protect the environment, not about protecting trade, something he fears the Miami Group has forgotten.

"They seem to be at the wrong conference," he said.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

PRESS RELEASE

Wednesday 26 Jan 2000, 3pm.

Food for thought: Politicians tuck into GMO feast

As senior politicians from around 40 countries gather in Montreal for vital negotiations on genetically modified foods and crops, Friends of the Earth will cheekily help Ministers with their menu at tonight's banquet put on by Colombian Environment Minister Juan Mayr.

Friends of the Earth have analysed the menu options at tonight's event and highlighted the extent of research into genetically modified foods which may be in the politicians food now or in the future. With developments in GM foods and crops moving so fast it is crucial that a strong Biosafety Protocol is agreed this week and safety concerns are put top of the agenda. The input of Minister's is likely to be crucial.

Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth said: "The Ministers won't have a choice tonight if they eat genetically modified food or not. With so much uncertainty over the safety of GM foods and crops it is essential that we get tough international rules so that countries do have a choice. This might be a light-hearted action but we have a serious message - give the world a strong Biosafety Protocol. We wish the Ministers a bon appetit!"

Friends of the Earth is the world's largest network of environmental groups. They campaign in over 64 countries covering all negotiation parties at the Protocol. Campaigners are available in Montreal for comment and briefings in English, French and Spanish.

PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

Friends of the Earth will be helping the Ministers as they go to dinner at 7.45pm , St James Club, 1145 avenue Union (Union / Rene-Levesque)

CONTACT: Adrian Bebb 514 239 4276 OR 514 239 4253

Biosafety - the choice is yours

Friends of the Earth welcomes Ministers to Montreal. We hope you enjoy your dinner generously hosted by Mr Juan Mayr. To use his words..."the world needs this Protocol, and the people of the world want this Protocol....the whole world is waiting for a Protocol....I wonder which delegation would want to go down in history as having been the reason why this process failed?" We hope it won't fail. I t's up to you now. Bon Appetit!

CHEF'S SUGGESTIONS ....... AND WHAT THEY COULD IMPLY ....

CREAM OF SWEET POTATO SOUP
A GM herbicide-tolerant US speciality with a touch of special GM corn starch thickener

ST. JAMES'S SALAD WITH VINAIGRETTE

Some delicious GM virus-resistant peppers served on a bed of herbicide-tolerant lettuce and lightly drizzled with a variety of GM oils including our popular corn and soy oil. And, of course, not forgetting the GM tomatoes

ENTREE CHOICES:

GRILLED SALMON WITH WHITE WINE CREAM SAUCE
Why not try the fast growing GM fish variety? Made with cream from GMO-fed Cattle Coming soon, speciality GM wines - French or German?

OR

FILLET OR BEEF WITH THREE PEPPER SAUCE
Juicy meat from GMO-fed beef cooked to your own taste

ENTREES ARE SERVED WITH SEASONAL VEGETABLES AND POTATO
Current selection might include: Herbicide-tolerant cauliflower, broccoli and peas, Not forgetting a range of GM potatoes from around the world.

CHOCOLATE CAKE
Almost certainly includes eggs from GMO-fed chickens Lecithin likely to come from GM soybeans

COLOMBIAN COFFEE - THE BEST IN THE WORLD
..... so far, not GM and let's keep it that way!!

WITH COMPLIMENTS

NB: Most dishes also contain antibiotic-resistant genes - please ask for further details.

###############################

Kathleen Kelso
Program Manager
Friends of the Earth Canada

260 St. Patrick St., Suite 206
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 5K5

phone: 613-241-0085, ext. 0
fax: 613-241-7998
e-mail: kkelso@intranet.ca
web site: http://www.foecanad*a.org

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: In Japan, It's Back to Nature
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:43:31 -0500

In Japan, It's Back to Nature
Consumers Add Non-Modified Products to Shopping Carts

By Kathryn Tolbert
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 24, 2000; Page A08

TOKYO-Japan, the world's largest food importer, is in the midst of a struggle over how to treat genetically modified foods.

The government has gone along with consumer demands for labels on such products starting next year. This has prompted a rush toward non-genetically modified tofu, beer and soy sauce in local markets, and a jump in import orders for non-genetically modified soybeans and corn from the United States, the source of most of Japan's food.

The action also has generated anger among U.S. business and trade officials. "The Ministry of Agriculture is quite cynically using the GMO [genetically modified organism] issue for internal political reasons," said Dennis Kitch, Japan director of the U.S. Grains Council.

In the five months since the labeling requirement was announced, a major supermarket chain has started identifying its genetically modified products. The Asahi and Kirin Beer companies said they will switch entirely to non-genetically modified ingredients. And Japanese soybean farmers, who do not use any genetically modified seeds, are enjoying a huge demand for their beans--even at three to four times the price of imported American ones.

A Ministry of Agriculture official denied the labeling was intended to protect Japanese farmers. "Unlike Europe, Japan has a very low food self-sufficiency rate," said Kazuhiko Kawamura, deputy director of the ministry's food-labeling division. "For soybeans, it's 3 percent. For corn, almost zero. For Japan it's almost embarrassing and we do need to raise this rate, but it is clear we cannot fulfill domestic demand by ourselves. We are not denying at all GMO products."

In fact, the Japanese government is pouring billions of dollars into developing its own genetically modified food. But there are no plans to market these creations because of the negative public sentiment surrounding GMOs.

Some consumer groups campaigned against GMO products as unnecessary and not adequately tested for safety.

For now, domestic farmers are getting a boost from the dispute. A group of shopkeepers in the Waseda area of Tokyo, for example, is getting nationwide attention for their My Tofu project. For about $38, a customer contracts with a farmer to grow a plot of non-GMO soybeans. The 50 customers who have signed up will get tofu produced from those beans.

"Japan has a manufacturer-led system, so I'd like to do something to establish a consumer-led structure, something that we can do because we're a small shop," said Junichiro Yasui, a shop owner who is a leader of the project. "Wal-Mart couldn't do this."

"Japanese consumer groups are very strongly wedded to the notion of self-sufficiency, that Japan should be able to produce its own," said Steven Vogel, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California at Berkley. "They're worried about dependence, worried about health and safety issues and basically don't believe foreign agricultural products are as safe as Japanese."

The Ministry of Agriculture said labeling has nothing to do with safety. "It's simply to give consumers a choice," Kawamura said. For now, many consumers seem to be choosing naturally produced food.

Miyoko Miyajima, head of school lunches for Kawagoe City, said she is trying to make the food served to 30,000 students as GMO-free as possible. She said suppliers are asked to provide unaltered food. "We heard that frozen cut potatoes from the United States might be genetically modified, so we asked for domestic potatoes."

According to the Ministry of Agriculture plan, a list of 30 types of food will require labeling if they meet a certain genetically modified content, starting in April 2001.

But some companies aren't waiting. Throughout the Jusco Supermarket in the Nishikasai section of Tokyo, for example, small red labels are attached to food shelves. They state that the product is GMO-free, mostly GMO-free, or that its main ingredients are probably genetically modified.

Customer Kumiko Takeda, 26, who works part time at a bakery, said: "I won't buy genetically modified foods. They're scary." Terue Watabe, 65, had a different reaction: "I'm too busy to notice about those little things."

Some manufactureres are switching to non-genetically modified ingredients--even if it costs more. The import company Marubeni's latest order for soybeans--700,000 tons--is all non-GMO, and will cost 15 percent more. Two years ago, only half the order was for GMO-free beans.

Special correspondent Akiko Yamamoto contributed to this report.

(c) Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Pharmacia is new name of merged companies
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:12:20 -0500

Posted: Friday, January 28, 2000

Pharmacia is new name of merged companies
By Adam Goodman
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

And the winner is . . .

Pharmacia Corp.

That's the name of the new company to be created in the planned merger of Pharmacia & Upjohn and Monsanto Co., officials of the two companies announced Thursday.

Executives said the Pharmacia name will better reflect the new organization's focus on developing and selling pharmaceuticals.

"The Pharmacia name is well tied to the industry that we are in," explained Monsanto spokesman Bryan Hurley.

But, as expected, the Monsanto name won't completely disappear. The company's agricultural subsidiary, which is to remain based in Creve Coeur, will still be called Monsanto.

The agricultural business includes Roundup and other herbicides as well as genetically engineered seeds, crops and food. Company officials have said they intend to sell up to 20 percent of the agricultural unit in an initial public offering of stock.

Pharmacia and Monsanto announced in December their plans to merge and combine their medium-sized drug companies. At that time, the deal was valued at about $27 billion.

The newly merged company will be based at Pharmacia & Upjohn's headquarters in Peapack, N.J. Pharmacia & Upjohn's chief executive, Fred Hassan, is to run the combined company.

The two companies talked with customers, physicians and others around the world before deciding on the Pharmacia name, Hurley said. They considered, but rejected, the possibility of creating and getting the legal rights to a new name.

Although Pharmacia won the name game, company officials are making a gesture of goodwill to the Monsanto folks. Pharmacia's new "visual identity" will be similar to the all-capital, blue-and-white block letters used in the logo of Monsanto's G.D. Searle & Co. drug subsidiary.

Pharmacia & Upjohn was formed in a 1995 merger between Upjohn Co. and Pharmacia Aktiebolag of Sweden. The Upjohn, Searle and Pharmacia names will continue to be used within sales divisions of the new company.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Monsanto's name radically modified
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:40:31 -0500

GUARDIAN (London) Friday January 28, 2000
Julia Finch

Monsanto's name radically modified

The Monsanto company name, which has become synonymous with the genetically modified food business, is to be ditched, the company revealed last night.

The beleaguered American biotech company is merging with the US-Swiss drugs group Pharmacia & Upjohn and the $50bn corporation will in future be known as Pharmacia.

"We have chosen a name with power and global relevance," said Robert Shapiro, chairman of Monsanto, who will lead the new company. "This name and logo will create a strong new identity for our 60,000 employees and will build value with our existing customers worldwide."

Mr Shapiro, who championed GM food, was once regarded as a visionary who would mix nutrition, biotechnology, crop protection and medicine in one commercial venture. But the Monsanto name became tainted last year as the consumer backlash against GM food spread from Europe to the US.

In addition to food safety and environmental fears there were concerns that farmers in developing countries would never be able to afford the new Monsanto seeds.

Last month a shareholder campaign in the US unveiled a plan to target 24 companies, including Monsanto, demanding a moratorium on the use of GM food until independent testing had been completed. The campaign is being coordinated by 275 religious and other groups which claim to control $100bn of shares in US companies.

Monsanto, which had been a high-flying pharmaceutical stock and darling of Wall Street, fell swiftly from grace when its crop technology business, which little over a year ago was regarded as a world beater, turned into an albatross. Shareholders watched as their investments lost a third of their value.

The newly merged Pharmacia Corporation will use the names Searle, Pharmacia and Upjohn for its three sales divisions. Only an autonomous agricultural subsidiary will continue to use the Monsanto name.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Montreal News Update 6:00 PM EST
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 19:46:15 -0500

GMO negotiators could work late into the night

By Doug Palmer

MONTREAL, Jan 28 (Reuters) - A handful of unresolved issues threatened to keep international negotiators working until late Friday night to try to reach an environmental agreement to regulate trade in genetically modified organisms.

A final plenary session of the approximately 140 countries attending the Montreal talks was delayed until at least 8 p.m. EST (0100 GMT Saturday) as key trading partners scrambled to find compromise language.

Colombian Environmental Minister Juan Myar, chairman of the United Nations-sponsored talks, had hoped countries could reach consensus on the proposed Biosafety Protocol by 4 p.m. EST. But that deadline passed and negotiations continued.

The talks have been closely watched by both environmentalists and industry representatives.

Greenpeace and other groups opposed to genetically modified food products have pitched a tent and posted signs and banners outside the International Civil Aviation Organisation building, where the final session will be held.

Negotiators are still grappling with several difficult issues, such as the relationship of the protocol to World Trade Organisation rules. The United States, as a member of the Miami Group of agricultural product-exporting nations, wants a ``savings clause'' to ensure the protocol does not override the WTO.

The EU opposes the provision, saying it would give the WTO precedence over the environmental pact.

Another controversial issue has to do with a concept known as the ``precautionary principle,'' which could allow countries to block imports of genetically modified crops even if there is not conclusive scientific evidence they cause any harm.

The Miami Group opposed earlier draft language on that provision and now negotiators are considering alternatives.

Despite the few significant remaining issues, U.S. industry officials said they were pleased with the progress that has been made this week in other parts of the biosafety pact.

``I believe we should end up with a document that will allow industry to continue operating business as usual,'' said Steven Daugherty, director of government and industry relations for Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., a major producer of genetically modified seed.

A previous effort to craft a biosafety protocol failed last year in Cartagena, Colombia, largely because the Miami Group feared it would severely restrict trade in genetically modified crops, such as corn and soybean varieties grown on a large swath of U.S. acreage.

Both Daugherty and Susan Keith, a trade lobbyist for the National Corn Growers Association, said the remaining issues are key to the overall pact.

``It's just got to come together in a way that allows trade in these commodities to continue,'' Keith said.

****************************************************

Gene Talks Boil Down to Few Issues

.c The Associated Press

By MATT CRENSON

MONTREAL (AP) - In the final hours of international talks Friday on trade in genetically modified food and other products, negotiators found themselves grappling over the same issues that doomed a similar agreement nearly a year ago.

Delegates scurried from room to room of the Montreal hotel where the meeting was being held, bearing proposals and counterproposals. Late in the afternoon, conference president Juan Mayr delayed what was to be the final meeting of the disagreeing parties by four hours.

Mayr, who set a deadline of Friday night, also has said that he will not leave Montreal without an agreement.

``Somebody has to give in somewhere,'' said Ethiopian head delegate Towalde Egziabher.

Negotiators were attempting to draft the Biosafety Protocol, a set of rules that would protect the environment from damage by genetically modified plants, animals and bacteria. Environmentalists and a few scientific studies have raised concerns that genetically modified organisms could wipe out native species, disrupt natural cycles and cause other ecological damage.

``There's fish genes in fruit, poultry genes in fish, animal genes in plants, growth hormones in milk, insect genes in vegetables, tree genes in grain and in the case of pork, human genes in meat,'' said Steve Gilman, an organic farmer in Stillwater, N.Y. ``Real and reasonable concerns about genetic engineering have fallen upon deaf ears.''

The debate at the talks has revolved around how great the scientific uncertainty is, and how it should be dealt with. The European Union and developing nations have argued that countries should be allowed to decline imports of a genetically modified product if little is known about its environmental effect.

But the United States and its partners disagree, saying the proposed rules in their current form would restrict trade. Those countries argued that any nation's refusal to import a genetically modified product should be backed by scientific evidence in the form of a risk assessment.

``We live in a world in which scientific certainty is not available,'' said U.S. Undersecretary of State Frank Loy.

Talks last February in Cartagena, Colombia, ended in disarray when the United States and five other countries - Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay - rejected a draft agreement favored by 125 other countries.

The situation has changed since then, with major U.S. food producers such as Archer Daniels Midland, Gerber and the Iams pet food company either demanding that genetically modified products be segregated or refusing to use them altogether. Protests at the World Trade Organization talks in Seattle last month also suggest that the American public has concerns about genetically altered food.

``In the year since Cartagena, it has become obvious that the position of the (United States') group is increasingly isolated,'' said Philip Bereano, a University of Washington professor who has been following the talks.

Just as in Cartagena, the talks in Montreal have come down to a handful of issues:

The relationship of the proposed rules to the World Trade Organization. The United States wants the agreement to have ``equal status'' with the free trade pact. But other countries fear that any bans they impose will be overturned by the World Trade Organization's dispute resolution panel.

The amount of scientific evidence that is needed to justify banning a genetically modified product.

The amount of evidence that exporters must provide about their products.

Genetically modified crops are already widespread. About 70 million acres of genetically engineered plants were cultivated worldwide in 1999. In the United States, genetically engineered varieties account for about 25 percent of corn and 40 percent of soybeans.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Labels on biotech foods would raise prices-US industry

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 09:37:01 -0500

WASHINGTON, Jan 28 (Reuters) - U.S. food prices would rise if Congress follows the lead of the European Union and passes legislation requiring labels on products made with bioengineered crops, industry groups told the House Agriculture Committee on Friday.

The politically powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers joined 33 food and farm organizations in urging Texas Rep. Larry Combest, the Republican head of the committee, to oppose any labelling legislation.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, late last year introduced a bill that would mandate labels on all gene-spliced altered food, food ingredients, dietary supplements, animal feed, and products made from animals given biotech feeds.

The legislation has alarmed food industry groups, who contend that biotech foods are safe and thoroughly tested before given government approval.

"This would require segregation from farm to supermarket, and would result in higher food costs and lower farm prices," said the letter to Combest. The industry letter did not give any estimates of how much food prices might increase at the grocery store or in restaurants.

Mandatory labels would also "send the misleading message that the government is not confident of the safety of the U.S. food supply," the letter added.

Consumer and green groups have stepped up pressure on the government in recent months to require labels, or a moratorium on sales of biotech foods. They contend that not enough is yet known about long-term safety and environmental effects.

The European Union, Japan, South Korea and other nations also are planning to require special labels on genetically altered foods. Some 140 nations sent delegates to Montreal this week to negotiate a United Nations pact to regulate trade in genetically modified seeds, crops and other organisms.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is currently mulling whether it should tighten regulations for the approval of new biotech foods.

Some U.S. food organizations have said they would support stricter rules forcing companies to turn over studies and tests about the safety of new products. But the industry is adamantly opposed to labelling requirements.

The industry is "actively working to educate America's consumers about the benefits of biotechnology," the letter said. "We believe that these methods are much more effective in communicating complex information than are food labels."

Other groups signing the letter included the American Farm Bureau, Grocery Manufacturers of America, American Soybean Association, American Meat Institute, Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the National Restaurant Association.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: ADM changes tack on GM crops

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 09:37:51 -0500

ADM changes tack on genetically modified crops

CHICAGO, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland Co. said Friday it would not turn away genetically modified grains, four months after warning its grain suppliers to segregate the crops.

A company spokesman confirmed the change in stance to Reuters after ADM Chairman G. Allen Andreas told the Chicago Tribune this week that the company had reconsidered its September warning.

Andreas said "the pendulum is beginning to turn back" on the controversy surrounding the crops.

Consumer groups in Europe and Asia strongly oppose genetically modified grains and have demanded more testing to ensure their safety to humans and the environment. Japan, Australia and the European Union have made plans for mandatory labeling of some modified foods.

But Andreas said less than 5 percent of ADM's sales were to customers who asked if the crops were genetically modified.

Last September, ADM sparked concern in the industry by asking its suppliers to begin segregating genetically modified corn, soybeans and other crops from conventional varieties.

A straw poll of 400 farmers at the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting this month showed that they planned to cut back sharply plantings of genetically modified crops this year, partly in response to the backlash in Europe. However, seed companies later said preliminary seed sales did not indicate a decline in interest.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Media Alert: Protocol on Genetically Engineered Organisms Adopted

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 09:44:55 -0500

News Media Release 30/1/2000

Protocol on Genetically Engineered Organisms Adopted

Montreal, January 29, 2000: A Biosafety Protocol on the transfer of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) was adopted in Montreal at 5am local time today at the end of an all night session.

The GeneEthics Network joined other NGOs in congratulating the delegations from the 130 countries which hammered out the deal.

"It is a crucial first step in protecting the global environment and public health from the ravages of GEOs," said GeneEthics Director Bob Phelps.

"The Protocol sets minimum safety rules which should be enforced now," he said.

"But all exports and imports of GEOs should be frozen, at least until the Protocol comes into force, when the first fifty countries have signed," he said.

"We are relieved that the Miami group of six countries (led by the USA, Australia and Canada) failed in their bid to flood the world with inadequately regulated GEOs," he said.

"To the very end they wanted trade to dominate the talks and the Protocol," he said.

"We are troubled that the Group!?s final threat to scuttle the agreement forced mandatory labelling on GEO foods to be removed from the rules," he said.

"The Australian public will not accept any watering down of our Health Ministers' decisions to label all foods produced using gene technology," Mr Phelps said.

"Liability rules to give the Protocol real teeth will also be delayed for up to four years, so companies are not liable under the Protocol for GEO damage," he said.

!?We want Australia to take the lead in getting international liability provisions in place as soon as possible, so the onus of responsibility is placed on the companies where it belongs,!? he said.

"Overall, the Protocol is a solid document and we urge the Australian government to implement it fully, in co-operation with our Pacific and Asian neighbours," Mr Phelps concluded.

Call: Bob Phelps Tel: +1 514 766 9717 or +1 609 395 9533 (AEST +8hrs)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Speech by David Byrne at the Hague GE Congress

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:08:17 -0500

The following speech was given by David Byrne, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, at the "Biotechnology and the Consumer Conference on Biotechnology - science and impact" in The Hague, The Netherlands, 21 January 2000

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to begin by thanking Ambassador Schneider for the opportunity to speak at the end of this important conference organised around the topic of the science and impact of biotechnology.

As European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, I am particularly pleased to be here today and to give you my perspective on biotechnology and the public.

In the past, the citizen in his capacity as consumer, has often been overlooked in discussions on biotechnology even though he or she is a legitimate stakeholder in the debate and the decisions taken on the utilisation of this new technology.

I am also pleased that the aim of this conference is to discuss both advantages and disadvantages of biotechnology. The application of biotechnology has far-reaching consequences for society - as it has already been pointed out by many speakers before me - and apart from risks and benefits, ethical concerns are also important to the public.

The only way forward to face the controversy surrounding biotechnology is to promote an open-minded and balanced dialogue between all stakeholders - scientists, industry, farmers and consumers and by ensuring full transparency in the risk/benefit assessment of biotech products. Furthermore, we have to accept and respect the consumers' right to have clear information in order to take informed decisions on which products they want to buy.

I will return to this issue later, but let me first outline the recent European experience on food safety in general and the public concerns about biotechnology in particular.

Simply put, in the minds of the European public, safety is the most important ingredient of their food. Other considerations very important considerations such as quality, value for money, choice, taste etc, come second. When the consumer chooses a product from the supermarket shelve, their first and over-riding presumption is that it should be safe.

The recent crises or scandals in Europe such as BSE or the more recent dioxin contamination have called into question the very safety of food. The fall-out from such events can have grave consequences for health as well as the economy. One clear lesson from the BSE and the dioxin crises is that there are no winners.

Compromising on food safety is not a way for a farm or a company to reduce costs. It is actually a very dangerous path, not only for consumers, but also for the farm or company itself and for the whole sector involved. In an industry worth 600 billion euros annually in the European Union, that is about 15% of total manufacturing output, even a slight dip in confidence can have significant effects. Between the agro-food sector and the farming sector, there are about 10 million employees in Europe. High levels of confidence are necessary to boost job numbers and competitiveness. Confidence and predictibility are also essential elements to boost trade and you all know how important this is between the EU and the US who are each other's best trading partner.

I fully accept that in many respects food has never been safer. I am also fully aware that zero risk is not achievable, as in most other human activities. Nevertheless the public's demands and expectations have never been higher and confidence is very fragile. We have one of the best informed, discerning and sophisticated group of consumers in the world.

Each successive crisis undermines the public's trust in the capacity of the food industry, in its broadest sense, and in the public authorities, to ensure that their food is safe. You can see from the press the extent of consumer unease about what they eat, you can read articles full of questions and analysis right and wrong- about genetically modified foods, the use of growth promoters, pesticide residues in food, salmonella, E-Coli, anti-microbial resistance to name only some. And, in addition to food safety, other legitimate factors play a significant role for many European consumers. Issues like animal welfare, environmental considerations, sustainable agriculture, consumers' expectations and fair information are being discussed more than ever. Ethical questions concerning food production have also entered into the political agenda all over Europe and need to be addressed.

We all suffer from the fall-out from this loss of confidence.

The crisis of confidence has had the unfortunate but inevitable effect of eroding the trust of consumers in systems and institutions at national and international level that should monitor and assure the highest standards of food safety. In saying all this, I would like to make it clear that Europe, nevertheless, has one of the best food industries in the world. And also one of the safest food control systems. The challenge is to make the systems even better.

In order to rebuild European citizens' confidence that their food is safe "from the farm to the fork", the European Commission adopted last week THE WHITE PAPER ON FOOD SAFETY, on which I would like now to say a few words. I believe that, in the White paper, the Commission has put forward an ambitious action plan to transform today's EU food policy.

The actions planned are based on a comprehensive, integrated approach throughout the food chain - in other words from "farm to table" designed to make EU-legislation more coherent, understandable and flexible. The more than 80 separate actions proposed include proposals on GMOs as we are acutely aware of the need to have a coherent and predictable framework on GMO foods, animal feeds, and seeds, for example.

The White Paper provides that scientific assessment and advice must be based on independence, excellence and transparency.

Public confidence can only be maintained in a system where scientific assessments are carried out by eminent scientists and independently of industrial and political interests. Scientific advice must be open to rigorous public scrutiny.

The Commission has proposed the establishment of an independent European Food Authority with particular responsibilities for risk assessment and risk communication.

The Food Safety Authority should provide a single, highly visible, point of contact for all stakeholders. It would not only act as point of scientific excellence, but would also be available to consumers to provide advice and guidance.

The Food Safety Authority will not be a European FDA, but will work in close co-operation with national scientific agencies and institutions in charge of food safety. Unlike the FDA, and this is very important, it will not have regulatory powers. These are entrusted to the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. We wish to make a clear distinction between, on the one hand, risk-assessment which has to be based on scientific excellence and independence and, on the other hand, risk-management which is the responsibility of decision-makers, who are politically accountable to the citizens.

One very important element in the system is that the roles of all stakeholders must be clearly defined. This includes a clear understanding that feed manufacturers, farmers and food operators have the primary responsibility for food safety.

In this new comprehensive approach to food safety we are trying to meet some very specific consumer demands.

First of all, consumers have their right to make informed choices.

I firmly believe in and support the consumers' right to information and to take informed decisions about what products they want to purchase.

Consumers want to be in a position to take informed choices. Information on production methods and labelling of products are key to this increased awareness and to the development of a civil responsibility in this respect. I am of course not talking of products which are judged to be unsafe; clearly those should not be put on the market at all.

The Amsterdam Treaty, our new legal framework for European integration, has explicitly introduced the right to information for the consumers. European consumers have consistently demanded that GMO-food be labelled - not for reasons of safety, but in order to make an informed choice. A survey carried out in 1998 showed that 86% of the European consumers demand labelling of GMO food.

I think that consumers in Europe have never been so united on any one issue as on the labelling of GMOs. Regulators and the food industry must ensure that this demand for information is met if GMOs are to win acceptance.

The Commission is currently working on improving the EU-legislation on labelling of GMOs and on the legal framework for a "GMO-free" production line, to which producers can adhere on a voluntary basis. The objective is to provide consumers with clear information and a choice between products.

I believe that an appropriate labelling system of genetically modified food is one of the cornerstones in resolving the current controversy concerning the application of biotechnology to food. Without appropriate consumer information, mistrust about biotechnology and GMO food is bound to proliferate.

I am therefore pleased to see that many other countries, such as Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand, are adopting a similar approach. In some cases they have already acted! This responds to the demands we have had from consumers in the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue.

Information is of course very much linked to the issue of traceability.

A successful food safety policy also demands traceability of feed and food. This obviously applies to GMOs. Adequate procedures to facilitate traceability must be introduced. This includes the obligation for feed and food businesses to ensure that procedures are in place to withdraw feed and food from the market where it presents a risk to the consumer.

It must be emphasised however that unambiguous tracing of feed and food is a complex issue and must take into account the specificity of different sectors and commodities.

Let me now turn to another element: control.

European Consumers have repeatedly stressed the link between consumer acceptance of biotechnology and rigorous and transparent control of GMOs.

Biotechnology is a new area. Because of this I believe that it is fully justified that authorisations should be reviewed and time-limited and that genetically modified organisms are carefully monitored in the light of evolving science. Indeed, when important new scientific information on an authorised product becomes available, a new scientific assessment should be carried out.

Another of the central elements in restoring consumer confidence is to make decisions concerning food safety which are based on science - that is a scientific assessment of potential risks. The Commission is determined to continue to use the best available science in developing its food safety measures.

Under the current European legislation, genetically modified food can only be placed on the European market after it has been scientifically evaluated and when, according to the latest scientific knowledge, it is considered to be safe for human health and the environment. This is a science-based approach.

However, in cases where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain, and where possible risks to health or the environment are unacceptable, measures should be based on the precautionary principle.

This is in line with the consumer demand for a precautionary approach not only in relation to GMOs, but also to a variety of food safety issues, where scientific data are sparse and scientific judgement is uncomfortably imprecise.

The Commission is currently working on a communication defining the precautionary principle and clarifying when and how it can be applied to protect the public while avoiding its use for trade protectionist purposes. The Commission also wants to clarify the conditions for the use of the precautionary principle, and develop multilaterally agreed guidelines for that purpose.

To sum up, I think that the principles I have outlined are fundamental for a new framework on GMOs:

* first and foremost, GMOs must be safe
* there is a need for proper information
* the traceability of novel feed and food must be ensured
* authorisations must be time-limited and
* there must be careful monitoring

They are all contained in the Common Position recently adopted by Council on the revision of the EU-legislation on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment - and I believe that this is the way forward.

The debate on GMOs so far in Europe and elsewhere has been characterised by a great deal of emotion and insufficient reason.

The EU is not against the application of biotechnology but I feel that the biotechnology industry has moved forward very quickly without taking sufficient account of the concerns of society and a parallel failure to inform citizens sufficiently as to the merits of this technology.

A recent Euro-barometer survey revealed that only every second European finds it morally acceptable to apply biotechnology to food.

Opposition to GMOs products has to date been largely found in Europe, but I am aware of growing concerns in the US as well.

I believe we all need to have a predictable and coherent framework in place, and I am determined to do my utmost in full collaboration with my other colleagues in the Commission, in particular the Commissioner in charge of the environment Ms Walstrom, listening to all interested parties.

Many consumers have questioned the benefits of biotechnology to the man in the street. In the public debate, there is a tendency to overlook many different aspects of biotechnology and sometimes to focus on negative effects.

I am sympathetic to the fact that for some products, the benefit to man may not be so obvious. However, it has to be recognised that most of the GMOs currently on the market are not targeted to deliver clear benefits for the consumer, rather to provide benefits for producers.

From a consumer point of view, this has given rise to scepticism, independent from safety questions. The public attitude towards GMO food might change once products with clear benefit to consumers are marketed.

But it is also essential to point to some of the advantages of biotechnology - as many speakers have already done during this conference. Can we afford to ignore the potential offered by biotechnology to address many important medical, environmental and nutritional challenges?

Taking the risk of repeating other speakers let me give you some examples.

For instance, we can now treat children, who suffer from retarded growth, without risking contaminating them with Creutzfeldt-Jacobs Disease, as was the case when we had to rely on growth hormone extracted from cadavers. I need not remind you that the latter practice led to a number of tragic deaths of children.

We can also alleviate the sufferings of haemophiliacs with unlimited sources of coagulation factors free from the AIDS or Hepatitis C viruses, which have killed many patients. For that alone, I think we should be grateful to biotechnology.

Take the situation on rare diseases. As most of them are caused by genetic disorders, the advances in gene technology will contribute very much to the understanding of the causes of these diseases and perhaps lead to a cure.

Gene therapy is currently the biggest hope for people suffering from genetic diseases. Without biotechnology, the causes of such diseases could not have been tackled. However, even though science is an indispensable basis for decisions on food safety measures, we have to acknowledge the inescapable limitations on its role. Determining the acceptable level of risk is a political exercise and cannot be confined to science. In some cases, there are demands - due for instance to ethical or environmental considerations - to go further in the area of health protection measures than the scientific evidence suggest is necessary.

Let me now conclude.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I firmly believe that biotechnology and GMO-products can only prosper in

an environment where

* the consumer is fully recognised as a legitimate stakeholder
* the consumer is given a free choice
* risk/benefit assessments are fully transparent and
* where consumer concerns, including ethical questions, are addressed and taken into account.

Consumers not only want to understand, for instance the health and nutritional implications of their choices, but, in many cases, they are interested in the environmental and ethical implications of the way the products are produced. Clarity and improvement are needed in this area in order to provide essential information to consumers.

We do not solve problems by digging trenches. I have sometimes heard scientists and industrialists dismissing consumers' apprehensions as being groundless and irrational. I do not share this view.

Consumers are entitled to clear information and a free choice of products. It is after all, the consumer who decides what products to buy and who pays.

Only an open-minded, transparent and balanced dialogue between all stakeholders, including the consumer, can in the long-term help to demystify the application of biotechnology.

Thank you for your attention.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

end of Commissioner Byrne's speech

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Articles on Biosafety Protocol

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:26:50 -0500

Green groups applaud intl bio-safety trade pact

BRUSSELS, Jan 29 (Reuters) - Environmental groups on Saturday applauded an agreement reached by international regulators in Montreal on regulating trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used in food.

``This is a historic step towards protecting the environment and consumers from the dangers of genetic engineering,'' Benedikt Haerlin of Greenpeace said in a statement.

``These minimum safety standards must be implemented immediately,'' he said. ``And until the protocol has come into force all exports of GMOs should be prohibited.''

Friends of the Earth in a separate statement also heralded the agreement.

``For the past week the United States and its cronies have been holding the rest of the world to ransom to protect the vested interests of a few companies,'' it said.

``They have not succeeded and now we have a protocol to regulate genetically modified crops and foods.''

11:09 01-29-00

**************************************************************

EU welcomes international bio-safety trade pact

BRUSSELS, Jan 29 (Reuters) - The European Union said on Saturday that it welcomed an agreement reached by international regulators in Montreal on regulating trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used in food.

``This is a historical moment and a breakthrough for international agreements on trade and the environment,'' Margot Wallstron, the European commissioner for environment, said in a statement.

``This agreement will benefit all sides,'' she said. ``It reflects the common will to protect the world's environment and confirms the importance of the Convention on Biodiversity. This international framework eases public concern and creates predictability for industry.''

10:50 01-29-00

**************************************************************

Countries reach landmark GMO food agreement

By Doug Palmer

MONTREAL, Jan 29 (Reuters) - More than 130 countries reached a landmark agreement early on Saturday to regulate trade in genetically modified organisms, a major part of the world's food supply that has raised environmental and health concerns and strained international trade relations.

The U.N.-sponsored agreement strikes a delicate balance between the interests of major exporters of genetically modified crops, such as the United States and Canada, and importers in the European Union and developing countries, which have expressed concerns about the health and environmental impact of the new food varieties.

The agreement, which still must be ratified by 50 countries before it goes into effect, establishes an international framework for countries to use when making decisions about genetically modified crops.

It also requires, for the first time under an international agreement, labeling of commodity shipments that ``may contain'' genetically modified foods. But there is no specific requirement that farmers or the grain industry segregate conventional and modified crops, which the U.S. government said could cost billions of dollars.

``On balance, we think this is an agreement that protects the environment without disrupting world food trade,'' David Sandalow, assistant U.S. secretary of state for oceans, environment and science, told reporters.

European Commission Environmental Minister Margot Wallstrom said the protocol, signed by more than 130 countries, was a victory for consumers and importers and an agreement of which all countries could be proud.

The pact also won praise from both industry groups and environmentalists, who each feared the other would have more influence over the final outcome of a pact on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

GMOs SPARK CONCERN

The term ``genetically modified organisms'' refers to plants and animals containing genes transferred from other species to produce certain characteristics, such as resistance to certain pests and herbicides.

Although any genetically modified organism planted in the United States is subjected to U.S. government testing and approval, some groups feared the new varieties could have adverse environmental and health effects. Many EU consumers, suspicious of genetically engineered crops, favoured blocking their importation.

To reach an agreement, the United States and Canada had to accept stronger language than they wanted recognising the right of countries to use precautions in making import decisions.

With its language on the ``precautionary principle,'' the proposed Biosafety Protocol agreement could set the stage for countries to close their markets to genetically modified crops without conclusive scientific evidence of harm.

At the same time, the agreement also contains a ``savings clause,'' which emphasises the new pact does not override rights and obligations under other international agreements, including the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The United States, which negotiated along with Canada as part of the Miami Group bloc and therefore does not need congressional approval of the pact, insisted on that language to ensure science-based WTO rules would still apply to import decisions.

If a dispute arises over a country's decision to close its market to a food product, the WTO will review the protocol before making a ruling, Wallstrom said.

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Frank Loy acknowledged the pact had some shortcomings from the U.S. point of view. ``Make no mistake. The agreement is not perfect,'' Loy said.

LABELING WOULD BE NEGOTIATED

Once the protocol goes into effect, which could take two or three years, commodity shipments that may contain GMOs will have to be labeled ``may contain'' genetically modified organisms.

At that point, a new round of negotiations on more specific labeling requirements will also have to begin, with the requirement of finishing in two years.

Willy De Greef, director of regulatory and government affairs for Novartis, a Swiss-based company that produces genetically modified corn varieties, said the grain industry is already moving toward segregation.

``What we needed was a framework'' and the protocol provides that, De Greef said.

Steven Daugherty, director of government and industry relations for Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., a U.S. producer of genetically modified seed, also said the protocol's commodity provisions appeared to be workable.

Greenpeace, which had staged protests against genetically modified crops throughout the week of negotiations, also gave its blessings to the pact. ``This is a historic step toward protecting the environment and consumers from the dangers of genetic engineering,'' the group said.

A previous attempt to craft the Biosafety Protocol failed last year in Cartagena, Colombia, mainly because the Miami Group feared it would block trade.

In contrast to the bitterness that pervaded that effort, participants praised the positive atmosphere of this week's negotiations in Montreal.

They also credited Colombian Environmental Minister Juan Myar, who chaired the talks, for forcing negotiators to resolve their many issues to reach an agreement.

11:01 01-29-00

**************************************************************

Deal Reached on Biotech Foods

.c The Associated Press

By MATT CRENSON

MONTREAL (AP) - U.N. talks here finally produced rules governing trade in genetically engineered products Saturday, nearly a year after previous talks collapsed in the face of international discord.

The new rules are complex, and many may be subject to legal challenges or interpretations. But for now they contain language letting a country ban imports of a genetically modified product if it feels there is not enough scientific evidence showing the product is safe.

It requires exporters to label shipments that contain genetically altered commodities such as corn or cotton. It also tries to dictate how those safety rules will coexist with free trade rules governed by the World Trade Organization.

The United States, a major producer of genetically engineered products, had opposed labeling and had fought import bans except in cases where the product is shown to be risky. It was forced to make concessions on those and several other points.

Fighting back tears, the conference's president, Juan Mayr, congratulated his colleagues on reaching a compromise.

``The adoption of this protocol represents a victory for the environment,'' Mayr said.

The protocol is intended to protect the environment from damage due to genetically modified organisms. Environmentalists and some scientists worry that bioengineered plants, animals and bacteria could wipe out native strains or spread their genetic advantages to weeds and other undesirable species.

``There's fish genes in fruit, poultry genes in fish, animal genes in plants, growth hormones in milk, insect genes in vegetables, tree genes in grain and in the case of pork, human genes in meat,'' said Steve Gilman, an organic farmer in Stillwater, N.Y.

A first attempt to draw up a biosafety protocol ended last February in Cartagena, Colombia, when the United States and five partners blocked a pact that was acceptable to the other 125 countries.

Saturday's new agreement came after a week of intense negotiations that pitted the United States and its five allies in the talks - Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay - against the European Union and a coalition of developing nations. As protesters stood outside in single-digit temperatures chanting ``Hey, ho, GMOs have got to go,'' negotiators worked until just before dawn to hammer out the final details.

The EU and developing nations had argued that countries should be allowed to refuse imports of a genetically modified product if little is known about its environmental effect. The United States and its partners had disagreed, saying many of the proposed rules would restrict trade.

But the political situation changed in the last year, with major U.S. food producers like Archer Daniels Midland and Gerber either demanding that genetically modified products be segregated from other products or refusing to use them altogether. Scientific studies have suggested that monarch butterflies and other beneficial insects may be harmed by genetically engineered crops.

And protests at the WTO talks in Seattle last month also suggested that the American public has concerns about genetically altered food.

EU negotiators, whose constituency strongly opposes genetic modifications in food, used the changed climate to exact a number of concessions from the U.S. delegation. Nonetheless, U.S. negotiators said they were satisfied with the final agreement.

``The agreement that we achieved is a very substantial improvement over the agreement we started with,'' U.S. Undersecretary of State Frank Loy said.

In the end, the sides' most serious differences turned out to be over how the biosafety protocol would relate to WTO rules, and whether shipments of genetically modified commodities should be labeled.

Environmentalists have complained in recent years that the WTO's free trade pact has overridden regulations meant to protect human and ecological health. But Saturday's agreement calls for the biosafety protocol and the WTO rules to be ``mutually supportive'' with nothing ``intended to subordinate this Protocol to other international agreements.''

Under the protocol, exporters will be required to apply the label ``may contain living modified organisms'' to all shipments containing genetically altered commodities. The protocol allows for a revision of that labeling policy after two years.

In a legal question mark, the United States has neither signed nor ratified the biodiversity treaty that oversees the new protocol. So technically, the U.S. is not bound to honor it.

``Not being part of this treaty makes it more challenging for us here,'' U.S. negotiator David Sandalow said.

Genetically modified crops are already widespread. About 70 million acres of genetically engineered plants were cultivated worldwide in 1999. In the United States, genetically engineered varieties account for about 25 percent of corn and 40 percent of soybeans.

Biotechnology proponents point to the potential of the technology to increase yields and improve nutrition.

``The longer I use it the more I believe in it,'' said Robert M. Boeding, an Iowa farmer who has grown genetically modified corn for the last five years. He says the modified strain keeps him from having to use dangerous pesticides to protect his crop from insects.

AP-NY-01-29-00 1505EST

**************************************************************

The bio-battle of words

Activists won the propaganda war with clever words and images. The serious-looking guys in suits never stood a chance

MARK ABLEY

The Gazette

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/pages/000129/3512471.html

It was a classic David-vs.-Goliath battle. In one corner: a motley crew of activists and environmentalists from around the world, most of them crammed into a nondescript apartment hotel on Rene Levesque Blvd. In the other: businessmen and bureaucrats from the world's most powerful nation and a few of its close allies, most of them staying in the Delta or the Inter-Continental.

They had all come to Montreal to attend the contentious, drawn-out meetings that saw nearly 140 countries trying to hammer out a Biosafety Protocol under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity. The industry suits represented power and money; the activists represented public anxiety.

David vs. Goliath, then. But as the week wore on, it became crystal-clear just who, in terms of media savvy and public perception, was the beleaguered underdog: the suits of the biotech industry.

There were really two wars being fought in the meeting rooms of the Delta and the nearby International Civil Aviation Building. The first was over the terms of the Protocol: whether it would allow nations to say "no" to genetically modified products, and whether the agreement's prime goal would be to protect biodiversity or trade. The second was to win the consciousness of a North American public that has only begun to wake up to the urgency of the whole biotech debate.

Forceful Stand

In Europe, by contrast, the issue has been hot for years. Hot enough for European governments, nervous of an angry electorate, to take a surprisingly forceful stand this week against the pro-industry position of Canada, the U.S. and the four other grain-exporting countries in the "Miami Group."

The battle for public consciousness was dominated by the activists. They played the media like a Stradivarius. All through the week, each day saw them come up with a new tactic, a startling new image. It might be Greenpeace's massive inflatable corncob, complete with fangs and bloodshot eyes, or its human butterflies with six-foot plywood wings - in each case, a graphic illustration of the doubts about transgenic food and its impact on nature.

It might be Friends of the Earth's subversive menu of genetically modified food, given to the press a few hours before the politicians dined in the St. James Club, or their emerald-coloured poster asking citizens to locate Canada's environment minister, David Anderson, "who was last seen making excuses."

It might be Biotech Action Montreal's candlelight vigil in sub-Arctic temperatures "to enlighten Canadian negotiators," or the march it helped to organize as the meetings began.

Of course, the activists had no control over the way their demonstrations would be reported in the press. Last Saturday's march through the chilly streets, for example. Were there "more than 600" protesters, as The Gazette reported? Were there "about 1,000," as the Associated Press said? Or was it just a "troupe of 300," as a National Post columnist declared?

However many they were, the demonstrators were pictured in newspapers as far away as Hong Kong and Madrid. They got their point across to the world: whatever compromise deal the bureaucrats were trying to cook up, large numbers of ordinary citizens wanted nothing to do with it.

Admittedly, the industry did its best. To put their viewpoint across, their spokesmen were working hand-in-hand with National Public Relations, one of Canada's leading PR companies.

Uphill Task

John Wildgust, a former journalist and broadcaster, was among the NPR officials handling the file for the Global Industry Coalition. When a feature article appeared inThe Gazette on Jan. 20 that cast Canada's position into question, Wildgust drafted a letter-to-the-editor that reached the newspaper the same day and was published on Jan. 22.

The front man for the coalition - and the official writer of that letter - was actually a woman: Joyce Groote. The executive director of BIOTECanada (an industry group with more than 100 member companies), she also headed the Global Industry Coalition, a lobby group for more than 2,200 firms worldwide.

Despite NPR's efforts, however, the industry lobby often seemed a step behind the activists. Wildgust realized he was facing an uphill task.

"It's a crappy idea, I know," he confided on Tuesday, "but I've been thinking about bringing in all those studies that prove the safety of genetically modified food, and stacking them in a 7-foot-high pile. It would show the weight of the scientific evidence."

By Thursday, he had abandoned the notion.

"The problem is," Wildgust said, "you guys in the media would want to read them all."

Or take the case of the battling farmers. Early in the week, the Global Industry Coalition flew in four farmers from the North American Midwest - all of them white, earnest, middle-aged men in glasses and suits.

One of them, a Manitoba wheat-grower, offered the stunning non-sequitur: "I get up in the morning and use the margarine on my toast, so there's no reason not to use Round-Up Ready canola in my fields."

Next morning, Greenpeace countered. In co-operation with the Third World Network, it brought in "Farmers Against Genetic Pollution." There were five of them; they came from five countries on three continents, and spoke four mother tongues; but their pro-organic message was the same. To deadline-strapped journalists, here was a story already packaged and gift-wrapped.

One PR professional, speaking from his Toronto office on condition of anonymity, agreed that Greenpeace is "extraordinarily good" at conducting an emotional debate. The opinion polls he has seen over the last few months show that Greenpeace and other interest groups, such as the Council of Canadians and the Sierra Club, have succeeded in weakening "the inherent trust that Canadians have in their food." A large and growing percentage of the public is now uneasy about the food it buys.

This source - a former newspaperman - now advises major players in the biotechnology industry. He has trained many government scientists to deal with the media. But to his frustration, their pro-biotech message has not yet got across. Now the PR man is contemplating fresh tactics.

"I've been urging my clients to use women as spokespeople," he said, "so I'm glad to see Joyce Groote playing a prominent role in Montreal. Women spokespeople have more credibility with the people who actually buy groceries: other women.

"The industry should also collaborate more - part of the trouble with the pro-GM side is that lots of people have been coming at the issue from different directions. And they need to give the TV people something to show on the screens other than just Greenpeace ranting and blowing up inflatable ears of corn."

On Thursday, a sign of the industry's frustration mysteriously appeared on a table in the atrium of the ICAO Building. The table featured the usual barrage of statements and press releases from environmental groups and official delegations (the European Union took the unofficial prize for Most Boring Communique of the Week thanks to a statement titled "Commissioner Wallstrom urges all parties to do their utmost.")

But that morning, there were also multiple copies of a yellow sheet titled "The Growing Consensus: Greenpeace Values Rhetoric Over Real Progress on Environmental Issues." Call it anonymous agitprop from the biotech side: the page of anti-Greenpeace diatribes came with no attribution. Industry officials denied all knowledge of the matter.

Beyond the clear bitterness of the diatribe, you can see it as a backhanded tribute to the protesters' success. The authorized information coming from the industry side was often dull as ditchwater. Compare the prose in these two handouts offered to the media, one called "Capacity Building: The Biotechnology Industry Perspective," the other called "Warning: Unsafe Trade Partners on the Loose in Montreal."

- "Identification of priority status, determined through the application of appropriate criteria, and economic impact assessments should be performed prior to initiation of projects. As well, certain basic elements are required to facilitate biotechnology development such as institutional procedures and government policies." (source: BIOTECanada)

- "The passionate and strong defence of the precautionary principle taken by the European delegation is very welcome. The position of countries like America and Canada is inexcusable, isolated and untenable. People throughout the world have the right to protect their environment and be safe rather than sorry." (source: Friends of the Earth International)

The activists were fast as well as smart. On Thursday afternoon, Friends of the Earth were passing out a press statement, printed on their trademark green paper, less than 10 minutes after the chairman of the meetings, Colombia's Juan Mayr, had adjourned a plenary session in visible dismay at the tactics of the Miami Group - led, or at least represented, by Canada.

But the effectiveness of the protest movement went beyond rapid response, crisp prose and visually arresting devices like the huge corncob and the human butterflies. For the protesters at Montreal also included groups with a proven scientific track record. Their presence made it hard for the biotech industry to claim with any conviction that this was a battle between science on the one hand and superstition on the other.

The World Wildlife Fund, for example, issued a long report called "GM Technology in the Forest Sector." It pointed out that while at least 116 field trials have taken place around the world on genetically modified trees, little research has been done on the overall environmental impact of the technology. Pine pollen has been shown to travel as far as 600 kilometres, making genetic threats to the wild environment more than merely theoretical. A corn plant lasts but a summer; trees endure for years.

From Britain, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds weighed in with a draft discussion paper, aimed squarely at delegates to the conference, demolishing the arguments in favour of a "savings clause" that Canada and its few allies had made. Such a clause would leave the entire protocol at the mercy of World Trade Organization panels that could override the efforts of individual nations to decide against genetically modified products.

Yet it was Greenpeace, for better or worse, that symbolized the fight against the biotech industry. Greenpeace has branches in at least 30 countries, many of which sent a representative to Montreal - so that delegates from the Czech Republic or Argentina, say, could be pressured by activists from back home.

Steve Shallhorn, the campaign director of Greenpeace Canada, admitted that winning a strong protocol was only one of his three goals in Montreal:

"We also want to let consumers know what biotechnology has in store for them. And we want to expose the close relationship between the Canadian government and the biotech industry.

"One of the Canadian delegates admitted that they foresee a future in which regular food will be sold at a premium to a niche market, while the masses will be eating genetically modified food. I think that shows an incredible arrogance toward the public he's paid to represent."

Just as the biotech industry is unwilling to admit that the proliferation of genetically modified organisms has any dangers, Greenpeace is unwilling to admit that biotechnology has any real benefits. It's rare to find an environmental issue on which the positions are not only so harsh but so opposed. Common ground? Forget it.

"The public attention to what's going on here has had an enormous influence," said Michael Khoo, genetic engineering campaigner for Greenpeace Canada. "The sustained consumer interest in what a bunch of bureaucrats have been doing all week - this is something unique."

But in the end, the debate wasn't just about trade or science. It was also about values. Joyce Groote of BIOTECanada admitted as much when she said, "It comes down to something fundamental. We're in business to be accountable; the other side is not. And there's a very high ethical culture in the industry."

Greenpeace's Khoo was happy to talk about science. But he also wanted to evoke "a silent, moral majority, made up of people from all walks of life, that's running in our favour. There's a general moral feeling that it's not right to cross the species boundary."

Both sides insist that in the assessment of risk, impartial science is on their side. For a layman, it's hard to assess the rival claims. Yet if the question comes down to ethics, the biotech industry may have good reason to be running scared.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Deal Reached on Biotech Foods
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 14:24:14 -0500

Wire Service: APO (AP Online)

By MATT CRENSON
Associated Press Writer

MONTREAL (AP) -- After negotiations late into the night, delegates today reached an international agreement on the trade of genetically modified food and other products.

Just before dawn, Colombia's environment minister Juan Mayr announced to a conference hall full of delegates that the yearlong stalemate had ended.

"The adoption of this protocol represents a victory for the environment," Mayr said, fighting back tears. "But don't forget that this only represents the beginning. We have still before us a great challenge."

The Biosafety Protocol to the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity provides rules intended to protect the environment from damage by genetically modified plants, animals and bacteria.

The protocol allows a country to ban imports of a genetically modified product if it feels there is not enough scientific evidence showing the product is safe. It also provides rules for the transport and labeling, requiring that the words "may contain living modified organisms" appear on all shipments of genetically altered commodities, such as corn and cotton.

"The text is good from our point of view -- very good," said Adrian Bebb, an environmental activist with Friends of the Earth.

Environmentalists and a few scientific studies have raised concerns that genetically modified organisms could wipe out native species, disrupt natural cycles and cause other ecological damage.

The European Union and developing nations argued that countries should be allowed to refuse imports of a genetically modified product if little is known about its environmental effect.

But the United States and its partners disagreed, saying many of the proposed rules would restrict trade.

Today, U.S. negotiators said they were satisfied with the final agreement.

"On balance we think this is an agreement that protects the environment without disrupting world food trade," said head U.S. delegate David Sandalow.

Negotiations stretched hours beyond Friday night's deadline as delegates struggled over the intricacies of the deal.

In one of the main compromises, the United States and its supporters were able to amend rules that would have required labels to give specific details on what genetically modified materials are in a product.

Under the compromise, for two years after the protocol comes into effect, labels must say only that a product may contain such materials, without specifics. During those two years, negotiators will work out more specific labels.

Negotiators also reached a compromise on the thorny issue of how the protocol would relate to the World Trade Organization. After months of debate over which treaty should prevail, it was finally decided that the two should be "mutually supportive," with a specific statement in the document declaring that nothing in it is "intended to subordinate this Protocol to other international agreements."

Peter Hardstaff, a trade expert with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said that wording effectively leaves the relationship between the two treaties to the WTO's dispute resolution panel.

"This is continuing the muddle about trade versus international environmental protection," Hardstaff said.

Talks last February in Cartagena, Colombia, ended in disarray when the United States and five other countries -- Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay -- rejected a draft agreement favored by 125 other countries.

The situation has changed since then, with major U.S. food producers such as Archer Daniels Midland, Gerber and the Iams pet food company either demanding that genetically modified products be segregated or refusing to use them altogether. Protests at the WTO talks in Seattle last month also suggest that the American public has concerns about genetically altered food.

"In the year since Cartagena, it has become obvious that the position of the (United States') group is increasingly isolated," said Philip Bereano, a University of Washington professor who has been following the talks.

Genetically modified crops are already widespread. About 70 million acres of genetically engineered plants were cultivated worldwide in 1999. In the United States, genetically engineered varieties account for about 25 percent of corn and 40 percent of soybeans.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Pandora's pantry

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 13:47:14 -0500

Mother Jones

Pandora's Pantry

In its rush to approve genetically engineered food, the government ignored warnings from its own scientists about threats to human health and the environment. Finally, the tough questions are being asked.

by Jon R. Luoma

January/February 2000

Trudy Burgess stands beside an orange-and-black bus parked in downtown Invercargill, New Zealand, urging residents to think before they eat. As people pass the eye-catching vehicle on this October day, Burgess warns them of a potential danger they probably faced over breakfast: food from plants that have been genetically altered. "The reality is that 60 percent of all processed foods are at risk," Burgess explains to a local reporter. "We want people to be more discerning when they are shopping."

Talk Back to the FDA: Thursday, Jan. 13, is the deadline for public comment on the Food and Drug Administration's genetically engineered food policy. Make your opinions heard here.

Burgess and other activists also want to keep genetically engineered (GE) foods off the market while the New Zealand government studies the health and environmental effects of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another. So far, more than 91,000 New Zealanders have signed a petition calling for a moratorium on genetically engineered foods imported from the United States. Throughout Europe and Asia, a growing number of scientists, elected officials, and activists have sounded the alarm over bioengineered agriculture. Japan, the largest importer of American crops, is now considering mandatory labeling of GE products. Some European nations have stopped buying U.S. corn in order to stop any gene-altered grain at their borders.

The mainstream media in the United States has mainly portrayed the widespread international concern as little more than a foreign backlash against the increasing Americanization of the planet. "Where it was once the deployment of American Pershing-2 missiles that caused alarm," The New York Times declared last summer, "now it is McDonald's, Coca-Cola, genetically modified American corn and American beef fattened with growth hormones that have Europe up in arms."

In the past few months, however, the worldwide revolt over gene-altered foods has begun to take root in this country -- sowing apprehension in the boardrooms of biotechnology giants like Monsanto and Novartis Seeds. In November, the industry launched a multimillion-dollar public relations blitz to counteract the growing chorus of opposition. The protests have "crossed the boundaries of reasonableness," Edward Shonsey, chief executive of Novartis, told the Times, "and now it's up to us to protect and defend biotechnology."

But polishing the image of biotech foods won't make them any easier to swallow -- or any less risky. Research suggests that genetic engineering of food products could create unexpected new allergens or contaminate products in unanticipated ways, resulting in threats to public health. Critics of the rapid introduction of GE crops into the food supply point to one particularly alarming incident in which dozens of people were killed and 1,500 others afflicted by an excruciatingly painful disorder scientists suspect is linked to a bacterium engineered to produce the food supplement L-tryptophan. In addition, many scientists fear that bioengineered crops could spark widespread ecological damage, creating insecticide-resistant bugs and herbicide-resistant "superweeds" that would make kudzu and purple loosestrife look like so many summer dandelions.

The potential impacts on human health are the ones that have stirred the most consumer protest. Instead of thoroughly responding to such concerns, critics say, the Food and Drug Administration -- the agency charged with safeguarding the food supply -- has bowed to the influence of major biotech corporations -- in particular, Monsanto, which has enjoyed an especially cozy revolving-door relationship with FDA regulators.

According to internal documents, the FDA ignored objections from several of its own top scientists when it ruled, in a landmark 1992 policy statement, that genetically engineered foods are similar to those produced by traditional plant breeding, and are hence "generally recognized as safe." Despite mounting scientific concern, the Clinton administration still adheres to that policy, requiring nowhere near the intensity of testing that would apply to a food additive, such as an artificial sweetener -- let alone a drug. In addition, the FDA requests only that firms conduct their own safety assessments of new products containing GE components. The FDA has received such self-assessments for each GE product it has approved so far, but "does not conduct a scientific review of the firm's decision [to bring the product to market]," according to an agency spokesperson. It also allows the companies to place these foods on supermarket shelves without providing any information on the label to tell consumers what they're getting.

Today an estimated 60 percent of all processed foods -- from candy bars and tortilla chips to tofu dogs and infant formula -- contain at least one genetically engineered component. This year, American farmers planted an estimated 60 million acres -- an area the size of the United Kingdom -- with genetically engineered crops, accounting for nearly half of all soybeans and a third of all corn in the United States. Without rigorous testing and accurate labeling, there is simply no way to predict what kinds of dangers such foods may pose, say critics of the FDA policy.

The current lack of regulation "is like playing Russian roulette with public health," says Philip J. Regal, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who has published widely on the risks of GE foods. "We've had years and years of scientific discussion about this, and the conclusion is very clear," he adds. "If it continues along this path, some of these foods are eventually going to hurt somebody."

In a sense, humans have been genetically manipulating food for centuries. Traditional plant breeding could be called a form of genetic engineering: Farmers routinely select strains of crops for desirable characteristics such as higher yields, disease resistance, and more pleasing textures or colors. But there is one key difference: In traditional plant breeding, genes are mixed between apples and apples, so to speak -- that is, between plants that are closely related, if not virtually identical, from a genetic standpoint. The protests over genetically engineered foods center instead on the potential hazards of "clipping" a gene sequence from the DNA of one plant or animal species (using specialized enzymes as the scissors), then inserting it into the DNA of another species.

Consider one way scientists create seeds for corn that carries a gene for toxicity to certain insects -- a gene captured from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. Geneticists link the Bt gene to a DNA strand containing a "marker" gene for antibiotic resistance. This combined DNA fragment is then literally blasted into plant cells with a "gene gun," and some of these target cells spawn plants that secrete the Bt toxin -- and are able to kill the insects that would otherwise eat them. Farmers purchase the engineered seeds from these plants, typically at a high cost premium, on the assumption that they will need to spray less chemical pesticide on their crops.

The problem with such gene splicing, say some leading scientists, is that transferring genes between different plant species -- or even between animals and plants -- can change the characteristics of crops in unintended and perhaps dangerous ways. Even those who believe that many or even most bioengineered foods will ultimately be proven safe have serious concerns. Dr. Rebecca Goldburg, a biologist with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) who has followed the new science closely for more than a decade, cautions, "Companies are manipulating the food supply in ways never before possible. People need to know that some of these foods could turn out to be unhealthy to eat or harmful to the environment."

Gene-altered crops may endanger human health in several ways. New crops could produce unexpected allergens, or chemicals that can interfere with enzymes or hormones in the body. (Disruption of hormones in a pregnant woman's body can be profoundly damaging to her offspring.) One of the most disturbing prospects is that engineered proteins from living things that humans have never consumed will end up in supermarket foods, and that some could trigger heretofore unknown health effects.

Some of the earliest attempts at modified foods indicate just how risky genetic tampering can be. Seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred developed a soybean containing DNA from Brazil nuts that boosted levels of the amino acid methionine, making the beans more nutritious as animal feed. Many observers were quick to endorse the new bean. "Because brazil nuts and methionine are known to be safe," the Washington Post declared in 1992, "the new soybean variety might not require formal FDA approval." As it happens, the Post's optimism was unfounded. The company later realized that people allergic to Brazil nuts might also be allergic to the beans -- some of which would have inevitably found their way into soy-based products for human consumption. In 1996, Pioneer withdrew the product.

Not every company has acted so quickly. Scientists are still questioning whether gene-altered bacteria used to make the dietary supplement L-tryptophan caused deadly consequences. L-tryptophan is an essential amino acid that occurs naturally in such foods as turkey and milk. It plays a crucial role in the production of the brain chemicals serotonin and melatonin, and consumers have used it as a dietary supplement to treat depression, sleep disorders, and a variety of other physical and psychological ailments. In the past, manufacturers produced it by extracting it from bacteria. But in the 1980s, a Japanese company, Showa Denko K.K., developed a method to boost production of the chemical: It inserted new genes into the bacteria, inducing them to make greater amounts of L-tryptophan.

In 1989, shortly after the product hit the shelves, more than 1,500 Americans became afflicted with a mysterious ailment dubbed Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome, a debilitating disorder that can cause severe muscle pain, heart problems, memory defects, and paralysis. Thirty-seven people died during the outbreak. Nearly all the victims had been taking Showa Denko's L-tryptophan, which was found to contain potent traces of toxic compounds. Scientific studies were unable to prove conclusively what generated the toxins. But scientists in the United States and Canada have published analyses indicating that the genetic engineering may have boosted the concentrations of L-tryptophan produced by the bacteria, causing molecules of the compound to bond, thus producing the toxins.

Beyond human health concerns, genetic engineering poses potential threats to the environment. One of the biotech industry's goals is to develop crops that are resistant to herbicides. That, in turn, would enable farmers to saturate their fields with potent herbicides, killing all the weeds but allowing the crop to survive; for the seed makers, this could lead to greater demand for their own herbicides. Monsanto, in fact, has already developed corn and soybeans that are highly resistant to its commercially successful herbicide, Roundup. After 2002, the company plans to introduce "Roundup Ready" wheat. But there's a catch: Many scientists fear that the wheat will hybridize with -- and pass its herbicide tolerance to -- a closely related weed called goat grass. The resulting hybrid could become what the EDF's Goldburg calls a "superweed," invulnerable even to an herbicide as powerful as Roundup.

Other genetically engineered crops might also cause unintended damage to ecosystems. Last year, scientists from Cornell University reported in the journal Nature that pollen from Bt-laced corn could escape from farm fields, settle on nearby milkweed plants, and kill the larvae of beneficial insects, such as monarch butterflies, that feed on milkweed. Though the biotech industry's leading trade group dismissed the report, the Union of Concerned Scientists and four leading environmental groups called on the EPA to restrict the planting of Bt corn and study the product's effects.

All of this -- the threat to monarchs, the potentially allergenic Hi-Bred soybeans, the illness and death linked to tainted L- tryptophan -- comes as no surprise to Dr. Richard Lacey. A professor of medical microbiology at the University of Leeds and an expert on food safety, Lacey predicted the malady that descended on Britain in the mid-1990s and came to be called "mad cow disease." "Recombinant DNA technology is an inherently risky method for producing new foods," insists Lacey. "Its risks are in large part due to the complexity and interdependency of the parts of a living system, including its DNA. Wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random manner into an organism's genome necessarily causes some degree of disruption, and the disruption could be multifaceted."

The danger, adds Lacey, lies in how little we know. "It is impossible to predict what specific problems could result in the case of any particular genetically engineered organism," he says.

Given the potential risks -- and the warnings from respected scientists -- how did genetically engineered crops find their way onto farms, and then into supermarkets, with such ease? A review of the federal policymaking process, supported by testimony and documents from a lawsuit against the FDA, suggests that the political influence of the biotech industry effectively silenced government regulators charged with safeguarding the public.

The hands-off approach to regulation began during the Bush administration, which was eager to foster a nascent biotech industry with the potential to generate corporate profits and foreign trade. On May 21, 1992, only days before the FDA issued its permissive policy on GE foods, a top administration official weighed in. James B. MacRae Jr., assistant administrator of the Office of Management and Budget, sent a memo to White House counsel C. Boyden Gray suggesting that the policy "should avoid emphasizing obligatory FDA review and oversight," and instead allow the industry to regulate itself "with informal FDA consultation only if significant safety or nutritional concerns arise." MacRae also suggested that the FDA policy "should state that newer techniques actually may produce safer foods." (The budget bureaucrat's sanguine prediction appeared, verbatim, in the final document.)

But the FDA did more than yield to political pressure -- it also ignored the concerns of its own experts. According to internal memos and computer files uncovered during a lawsuit brought against the agency in 1998 by two public interest groups, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity and the International Center for Technology Assessment, some of the government's own scientists disagreed with its developing policy.

In 1992, the year the policy was issued, Dr. Louis J. Pribyl of the FDA's Microbiology Group warned in an internal memo of "a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering." Dr. Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, concurred that plant breeding and genetic engineering are different processes, adding that "according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."

In a letter written the previous October, James Maryanski, manager of the FDA's biotechnology working group, acknowledged that some scientists felt strongly that more testing was needed. "As I know you are aware," he wrote to Canadian counterparts working on a policy of their own, "there are a number of specific issues for which a scientific consensus does not exist currently, especially the need for specific toxicology tests."

And that December, Dr. Mitchell J. Smith, head of the Department of Health and Human Service's Biological and Organic Chemistry Section, drafted a memo to the FDA urging regulators not to repeat the errors of the past: "Just because the agency failed to evaluate 'new substances' introduced by conventional breeding," Smith wrote, "gives it no reason to continue to do so now with new biotechnology."

But when the FDA was confronted in court with evidence of such internal opposition, the agency responded by suggesting that the comments were only from low-level employees. "The FDA has not denied in court that their scientists made those statements," says attorney Steven Druker, who directs the Iowa-based Alliance for Bio-Integrity. "They're now claiming that those were the views of a handful of 'low-level employees,' which is a misrepresentation."

Other testimony offered in the lawsuit indicates that some government experts had been questioning the safety of GE foods all along. Biologist Regal testified that while attending a 1988 conference in Maryland he spoke with several FDA scientists concerned about biotech crops. "I was shocked to learn the extent of uncertainty" over the safety of GE foods, he recalled. "Government scientist after scientist acknowledged there was no way to assure the safety of genetically engineered foods. Several expressed the idea that, in order to take this important step of progress, society was going to have to bear an unavoidable measure of risk."

Some observers expected that the Clinton administration would adopt a harder line against genetically modified foods, especially since Vice President Al Gore had taken a keen interest in the subject well before the 1992 election. In the early 1980s, then-Senator Gore had chaired a congressional subcommittee that criticized the government for inadequately assessing the risks of biotech organisms; he had again criticized the biotech industry in a 1991 law journal article. But under Clinton, the FDA has stuck to its laissez-faire policy, and the administration itself has taken up biotech promotion with gusto, leaning heavily on foreign governments to accept genetically engineered foods created by U.S. biotech giants. I n 1998, for instance, the administration threatened to withdraw from a proposed trade pact if New Zealand required labeling of gene-altered foods.

This heavy-handed approach has failed to quell growing public suspicion of biotech products, both at home and abroad. Last August two major Japanese breweries, the Kirin Brewery Company and Sapporo Breweries, announced that they would not use gene-altered corn in their beer, and the Gerber and H.J. Heinz baby-food makers have also rejected modified ingredients. Whole Foods Market, the nation's largest natural foods chain, requires suppliers of its house brands to certify that their products contain no genetically modified substances, and requests the same of all other suppliers. And soybean exporter Archer Daniels Midland has instituted a two-tiered price system, offering farmers 18 cents extra per bushel of traditional soybeans because it is having trouble selling modified soybeans overseas.

Public outcry has forced Congress to consider regulation. After more than 500,000 people signed a petition demanding tougher controls for gene-altered foods, a bipartisan group of 20 representatives introduced legislation in November that would require labeling of genetically engineered products. A parallel Senate bill is in development at this writing.

For its part, the FDA says it is already doing enough to protect the public. "We do feel that the current regulatory scheme is adequate," an FDA spokesperson told Mother Jones. That sentiment is echoed by Dr. Nega Beru, a consumer-safety officer in the agency's regulatory policy branch. Asked how the FDA can maintain a policy that these foods are "generally recognized as safe" when a large number of well-credentialed scientists say they do not recognize them as such, Beru responded, "We're not aware of any information that shows that these foods possess any unique health concerns, and we're not aware that these foods are any different than foods produced by traditional methods." In short, the philosophic underpinnings of the 1992 policy on GE foods still prevail.

Still, the FDA's spokesperson said the agency is in "listening mode," pointing to public meetings that it had planned for late 1999 in Washington, Chicago, and Oakland. The meetings, she said, were for "anyone who is interested to tell us about any new science or about ways we can better inform the public about these products." Afterward, she added, the FDA would review the comments "over some unspecified period of time."

Given its wait-and-see attitude -- and its close ties to the industry -- the FDA appears unlikely to use its authority to slow the biotech juggernaut without additional pressure from the public or Congress. "They've been holding hearings like this for 15 years," says Regal. "They spend a lot of money holding meetings, listen and take lots of notes, maybe even invite a few scientists in to be the conscience of the republic. Then nothing changes."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Resources on Genetically Modified Foods

* The Center for Food Safety

Tell the FDA and your Congressional representatives what you think with only a few keystrokes. (The page includes a form letter that you can send as is or personalized.)

* Alliance for Bio-Integrity
Read original documents in which FDA scientists raised concerns over the 1992 policy.

* The Food and Drug Administration's Bioengineered Foods page
* The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
* Center for Food Safety Home Page
* The Biodemocracy Campaign
* Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Page

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Thais resisting Monsanto's BT cotton

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:36:14 -0500

http://www.marketwatch.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=CojeIub8ZqKTlmtaZnJu2&FQ=c%25MTC%20&Title=Headlines%20for%3A%20MTC%0A

INTERVIEW-Thais resisting Monsanto's BT cotton

Reuters Story - January 28, 2000 07:14

By Ekarin Petsiri

BANGKOK, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Monsanto Thailand said on Friday it faced resistance to its plan to introduce biotechnology (BT) cotton commercially in Thailand.

"It's one of the toughest tasks we have ever been through, attempting to convince the government on the safety standards of BT cotton. I think Thailand has set very tough rules on genetically modified organism (GMO) products," general manager for the agricultural sector, Sanya Bhumichitra, told Reuters.

"It would take some more time, perhaps a year or two, to go on with the BT cotton plan. Anyway, it totally depends on the authorities," he said in an interview.

Monsanto Thailand, a unit of the New York-listed Monsanto Co , wants to bring in pest resistant BT cotton seeds to try to help boost Thai cotton yields and cut expensive imports.

But the move has been roundly opposed by environmentalists claiming the introduction of BT cotton into the market would affect local varieties and possibly public health.

Opposition to GMO products in Thailand, a leading world commodities exporter, has led to import bans on over 40 BT agricultural items.

Sanya said Thailand imported about 95 percent of cotton worth about 16 billion baht consumed locally. It was paradoxical that Thailand, a leading world textile producer still had to rely largely on imported raw materials.

"Thailand is losing its competitive edge to China and Indonesia, where labour costs are much cheaper. Moreover, China has started planting BT cotton and will soon have an edge over us in term of material sourcing," he added.

"The environmentalists have never looked at the other side of the coin. This BT cotton is going to do more good than harm. Why do we keep on with cotton that returns lower yield?" he said.

Sanya said Monsanto also had plans to import seeds for BT corn, which is drought-resistant and requires small amounts of pesticide.

"Considering the lengthy process of screening BT cotton, I believe it would take years for the government to deregulate its existing ban on BT corn," he said.

Monsanto said it has 30 percent of Thailand's corn seed market, the second largest market share.

The Charoen Pokphand Group dominates about half of the market where demand was about 18,000 tonnes of corn seeds, worth 1.2 billion baht, last year.

Monsanto's seed sales in 1999 were worth about two billion baht, rising 10 percent from the previous year. The company has projected sales growth of about 15 percent this year. $1 = 37.5 baht

((Bangkok Newsroom +66-2 637 5500 ext 417

e-mail:bangkok.newsroomreuters.com))

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: BBC on Biosafety Protocol

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:19:37 -0500

From BBC News :

http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F623000/623343.stm

Countries will have the right to restrict imports of genetically-modified foods under an international agreement reached at talks in Montreal.

(Sidebar)
What the deal means
* Covers food, seeds, animal feeds and medicine
* Import restrictions "on basis of sound science"
* GM products must carry general labelling
* Detailed labelling rules in two years

The United States, Canada and four other grain-producing nations had

argued that such limits would break the World Trade Organisation's free

trade rules.

But after protracted negotiations, the 133 nations at the Montreal conference agreed that the new bio-safety protocol would have equal status with WTO regulations.

The argument for safeguards had come from the European Union and developing countries.

The agreement allows countries to restrict imports of GM products if they fear that these products may harm human health or get into the environment and damage it.

It covers foodstuffs, as well as seeds for farmers and feed for animals.

"On balance, we think this is an agreement that protects the environment without disrupting world trade," said David Sandalow, Assistant US Secretary of State for Oceans, Environment and Science.

Labelling

The deal was reached after intensive bilateral negotiations between representatives of the major exporters of GM products such as Canada and the United States, and negotiators representing the EU and the developing countries.

One sticking point had been US opposition to the European Union's proposals that all GM foods are labelled to alert consumers.

The two sides agreed that shipments of GM commodities should bear labels saying they "may contain" genetically-modified organisms and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment.

The deal also requires countries to begin negotiations on more specific labelling requirements to take effect no later than two years after the protocol enters into force.

Talks over the treaty stalled in Colombia last February when the US, Canada, Australia, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile would not agree to a draft accepted by 125 other countries.

The two sides clashed again on the issue at the unsuccessful Seattle trade talks in December.

The Montreal negotiations started on Monday amid demonstrations by campaigners who believe that GM foods pose a health threat to humans and wildlife.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

LA Times article...

Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:05:18 -0800 (PST)

Cornucopia of Biotech Food Awaits Labeling
* Nutrition: Many products now found in the supermarket are affected by some degree of genetic alteration.

Monday, January 31, 2000

By PAUL JACOBS, LA Times Staff Writer

The international trade agreement reached this weekend to require labeling of genetically modified agricultural commodities is a boost to activists who are calling for an even more extensive scheme to slap labels on all food products that contain any trace of a biotech engineered ingredient.

Yet, carried to that extreme, few foods on U.S. supermarket shelves would escape labeling.

That's because genetic engineering, far more than most consumers realize, has transformed the nation's food supply over the last decade, changing the way a host of products are made, from bread to cheese, soft drinks to vitamins, and even some kinds of beer.

The international debate over genetically modified foods has generally focused on the crops themselves--grains, fruits and vegetables that have been transformed by splicing genes from one species into another, such as corn with built-in insecticides or soybeans that resist weedkillers.

But even if the plants were banished from the fields, it would be almost impossible to avoid foods produced with the help of genetic engineering, some of which have been on the market for 10 years.

Under the "biosafety protocol" agreement reached at a U.N.-sponsored meeting in Montreal, importers would have to be warned of grains and seeds that "may contain living modified organisms."

The treaty, however, does not resolve growing demands by critics of biotechnology, who are calling for labeling of any food if genetic engineering is used at any stage of its processing--whether it be an egg laid by a chicken fed biotech corn or a block of cheddar made with a milk-clotting protein from a genetically altered bacterium.

And the kind of labeling now being considered by Congress and the California Legislature and in a state ballot initiative now in circulation could cover any ingredient, whether the traces of the genetically modified organism that produced it can be detected in the final product.

"Labeling will empower consumers to make some choice," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has introduced legislation that would require labeling "without regard to whether the altered material or cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable in the material."

Kucinich and other critics of biotech foods raise two sorts of health and safety questions. Environmentalists worry that crops equipped with genes from other species to produce their own insecticides or to resist weedkiller will prove harmful to beneficial insects while creating super bugs and super weeds that will be very difficult to control.

The Montreal agreement is intended to address this issue by notifying countries when genetically modified grains and seeds are part of a shipment and giving the importing countries the choice to accept them.

But opponents of biotech food crops also raise concerns about potential health problems--unknown toxins and allergens that might inadvertently be introduced into foods--and they want labeling at the consumer level.

Public support for a labeling requirement has been building, first in Europe and Japan, and now in the United States.

With the help of health food stores across the country, the Natural Law Party last June delivered to Congress 500,000 signatures on a petition for labeling.

The political party's proposal would cover "all products prepared or processed using genetically engineered enzymes or other processing agents, whether those agents are present in the final product or not."

The measure would require labels on dairy and meat products from livestock that have been fed genetically engineered feed or treated with genetically engineered hormones, although the end product has no detectable level of the ingredient.

"These experimental techniques are rather crude and can create unforeseen mutations in the food itself, and those mutations can create allergens or toxins in food," said the party's press secretary, Robert Roth, voicing concerns shared by a number of environmental activists.

Without labeling, however, it is almost impossible to know which foods are processed with ingredients from bacteria or yeasts that have been transformed with a gene, a piece of DNA, transferred from another species.

U.S. officials and industry executives insist there is no danger. And a decade-long history of safety, they argue, backs up their contention that there is no difference in the safety of biotech foods from the traditional products they have replaced.

"We have no evidence of food safety issues here," said Laura Tarantino, deputy director of the FDA's office of premarket approval.

Firms Consult With FDA About Safety

Many companies consult with the FDA about health and safety issues raised by the use of food ingredients produced by genetically engineered organisms, but there is no requirement to do so for compounds that have a history of use in food processing or are similar to food additives that are regarded as safe.

The chemicals made through biotechnology, including widely used enzymes that convert starch into sugars, "are not in the food," said Michael J. Phillips, executive director for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which opposes labeling. "They're used in the process to derive the food. Try to put that information on a label."

Requiring such labels would result in "an encyclopedia" of fine print about intermediate steps in food production that have no impact on health and safety, he said.

Such labeling would be so extensive that it would be like wallpapering the supermarket, agreed Martina McLouglin, director of the biotechnology program at UC Davis. "It is everywhere," she said, arguing that there is no need to label products that have proven both safe and beneficial.

Labeling proponents, however, worry about unexpected contamination showing up in foods under a regulatory system that is largely voluntary and relies on manufacturers to ensure the safety of their products.

And many activists cite what they see as an example of biotech gone wrong: A 1989 epidemic of a potentially fatal illness--called eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome--that was linked to high doses of a popular nutritional supplement, L-tryptophan, a seemingly harmless amino acid that was touted for a variety of minor human ills.

The Food and Drug Administration ordered its manufacturer, Showa Denko of Japan, to pull the product from the market.

Just before the epidemic, which affected at least 1,500 consumers, the company altered the way it purified the product, said James H. Maryanski, the FDA's biotechnology coordinator. Some batches were produced by genetically engineered organisms.

"We cannot say definitely that genetic engineering was not somehow involved," Maryanski said. "But there is evidence to suggest other causes."

Both sides in the labeling debate agree on one point: Biotechnology has brought about a quiet revolution in food processing--using chemicals that are mass-produced in yeast or bacteria.

Chemicals from biotech organisms are used to keep bread from going stale and to shorten the brewing time for beers. And biotechnology is used to manufacture nutritional supplements, such as vitamin B12.

In England, Monsanto has assured consumers of NutraSweet that its artificial sweetener is made without genetically modified materials. But in the United States, the company uses a different process that may include biotech, said a spokesperson, who said there are no traces of biotech ingredients in the final product.

The first of the biotech ingredients was the enzyme "chymosin," an animal protein produced in a variety of genetically engineered microbes and used to coagulate milk proteins, an early step in the production of cheese.

Traditionally, cheese makers used a mix of enzymes called "rennet," typically extracted from the fourth stomach of a suckling calf.

But, as might be expected given the source, the enzymes were expensive to produce; supplies were unreliable and quality varied from one batch to the next.

There are other enzymes that can coagulate milk but none did the job quite as well, until scientists spliced an enzyme-producing gene from the calf stomach and got it to produce in a common strain of bacteria, which could be grown in a fermentation vat.

In 1990, after an extensive review, biotech chymosin became the first FDA-approved genetically modified food ingredient.

Today, more than 80% of cheese consumed in the United States is produced from a process using one of two major brands of the biotech enzyme, estimated officials at Chr. Hansen Inc., a Danish company that supplies enzymes, coloring agents and other supplies to the food industry.

"In many countries around the world, it is not considered a genetically modified product," said the company's North American vice president for dairy systems, David Carpenter. "It's favored over the animal product. It's purer."

One result of the switch: Religious Jews now are able to enjoy traditional cheeses that once mixed meat--the calf enzyme--and milk and, therefore, could not qualify as kosher. Rabbis from the Orthodox Union, one of the most influential of the groups that certify foods as kosher, concluded that the genetically engineered enzyme could be used in processing of kosher cheddars and other fine cheeses.

Other biotech enzymes are used in processing flour and in reducing corn to high fructose corn syrup, said Soren Carlsen, vice president of enzyme research at Novo Nordisk, an international company also based in Denmark that is the world's largest producer of industrial enzymes.

The resulting flour "gives a better dough quality," Carlsen said. "It keeps its humidity and freshness."

Another Novo enzyme breaks down an unwanted byproduct in the fermentation of beer called diacetyl, which has a butter-like flavor. Other enzymes allow brewers to produce more alcohol from a fixed amount of starch, one of the techniques used in producing low-calorie or light beers.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Labels for Foods Sought in State

Why is it necessary to produce such enzymes from genetically engineered organisms? Two reasons: The natural microbes that produce them "are unsuited for fermentation," Carlsen said. "What you want is a very clean and pure compound." And genetic engineering improves efficiency of production.

Genetic engineering has also changed production of nutritional supplements. Roche Vitamins, for example, markets vitamin B12 produced by a genetically modified organism. "It's been manufactured that way for at least five years, maybe longer," said Ian Newton, director of regulatory affairs for the company.

In California, state Sens. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles) and Byron Sher (D-Stanford) say they will introduce labeling requirements for food sold in California.

And an organic farmer from Sonoma, Robert Cannard, is trying to gather the more than 400,000 signatures needed to put a labeling initiative on the California ballot in November.

The measure calls for labels on food grown "with genetically engineered influences," a broad term intended to include eggs from chickens fed biotech corn or dairy products from cattle treated with a genetically engineered growth hormone used to increase milk production.

Without a requirement, Cannard said, he and other organic food producers will no longer be able to find reliable sources of non-GMO ingredients and "there will be no more organic industry.".

The FDA has taken the position that it's the end product that counts, and not the way it is produced, whether the ingredients are genetically engineered or not.

Tom Zinnen of the University of Wisconsin points out, however, that there are a variety of reasons for labeling food products. The FDA approach, he said, is based on the "wholesomeness" of the food--a scientific question about the safety to the consumer.

But there are other reasons for labeling foods, he said. Some consumers take a "holistic" approach, thinking about the consequences to the environment--worried, for example, that genetically modified corn could pose a threat to monarch butterflies. Others have what Zinnen calls "holy" or religious reasons for wanting to know how their food is produced. Vegetarians might object to animal proteins added to fruits and vegetables.

People feel they have a right to know about the food they eat, Zinnen said, and may be willing to pay more for that information.

Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: New seed planted in genetic flap
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:12:26 -0500

New Seed Planted in Genetic Flap
By Justin Gillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 6, 2000; Page H01
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-02/06/061l-020600-idx.html

Over the past year, as their counterparts in Europe have given in to consumer fears and pulled food products containing gene-altered ingredients off the shelves, major U.S. grocery chains and food producers have presented a united front.

There is no evidence that such products are unsafe to eat, the companies said, and no sign that American consumers are worried. And, they argued, safeguards are in place to make sure genetically modified crops don't harm the environment. The only major U.S. companies to break ranks with this position were baby-food producers, a special case.

Until now, that is. Many in the industry were caught by surprise when Frito-Lay Inc. of Plano, Tex., asked farmers not to sell it genetically modified corn for use in Fritos corn chips or Doritos tortilla chips.

"If you're one of Frito's competitors, you're saying, 'What are [they] up to?' " said an executive at a company that competes with Frito-Lay, insisting on anonymity. "Are they getting ready to jump out from behind a bush and bash us with a label" boasting that Frito products are free o genetically modified ingredients?

No, Frito-Lay says, insisting it is merely being cautious. But the company's move in late January plainly rattled its competitors.

Industry insiders say there is pressure on executives to hold the pro-biotechnology line, in part because many companies see genetic engineering as a key to future products that lower cholesterol, boost immunity or offer other health gains. The companies get few direct benefits now from gene-altered crops--the benefits go to farmers and seed producers--but with an eye to future profits, the food companies seem to want to encourage the growth of agricultural biotechnology.

Frito-Lay, a unit of PepsiCo Inc. of Purchase, N.Y., was detecting "confusion" among consumers who called its help lines asking about gene-altered ingredients, spokeswoman Lynn Markley said. Moreover, she noted, the Food and Drug Administration, which has cleared genetically altered crops as safe to eat, is now studying the issue anew.

Mandatory labeling of foods containing gene-altered ingredients is one option on the table. If the FDA took that step, companies would be likely to rush to reformulate their products to avoid the label--and Frito-Lay would have a head start.

"Because we're a consumer products company, we're stepping back, sitting on the sidelines and waiting and watching," Markley said. "It's a prudent step in which we are waiting to see where the FDA and the industry goes."

More companies are likely to have to deal with the question in coming months. Some shareholder groups are pushing large food companies to put the use of genetically altered ingredients to a vote in annual meetings beginning this spring. The way securities rules are written, most companies will probably succeed in keeping such measures off their meeting agendas, but the mere act of squelching dissident investors will force executives to grapple with the issue.

The environmental group Greenpeace, one of the key players in European protests over engineered food, recently staged a campy bit of street theater in downtown Battle Creek, Mich., across the street from the company that has supplied Frosted Flakes and Rice Krispies to generations of American children. A group of activists stood near the Kellogg Co. and unfurled banners decrying Kellogg's "monstrous experiment" on consumers. A costumed character based on Tony the Tiger--but with pale green skin, beady eyes, Frankenstein features and an evil grin--offered up nasty-looking green flakes dubbed "Frankenfood."

Kellogg, a prime target for the activists because of its status as one of the most trusted American brands, politely brushed off the November protest and hasn't budged since. Until Frito-Lay, baby-food makers were the only big U.S. food processors that had sworn off gene-altered ingredients, responding to the unique concerns that attend their products. It was no big leap for them--as a rule, they already leave out the preservatives, emulsifiers, oils and other additives common in processed food. A host of smaller companies, notably those that sell organically grown food, have also pledged to avoid gene-altered crops.

The nascent American activism over genetic engineering remains a pale shadow of its European counterpart. In large parts of Europe, activists have pushed through labeling laws, brought grocery chains and food producers to their knees, and forced products known to contain gene-altered ingredients off the market.

Still, American companies--many of which operate in Europe and have already had to respond to the concern there--are watching closely to see if the issue takes hold on this side of the Atlantic. Unbeknownst to most consumers, the majority of prepared foods on American grocery shelves today contain ingredients from genetically modified crops, including lecithin from soybeans and sweetener from corn.

Activist groups are betting that as awareness spreads, more Americans will become concerned. The nation's major food-products companies say, on the other hand, that they are seeing little evidence of a consumer revolt--just a smattering of phone calls among the millions they answer every year. They decry the "Frankenfood" protests as baseless.

Betty Crocker, her keepers insist, is not serving up poison in her cake mixes.

"If we thought the products were unsafe, we wouldn't sell them," said Austin Sullivan, a spokesman for General Mills Inc. of Minneapolis, owner of the venerable Betty Crocker trademark. "We are not in the business of injuring our customers."

Markley noted it was easier for Frito-Lay to impose restrictions than it would be for many other companies. Most of the company's corn--which represents just one-quarter of 1 percent of all corn grown in the United States--is produced under contract by farmers who have established relationships with Frito-Lay. Many other companies, by contrast, buy their grains on the open market.

Despite this advantage, Frito-Lay does buy some ingredients in bulk, including oils, that could derive from genetically modified crops. Despite its best efforts, Markley said, the company won't be able to guarantee that no modified ingredients have made their way into its products. That is one reason Frito has no plans to base a marketing campaign on its new policy.

At least 10 food crops containing genetic alterations, from papayas to potatoes to squash, have been approved for sale in the United States. But most of the fighting to date has focused on two. A third of the American corn group is now grown with seeds that have been genetically modified; one common alteration causes the plants to produce a protein poisonous to crop-destroying worms (but not to mammals). And more than half the soybean crop has genetic alterations, including one that allows farmers to douse it with a weed killer called Roundup.

The modified crops obviously find their way into products containing whole corn or soybeans, but ingredients refined from the crops get a far wider distribution than that. Corn is the source of a sweetener, high-fructose corn syrup, that is used in colas, candies and thousands of other products. Ingredients from soybeans--notably lecithin, used to improve texture--make their way into a majority of the packaged foods sold in this country.

Environmental activists, despite the "Frankenfood" banners, concede that there is no evidence that gene-altered food could cause health problems, while insisting that such evidence could emerge years or decades from now.

Their immediate concern is the effects of planting millions of acres of altered crops. They fear the ecology will be disturbed in unpredictable ways, and they want long-range testing to guard against the possibility before the crops are released.

Pressure on food companies is simply a tactic, some activists acknowledge, to try to cut down on the planting of altered crops.

Charles Margulis, genetic-engineering specialist for Greenpeace USA in Washington, believes the Frito-Lay decision is an important crack in the wall of industry resistance. Greenpeace played no direct role in persuading Frito-Lay, but it was gratified by the announcement.

"I think it's absolutely the beginning of a trend," Margulis said.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: MONSANTO TO SELL EQUAL TO GRP LED BY MICHAEL DELL, agnet
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:17:03 -0500

Feb. 6/00
Dow Jones
By Scott Kilman
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

According to this story, Monsanto Co., in a move to pay down its crop-biotechnology debt, was cited as saying it agreed to sell its Equal table-top-sweetener business for $570 million to a group led by the New York investment firm of Dell Computer Corp. founder Michael Dell.

The story says that the business makes the little packets of artificial sweetener found on restaurant tables and sells its no-calorie sweetener, which is made from aspartame, in the U.S. under the brand names Equal and NutraSweet. The product is sold under the Canderel brand in Latin America.

The sale doesn't include Monsanto's commodity sweetener business, NutraSweet, which is also on the block.

The story also says that as part of the deal, the investor group is acquiring a packaging plant in Manteno, Ill., and a packaging plant in Fairfield, Australia.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 18:30:25 -0800

Subject: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Reportedly Set to Introduce Legislation to Require Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods - According to a February 10 Announcement from the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, she intends to introduce the legislation in the Senate following the President's Day Recess - In a February 8 letter to other Senators, she wrote: " ... the health and environmental effects of genetically engineered food are not yet known. Given the rapid expansion of this largely untested technology, we should provide consumers with the right to know whether they are eating genetically engineered food. Congress has already provided consumers similar rights by requiring the labeling of foods containing artificial colors and flavors, chemical preservatives and artificial sweeteners. Labeling genetically engineered food would not be unprecedented for the U.S. In fact, as part of a recent 131-nation agreement to regulate trade in genetically engineered crops, the U.S. agre

Senator Boxer's www site is: http://www.senate.gov/~boxer/ -

She can be reached by e-mail at senator@boxer.senate.gov -

Other contact Information for Senator Boxer:
Washington D.C. Phone: (202) 224-3553;
San Francisco Phone: (415) 403-0100; fax: (415) 956-6701;
Los Angeles Phone: (213) 894-5000; fax: (213) 894-5012;
San Diego Phone: (619) 239-3884; fax: (619) 239-5719;
Fresno Phone: (559) 497-5109; fax: (559) 497-5111;
San Bernardino Phone: (909) 888-8525; fax: (909) 888-8613; and
Sacramento Phone: (916) 448-2787; fax: (916) 448-2563.

February 8, 2000

Dear Colleague:

When Congress returns from the Presidents Day recess, I plan to introduce the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act. I hope that you will cosponsor this important legislation to require that all foods containing or produced with genetically engineered material bear a neutral label indicating that fact.

Recent polls have demonstrated that Americans want to know if they are eating genetically engineered food. A January 1999 Time magazine poll revealed that 81% of respondents wanted genetically engineered food to be labeled. A January 2000 MSNBC poll showed identical results. The European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Japan already require genetically engineered food to be labeled.

Last year, 98.6 million acres in the U.S. were planted with genetically engineered crops. More than a third of the U.S. soybean crop, one-quarter of corn and a third of cotton were genetically engineered. While this represents a 23-fold increase in genetically engineered crop production from just four years ago, the health and environmental effects of genetically engineered food are not yet known.

Given the rapid expansion of this largely untested technology, we should provide consumers with the right to know whether they are eating genetically engineered food. Congress has already provided consumers similar rights by requiring the labeling of foods containing artificial colors and flavors, chemical preservatives and artificial sweeteners.

Labeling genetically engineered food would not be unprecedented for the U.S. In fact, as part of a recent 131-nation agreement to regulate trade in genetically engineered crops, the U.S. agreed to label its international shipments of seeds, grains and plants that may contain genetically engineered material. If we can provide this information to our trading partners, shouldn't we make simila information available to American consumers?

Please join me in providing American families with the right to decide whether or not to eat genetically engineered food. For more information, please contact Lisa Moore of my staff at 224-3553.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer, United States Senator

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Gene test deaths not reported promptly

Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:44:10 -0500

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/news/article/0,5744,130501,00.html

Gene Test Deaths Not Reported Promptly

By Deborah Nelson and Rick Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writers

January 31, 2000

A Harvard-affiliated hospital in Boston quietly suspended a gene therapy experiment last summer after three of the first six patients died and a seventh fell seriously ill, previously unreleased research records show.

Richard Junghans, the Harvard Medical School researcher who led the study, blames the problems on a series of tragic coincidences that were mostly not related to the treatment. But the federal committee that oversees gene therapy had no chance to question that conclusion - or share it with other scientists working on similar experiments - because Junghans did not report the deaths or illness to the National Institutes of Health when they occurred, as required by federal regulations.

Junghans isn't alone in his lapses. His were among hundreds of tardily submitted "adverse event" reports that the NIH recently received in response to news articles and stern agency directives last fall reminding gene researchers of their legal obligation.

Reports of 691 serious adverse events in gene therapy experiments swamped the NIH as a result of the agency's reminders, which officials hope will shed light on the mysterious September death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger in a University of Pennsylvania trial. The Washington Post obtained the reports through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Federal rules demand that such reports be filed "immediately" as problems arise. But 652 of the 691 had never before been seen by the NIH, according to an agency summary requested by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). That means less than 6 percent were filed on time.

Moreover, those records indicated that at least some of the previously unreported deaths remained unexplained. That raises the specter that Gelsinger was not the first person to be killed by gene therapy, as researchers have presumed, but the first to be reported as such to the NIH.

Gene therapy is a field of experimental medicine that aims to cure diseases by changing people's genetic makeup, but has yet to provide a cure after 10 years of studies on thousands of patients.

The surprising discovery that so many medical problems in gene therapy experiments had not been reported to the NIH, and the disturbing questions raised by many of the reports, come at a crucial time for the controversial field.

Just 10 days ago, the Food and Drug Administration shut down the University of Pennsylvania's prestigious gene therapy program after an agency investigation uncovered multiple lapses, some of which may have contributed to Gelsinger's death.

Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has scheduled a hearing Wednesday to consider whether federal oversight of gene therapy is adequate. Among those due to testify are Gelsinger's father, who believes that federal regulators did not do enough to protect his son, and a representative of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which is seeking regulatory changes that could decrease public reporting of certain adverse events that the organization considers proprietary.

Whatever Congress and federal regulators decide, the new findings of chronic noncompliance with existing rules offer compelling evidence that the current system is broken.

Because of public uneasiness about the long-term consequences of genetic engineering, gene therapy has always been subject to extra regulatory oversight. Most notably, all deaths and serious illnesses suffered by volunteers enrolled in gene experiments must be reported not only to the FDA but also to the NIH, even if the sponsor thinks they were not caused by the treatment.

Unlike the FDA, which keeps the reports secret, the NIH presents them at open meetings and makes them available to other scientists and the public.

Evidence began to emerge last year that some researchers were not following those rules. But the full extent of the problem remained unknown until last month, when NIH officials tallied the results of their nationwide appeal to researchers conducting gene therapy experiments similar to the one that killed Gelsinger.

Many patients, it turns out, suffered fevers, clotting abnormalities and serious drops in blood pressure, symptoms reminiscent of those that presaged Gelsinger's death. Other reports describe problems caused by medical procedures used to deliver genes. Experiments in which genes are injected into brain tumors, for example, have repeatedly led to neurological problems such as partial paralysis and speech impairment, apparently caused by needle damage to the brain.

Throughout the reports to the NIH, scientists repeatedly acknowledge that their gene treatments caused various nonlethal symptoms, but they invariably conclude that any deaths likely resulted from underlying illnesses or other causes. Those conclusions are difficult to challenge because families frequently decline autopsies, and because most experiments recruit people who are so ill that the ultimate cause of death may be hard to determine, or easy to obscure, giving what one leading researcher termed "plausible deniability."

Junghans's experiment, which included serious side effects and a sudden, unexplained death in his group of terminally ill cancer patients, provides an example of the difficulties inherent in interpreting medical complications and the potential value of timely reporting to federal regulators.

The first death in that study, conducted at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, was a 74-year-old woman whose colon cancer had spread to other organs. She fell ill in July 1998, eight hours after an infusion of gene-altered cells that were meant to attack her cancer. She developed severe gastrointestinal bleeding, refused further medical care and died four days later. Although the altered cells are capable of attacking normal intestinal cells, Junghans concluded that the woman's underlying illness rather than the treatment probably caused the bleeding. The family declined an autopsy, he said.

Next was a 46-year-old woman with recurrent breast cancer that had spread to her liver, who died within a month of her last infusion. Her death too was caused by her cancer, Junghans concluded.

The third death remains unexplained. A 74-year-old man with colorectal cancer experienced fever and heart flutters immediately after several infusions over six months. Within two hours after his last infusion Feb. 1, he began getting chest pains and heart rhythm abnormalities, prompting physicians to keep him in the hospital overnight. When he didn't return for his appointment with the researchers Feb. 3, Junghans called the police. They found the man dead at home.

The cause could not be determined, even after an autopsy, but Junghans said it was not related to the treatment, as the engineered cells are not known to affect the heart.

However, the next cancer patient to undergo the experimental treatment, a 64-year-old man with rectal cancer, immediately developed severe heartbeat abnormalities, a high fever that lasted 36 hours, diarrhea and a drop in blood pressure. He required drugs, intravenous fluids and oxygen to recover. After that, Junghans concluded that the therapy probably caused the fever, which in turn triggered the heart problems.

At that point last June, Junghans said in an interview, the researchers stopped enrolling new patients in order to conduct what he called a "mid-study review." Beth Israel spokesman Bill Schaller later acknowledged, when pressed by reporters, that hospital officials had actually suspended the study because of patient safety concerns. Now the protocol is being reworded to preclude volunteers with heart problems, Junghans and Schaller said.

Junghans said he reported the deaths and illnesses to the FDA but didn't know he was supposed to also notify the NIH immediately until he read news reports last fall about the failure of other researchers to report volunteers' deaths to the NIH.

"We were in a panic when we found out the [NIH] wanted all these reports, so we got on it," Junghans said. "It was not out of any wish to avoid . . . public exposure. It was really innocent."

One of the researchers named in the news that alarmed Junghans was Jeffrey Isner from Tufts University, who had failed to notify NIH promptly when two volunteers died in his widely publicized gene experiments aimed at growing new blood vessels. Isner, who founded Vascular Genetics, which sponsored his study, has said he believes both deaths were unrelated to the treatment.

After The Washington Post revealed those lapses last fall, Isner's company submitted a detailed report to the NIH on one of the patient deaths that revealed that the cause of the man's "unfortunate death" had not been determined. But, as with Junghans, that didn't stop Isner from concluding that the gene treatment was not responsible.

That kind of reasoning doesn't pass muster with some critics.

"You have to find out what it is before you can rule out what it's not. That's just logic," said Vera Hassner Sharav of Citizens for Responsible Care and Research in New York. "Otherwise it's basically a denial of responsibility."

Isner did not return phone calls.

It's not clear why so few researchers have been keeping the NIH apprised of complications. Some have said they thought the NIH reporting requirement got dropped in 1996, when the NIH lost its power to approve or disapprove gene therapy proposals as part of a streamlining that shifted that authority to the FDA. But the requirement that all adverse events be reported fully and immediately to the NIH was not affected, and it is stated plainly on every letter of approval that goes out to researchers when they first gain permission to start their experiments.

Others have candidly said that public disclosure of adverse events in a gene study - even those not caused by the new genes - can shake investor confidence in a gene therapy company.

Yet there are advantages to the dual system of reporting, some researchers and regulators said. Federal law greatly restricts the FDA's freedom to publicize side effects of experimental therapies or inform researchers about possible problems at competing institutions. Indeed, an FDA official said the agency cannot disclose whether it's investigating the Harvard experiment, even though it's the type of case that might attract agency attention.

By contrast, the NIH can share that kind of information.

"I want to know of any problems other people are having with the same kinds of cells we're using," said Eli Gilboa of Duke University, who does research involving the same cancer molecule that Junghans is testing. The NIH's public disclosure of adverse events "is critical," Gilboa said, "for all the clinical investigators who want to do a good job."

(c) 2000 The Washington Post Company

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Trouble in the Garden

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:16:17 -0800 (PST)

Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly

#685 - Trouble in the Garden, February 03, 2000

Wall Street investors lost confidence in agricultural biotechnology during 1999.[1,2,3] Agricultural biotechnology is by no means dead, but investors drove down stock prices of ag biotech companies during 1999 in a stunning reversal for the industry. The WALL STREET JOURNAL said Jan. 7, 2000, "With the controversy over genetically modified foods spreading across the globe and taking a toll on the stocks of companies with agricultural-biotechnology businesses, it's hard to see those companies as a good investment, even in the long term."[2]

Hardest hit was Monsanto, the St. Louis chemical giant that had spent 5 years and billions of dollars morphing itself into a "life sciences" company, betting its future on biotechnology in pharmaceutical drugs and agricultural crops. As the WALL STREET JOURNAL wrote December 21, 1999, "Billions of dollars later, that concept of a unified 'life sciences' company -- using technology to improve both medicines and foods -- has become an affliction itself for Monsanto. The crop-biotechnology half of the program has grown so controversial that Monsanto has agreed to a deal that is likely not only to push biotech to the back burner, but also to cost Monsanto its independence. And investors are reacting harshly."[3]

Monsanto agreed late in 1999 to merge with Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc. and the combined company will be run not from St. Louis but from Pharmacia headquarters in Peapack, New Jersey. Monsanto's ag biotech business will be spun off into a separate company and as much as 19.9% of it will be sold.

Two other leaders in ag biotech, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis AG, and the Anglo-Swiss drug firm AstroZeneca PLC, announced during 1999 that they will combine their ag biotech divisions into one and sell it off, "effectively washing their hands of crop biotechnology," the WALL STREET JOURNAL said.[3]

Thus by the end of 1999, ag biotech companies found themselves in trouble, worldwide, for the first time. Here is a short list of reasons why:

** A lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forced the release of government documents showing that FDA scientists had expressed grave doubts about the safety of genetically modified foods even as the agency was publicly declaring such foods "substantially equivalent" to traditional crops.[4] It seems clear from these documents that the scientific integrity of the U.S. regulatory system has been compromised for political purposes, to provide a "fast track" for the rapid, large-scale introduction of genetically modified foods.

** The insurance industry has consistently refused to write policies covering liability for harm caused by genetically modified organisms. Steven Suppan, research director at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis, said last June, "It is worth asking what kind of regulatory system approves for commercialization a technology whose risks are so undetermined that the products developed from the technology have not been insur- ed? An intuitive response is that the U.S. rejection of liability suggests that U.S. agribusiness and the U.S. government have less confidence than is proclaimed publicly in the safety of the products approved and in the integrity of the product review process," Dr. Suppan said.[5]

** A growing body of literature has begun to show that genetically modified crops are creating new kinds of environmental problems for farmers, and that genetically modified crops are exacerbating already-severe economic problems on American farms.[6]

** Europeans and others overseas have continued to insist that the safety of genetically modified foods has not been sufficiently documented and that import of such foods must be prohibited, or they must be labeled. The doubts expressed by FDA scientists, and the growing list of economic and environmental problems are likely to stiffen European resistance to genetically-modified seeds, crops, and foods.

** It became apparent in 1999 that the public rationale for promoting genetically modified foods -- that such foods would "feed the world" -- was based on wishful thinking, not economics. It is now clear that U.S. genetically modified crops are too expensive to "feed the world."[6]

** The rationale for refusing to label genetically modified foods came unraveled in 1999 as biotechnology companies began to announce new crops with special traits (rice with increased vitamin A, for example). For years, biotech companies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and FDA have argued that labeling genetically modified foods was impossible because it would require food companies to segregate genetically modified crops from conventional crops and it simply couldn't be done. All the crops were mixed together in the grain elevator, so labeling would be impossible, they said.

This silly and disingenuous argument evaporated in 1999. As soon as biotech firms announced specialty foods created by genetic engineering, the labeling problem miraculously disappeared. Labeling is suddenly easy -- indeed, required -- because consumer's can't be expected to pay premium prices for specialty foods if those foods aren't clearly identifiable on the grocery shelf.

Polls have shown that more than 80% of American consumers want genetically modified foods labeled as such. Now that labeling is acknowledged as feasible, will the biotech industry, USDA, EPA, and FDA bend to the public will and start labeling ALL genetically modified foods? Not on your life. Government and industry argue with one voice that labeling is not necessary because genetically modified foods are "substantially equivalent" to the conventional foods they have replaced. They even say labeling would be "misleading" because it would imply that there are differences between biotech foods and conventional foods.

Federal regulations governing biotech foods are founded on the premise that there are no "material differences" between genetically modified crops and conventional crops. This argument, it turns out, was thoroughly discredited by FDA scientists before the regulations were issued.

The FDA spent 1989-1992 developing regulations governing genetically modified foods for humans and feed for animals. This was back when President Bush and Vice-President Quayle were advocating "regulatory relief" for industry.

FDA's rules -- which were announced by Mr. Quayle in 1992 --allow a biotech company like Monsanto or DuPont to decide for itself whether its food products are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). If a company decides that its new genetically modified corn or soybean or potato or wheat is "generally recognized as safe" then no safety testing is required before the products are introduced into the food supply. FDA said these rules -- like all their rules -- are based on "sound science."

However, during 1999 a lawsuit filed by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity in Fairfield, Iowa, forced the FDA to release some 44,000 pages of internal documents for the first time.[4] Among them was a series of memos from FDA scientists commenting on the FDA's proposed "substantially equivalent" policy for biotech foods.

A key issue is whether "pleiotropic effects" will occur when new genes are inserted into plants to give the plants desirable new traits. Pleiotropy means that more than one change occurs in a plant as a result of the new gene. For example, a gene that allows a plant to grow better under drought conditions might also make the entire plant grow smaller. The smaller size would be an unexpected "pleiotropic" effect.

FDA regulations assume that pleiotropic effects will not occur when new genes are inserted into conventional foods such as corn or potatoes or wheat or soybeans. Therefore, FDA says, genetically modified crops are "substantially equivalent" to conventional crops.

Internal memos make it abundantly clear that FDA's scientific staff believes pleiotropic effects will occur when new genes are inserted into food crops. [In the following quotations, words inside square brackets have been added for clarity but words inside normal parentheses were in the original memos.--P.M.]

Commenting on the FDA's proposed biotech regulations in early 1992, Louis Pribyl, an FDA microbiologist, wrote March 6, 1992, "It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.... This is industry's pet idea, namely that there are no unintended effects that will raise the FDA's level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to backup their contention, while the scientific literature does contain many examples of naturally occurring pleiotropic effects. When the introduction of genes into [a] plant's genome randomly occurs, as is the case with the current [genetic modification] technology (but not traditional breeding), it seems apparent that many pleiotropic effects will occur," Dr. Pribyl wrote. "Many of these effects might not be seen by the breeder [meaning Monsanto or DuPont or other biotech firm] because of the more or less similar growing conditions in the limited trials that are performed. Until more of these experimental plants have a wider environmental distribution, it would be premature for FDA to summarily dismiss pleiotropy as is done here," Dr. Pribyl wrote.

On the same subject, a memo from the Division of Contaminants Chemistry within FDA's Division of Food Chemistry and Technology said November 1, 1991, "Pleiotropic effects occur in genetically engineered plants... at frequencies up to 30%. Most of these effects can be managed by the subsequent breeding and selection procedures. Nevertheless, some undesirable effects such as increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, increased capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment (e.g., pesticides or heavy metals), and undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients may escape breeders' attention unless genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for these changes. Such evaluations should be performed on a case-by-case basis, i.e., every transformant should be evaluated before it enters the marketplace."

Instead of heeding the concerns of its scientific staff, FDA issued biotech food rules that assume no pleiotropic effects will occur, therefore no safety testing is required. All biotech foods are assumed to be safe. The stage was thus set for confidence in biotech foods to plummet as soon as word leaked out that the scientific underpinnings of the regulatory system had been compromised.

To be continued next week.

--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local

1981/AFL-CIO)

=====

[1] I am indebted to Steven Suppan, research director at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis, who provided me with several brief, thoughtful summaries of the state of agricultural biotechnology. Contact: ssuppan@iatp.org. Telephone (612) 870-3413.

[2] Christina Cheddar, "Tales of the Tape: Seed Co. May Yet Reap What They Sow," WALL STREET JOURNAL January 7, 2000, pg. unknown.

[3] Scott Kilman and Thomas M. Burton, "Biotech Backlash is Battering Plan Shapiro Thought Was Enlightened," WALL STREET JOURNAL December 21, 1999, pg.A1.

[4] The FDA documents are available at http://www.bio-integrity.org/list.html. And see Marian Burros, "Documents Show Officials Disagreed on Altered Foods," NEW YORK TIMES December 1, 1999, pg. A15.

[5] Steven Suppan, unpublished paper, "National Summit on the Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods, June 17, 1999, Capitol Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C. 2 pgs.

[6] Some of this literature is summarized in Charles M. Benbrook, "World Food System Challenges and Opportunities: GMOs, Biodiversity, and Lessons From America's Heartland," unpublished paper presented January 27, 1999, at University of Illinois. Available in PDF format at http://www.pmac.net/IWFS.pdf .

Descriptor terms: biotechnology; monsanto; dupont; novartis; pharmacia; astrozeneca; agriculture; hunger; fda; regulation; labeling; alliance for biointegrity; pleiotropy;

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Dennis Avery is back (the dangers of organic food)...

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:44:21 -0800 (PST)

======

ARE ORGANIC FOODS REALLY BETTER FOR YOU?

NATURAL-GROWN KILLERS IN ORGANIC

FOOD MAKE IT NO SAFER THAN PRODUCE

GROWN WITH PESTICIDE

February 14, 2000

BridgeNews Service (Knight Ridder)

Dave Juday, former White House agricultural adviser LEESBURG, Va. -- Stop the presses: America's top organic food executive has admitted organic foods are neither safer nor more nutritious than mainstream foods.

Meanwhile, food safety tests commissioned by ABC News found no pesticide residues on either the organic or mainstream produce and up to 100 times as many dangerous pathogens on the organic vegetables. On the Feb. 4 edition of the ABC newsmagazine "20/20," John Stossel questioned Katherine DiMatteo, director of the Organic Trade Association, which represents organic farmers and retailers. Also interviewed was Les Crawford, former director of food safety for the Food and Drug Administration, and Dennis Avery, my colleague at the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues and a leading critic of organic food production.

He also spoke to Rita Bernstein, whose young daughter, Hayley, was attacked by E. coli O157:H7 after eating contaminated organic lettuce. Hayley nearly died and remained on a respirator for months. She suffers from impaired vision.

Here's an instructive excerpt of Stossel's interview with DiMatteo:

Stossel: "Is (organic food) more nutritious?"

DiMatteo: "It's as nutritious as any other product."

Stossel: "Is it more nutritious?"

DiMatteo: "It is as nutritious as any other product on the market."

Stossel: "There's a sales campaign to dream about. The organic industry admits organics are no more nutritious than other food, but the customers think it is."

DiMatteo: "Organic agriculture is not particularly a food safety claim. That's not what our standards are about."

Stossel: "But your customers think it's better for you." DiMatteo: "I don't know that that's true."

Stossel: "Sure it is. (We) did a poll on organic foods and found 45 percent of the public think organics are more nutritious. Half the people said healthier, and they're not."

Avery told Stossel organic food is potentially more dangerous because much of it is fertilized with manure, a known reservoir of bacteria dangerous to humans.

Crawford, now of Georgetown University, warned viewers that 76 million Americans get sick from food-borne bacteria every year. Health authorities are especially concerned about the new strain of E. coli, O157, which is deadly enough to kill even healthy people and leaves many of its survivors with internal organ damage.

This new E. coli is heat-resistant microbe, making it uncertain whether routine composting done by organic farmers will consistently kill it. Stossel found no comparative tests had been done on the safety of organic food compared with mainstream food, and commissioned the University of Georgia to test samples of both.

The Georgia tests found no pesticide residues in either the organic or mainstream produce. Mainstreams farmers avoid using pesticides when the residues would persist after harvest.

The most dramatic finding, however, was that the organic produce had 100 times as many pathogens as their mainstream counterparts. Most of these bacteria were strains of E. coli, an indicator of fecal contamination. ABC didn't ask the laboratory to do the additional expensive tests to find out if the E. coli were of the vicious strain, widely found on farms but fortunately still rare in foods.

Avery told Stossel, "If we have no (consumer) deaths from pesticides and 5,000 deaths from bacteria, it's pretty clear to me that we should be worrying now primarily about the nasty new bacteria." Avery said, "People have been told (organic is) healthier-by organic farmers who have a vested interest in telling them that."

DiMatteo responded, "I think that organic agriculture and its products are healthier for the environment."

"Okay, that's another argument," Stossel rejoined. "Organics are no healthier, but they're better for the planet, all because they don't use chemicals. But does that really mean that organics are better for the earth?

Avery says no, because organic farmers waste so much land." Avery contends organic yields are about half as high as modern mainstream farmers' yields and that an organic mandate would thus force the world to convert many millions of additional square miles of land from wildlife to crops. He warns society is already farming 37 percent of the earth's land surface.

Avery noted, "It's today's conventional farmers, the nonorganic ones, who have performed an environment-saving miracle by taking nitrogen from the air to make chemical fertilizer, and by using the often-criticized pesticides and genetically engineered seeds.

When Stossel questioned the higher prices paid for organic food, DiMatteo replied, "I think that people pay more for food all the time, because of their individual personal choices.

Avery rejoined, "Sometimes people will pay several dollars for a cup of coffee. They're all wrong. My daughter-in-law cried when I told her this information. She still won't tell her neighbors why she doesn't go with them to the organic store any longer."

Anchor-women Barbara Walters told Stossel as the segment closed, "I may cry too, because I've been buying organic food."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:20:23 -0800

Subject: Fwd: FW: Oregonian article on FQPA

Here is a link: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/99/12/st120904.html

Government brokers a deal on insecticide Despite its study illustrating Guthion's potency, the Environmental Protection Agency requires only small cuts in the chemical's use

Thursday, December 9, 1999

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Brent Walth and Alex Pulaski of The Oregonian staff

One day this February, thousands of children in Virginia munched their way through apples containing risky amounts of azinphos methyl, a nerve-damaging pesticide better known as Guthion.

The incident drew no newspaper headlines, worried no parents, hospitalized no children.

It happened in Felecia Fort's computer.

Inside the Dell computer, and others like it at the Environmental Protection Agency's offices in Crystal City, Va., near the Pentagon, virtual kids eat virtual apples.

The computer's program mimics what kids eat in the real world, then sets odds on how many of them may be exposed to risky levels of pesticides in their diets.

Until three years ago, the federal government had no reason to figure those odds. But when Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, it handed the EPA the new responsibility of figuring the extra risks that children face from pesticides. Guthion, the insecticide used most often in Northwest apple orchards, became the first pesticide tested.

By that February morning, the review of Guthion had already been marked by resistance inside the EPA, farmers' pressure on Congress and the White House, agency scientists trying to set an acceptable dose, and men and women in Scotland who agreed to act as lab subjects and swallow doses of pesticide.

Now a computer had just created a new hurdle.

Skewed results

Michael Metzger didn't believe the first numbers the EPA's computer spat out. The calculations told him that by eating fresh fruits, especially apples, a child could face Guthion exposures 10,000 times above those the agency considered safe.

He knew the results were way off.

As a branch chief in the EPA's Pesticide Reregistration division, Metzger would help oversee an important change inside the agency.

In the past, the EPA, the nation's pesticide cop, had always based its estimates of risk on worst-case scenarios.

In 1997, using the extreme assumption that Guthion was sprayed on 100 percent of the crops where its use was legal, an EPA analysis decided that Guthion posed a "serious health concern." Now, in February 1999, the agency's computer had done the same thing. The result: wildly exaggerated estimates of pesticide exposure among children.

The much tougher standards set by the new law, when coupled with the EPA's practice of using worst-case scenarios, could result in dozens of pesticides being banned -- an overly harsh result. But underestimating exposures could leave kids at risk, contrary to the new law.

So Metzger and others in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs took their cue from the National Academy of Sciences. The academy in 1993 produced a landmark report on the risks to children from pesticides. The Food Quality Protection Act was based on that report.

The academy had relied on a computer program that determines the probabilities of random events -- such as the chances that a child will bite into an apple that has risky levels of pesticides on it.

This kind of program is named Monte Carlo, after the European gambling resort. EPA officials had tried to write a Monte Carlo program of their own for measuring pesticide risk, but all their attempts to get such a program to work had failed.

So agency officials went shopping. Novigen Sciences Inc. of Washington, D.C., a longtime consultant to pesticide-makers, was the one company in the world that had created just such a program.

Chemical companies used it to run their own estimates of risk. The EPA paid $60,000 to Novigen for the rights and training for its program, the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model, or Deem.

The program in effect takes two decks of cards and shuffles them. One deck includes the eating habits of more than 15,000 Americans who reported their diets during a three-day span to a U.S. Department of Agriculture survey.

The other deck contains a list based on actual samples of pesticide residues found on all the foods -- including cherries, blueberries and apples -- on which Guthion is sprayed. For apples, the EPA assumes the fruit has been washed and cored.

The program grabs the first person in the survey and at random assigns a pesticide residue value to every piece of food that person has eaten. The result: 45 million eating scenarios, each with a guess at how much pesticide a person ate in a day.

So how much risk was acceptable?

Trying to protect all but one in a million children could be too stringent. Protecting one in 10 would be too few. The EPA decided that no more than one in 1,000 of the computerized people should eat excessive pesticide residues in their food. Even at that rate, the agency's computer would estimate that as many as 50,000 kids a day would get a dose the EPA considered too risky.

The first time the agency ran the program, Metzger's team got the huge number.

Then the EPA reprogrammed the computer to reflect the real-world use of Guthion, for example, the fact that only 82 percent -- not 100 percent -- of apple crops nationwide were sprayed with azinphos methyl. That cut the computerized chances that the chemical would be on a piece of fruit a child would eat. Technicians also increasingly refined the list of what people actually ate. In all, they settled on 52 crops and 261 kinds of foods that might have trace amounts of Guthion.

They ran the program again.

With the changes, the computer produced lower numbers. But the odds still showed that one in 1,000 children would get too much Guthion. A child between the ages of 1 and 6 would consume twice the daily limit of Guthion. For infants, it was three times.

Were the numbers still wrong?

At first, it didn't look that way. Bayer Corp., the company that makes Guthion, had paid Novigen Sciences to perform its own runs of the Deem program.

Bayer's results in some cases were even worse than those produced by the EPA's computer, the agency's records show.

Even after all the adjustments, the results could still cause the EPA to severely limit -- or even ban -- Guthion after 43 years of use.

But the Monte Carlo wasn't over yet. Bayer and apple growers still hadn't had their final say.

Panel resignations

Meanwhile, some members of a blue-ribbon panel advising the EPA were bailing out. Vice President Al Gore had established the panel in April 1998, responding to the complaints of farmers who spend nearly $11 billion a year on pesticides. But by April 1999, the environmental and consumer groups felt frustrated by the slow progress.

"This administration has failed to respond to public pressure and instead has yielded to industry pressure," said Erik Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council at an April 27 news conference announcing the resignations of his group and six others from Gore's panel. The groups had been frustrated

The decision made news in the capital and around the country.

Inside the White House and the EPA, the defections added to the growing pressure. Aug. 3 would mark the third anniversary of the Food Quality Protection Act as law. By that date, the EPA was supposed to finish reviewing 3,000 pesticide uses.

In addition to finishing the reviews, maybe the EPA could announce a big decision. That would show progress. Inside the agency there was even talk of banning a pesticide.

Picture improves Back in the EPA's computers, as technicians continued to adjust the data, Guthion was starting to look less risky after all.

Officials added pistachios to the mix. They changed the estimates of how many cherries are sprayed. They also adjusted to reflect the fact that children often eat just a small amount of a piece of fruit and not, for example, a whole apple.

EPA officials thought these changes helped the program more closely reflect the real world. The numbers fell a little more.

But it was the applesauce that made all the difference.

The computer had already told the EPA that apples were the biggest problem for children. The cherry-growing industry pointed out to the EPA that cooking fruit reduces pesticide residues. That led technicians to applesauce.

Then they realized that the computer was scoring the pesticide residues on applesauce the same way as those found on a single apple.

But applesauce is a blend of many apples. As a result, the computer should have looked for an average residue number, not one that could have spiked up because one apple in the program's data banks might have had a big dose of Guthion on it. Bayer officials provided an estimate of how Guthion's toxicity fades when cooked.

EPA officials adjusted the estimates again.

The risk numbers for Guthion fell -- this time dramatically.

In general, the virtual one-in-a-thousand child was now right on the edge of the daily Guthion limit the EPA would allow. The subset of children between 1 and 6, however, were over the line.

No matter how the EPA revised, after that, the numbers barely budged.

The new law required the agency to weigh the total risks from similarly acting chemicals, especially organophosphates.

Now, the EPA's computer had shown that the food uses of one organophosphate, Guthion, took up all that risk, all by itself.

Dramatic cuts needed

In early July, EPA pesticide officials summoned executives of Bayer Corp. and the U.S. Apple Association to hear an unwelcome message: Bayer had to propose dramatic cuts in the use of Guthion. If the company couldn't find a way, the EPA might move to ban Guthion.

Bayer and apple industry officials were taken aback by the sudden urgency. "We didn't need anybody to hit us over the head with a baseball bat to tell us the basis for the discussion was shifting from one of science to one of political urgency," said Jim Cranney of the U.S. Apple Association, who was in the meeting.

The EPA had not finished a single policy under the new law, and that held out hope for the industry.

Bayer executives believed they could save Guthion if they could convince EPA officials that they were being far too conservative in how they measured the dose and drew the lines on risk.

What's more, just a few months earlier, the company had tested Guthion on human volunteers in Scotland, and it thought the research proved Guthion was safer than the EPA made it look.

But agency officials balked at accepting the test, citing ethical concerns about pesticide companies' use of people in chemical trials,

"If we had changed their minds on any of those things, it would have turned everything around," said Wayne Carlson, Bayer's vice president for regulatory affairs. But just as the EPA was bearing down on Guthion, another pesticide suddenly leaped to the head of the line.

Methyl parathion, a nerve agent like Guthion, scored three to eight times above EPA's threshold risk numbers for children's diets when the agency ran it through the computer models. EPA officials decided they would propose a ban on most uses of methyl parathion. The chemical is an insecticide better known as Penncap-M.

Guthion was left hanging.

Seeking a deal

Rather than resorting to time-consuming and expensive hearings, the EPA sought a deal with Bayer.

The EPA wanted to push Guthion use as low as it could. Apple growers and Bayer officials, who thought the agency was overstating the risks, came up with their own strategy. They decided not to agree to any pact that would noticeably affect most growers.

The two sides met frequently at the EPA's Crystal City offices during the rest of July.

Agency officials opened the negotiations, not on the issue of diet, but of workers -- whose welfare wasn't even addressed by the new Food Quality Protection Act.

The EPA's estimates said workers picking fruit sprayed with Guthion could face exposures 100 times greater than the agency thought safe. So the agency proposed extending the waiting period between the last spray of Guthion and the point when workers could go back into the orchards.

Bayer had recently agreed to increase the waiting period to 14 days from two days -- in part to forestall growing concerns in California about workers there.

The EPA wanted to make it 45 days. Bayer officials balked.

The EPA backed down.

How about 30 days? No.

Or 21? No again.

The EPA gave in. It accepted the 14-day re-entry period Bayer had already agreed to.

Although federal officials have steadfastly refused to accept the results of pesticide trials on humans, the national re-entry standards are almost identical to ones already used in California. And the California standards were set after officials there relied on Bayer's human testing.

Officially ignored by the EPA, the human test influenced the outcome after all.

After conceding on the workers' issues, the EPA turned back to the issue of children's diets.

The longer that growers waited to harvest after spraying Guthion, the less pesticide would remain on picked fruit. After a fight, Bayer agreed to increase the existing 14-day pre-harvest spray limit to 21 days -- but only if growers were allowed to use heavier Guthion doses.

How about the total amount sprayed during the season?

The existing rule capped the total use at 6 pounds per acre during the year.

The EPA proposed cutting that to 4.5 pounds.

Bayer agreed.

With only hours to go before an Aug. 2 news conference, the EPA and Bayer struck a deal. Three smaller makers of azinphos methyl products also signed on, as did the company that produces the raw chemical for Bayer, Israel's Makhteshim-Agan.

The voluntary agreement prevented the EPA from launching an expensive and time-consuming cancellation hearing against Guthion, a move that could raise questions about the chemical in other countries.

Guthion's trial under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 was effectively over.

Reductions minimal

But it wasn't the victory for the EPA that it appeared to be.

In fact, the new restrictions required only minimal cuts in Guthion's use.

The 4.5 pound-per-acre restriction is actually almost twice the average 2.4 pounds per acre of Guthion that growers use nationwide, U.S. Department of Agriculture records show.

In Washington state, where Guthion use is the heaviest, growers use 2.8 pounds an acre.

EPA officials say lowering the per-acre cap will knock out some of the highest Guthion users, but they acknowledge that most growers will not be affected. The EPA also limited overall use to 1.92 million pounds -- or about a 10 percent cut from current levels, which vary from year to year. The cap prevents growers from increasing Guthion use if other bug-killers are banned in the future.

"Where it is right now essentially gives our industry an adequate level of flexibility," said Cranney of the U.S Apple Association. "If there had been more of a change, we wouldn't be able to say that."

From Bayer's point of view, the EPA's opinion of Guthion's risks is still unwarranted, but the agency's rush to cut a deal helped the company.

"The policies the EPA folks were trying to follow weren't in place yet," said Gregg Storey, Bayer's liaison with growers, who took part in the talks. "EPA decided that given the timeline, they had to be flexible. They found ways to make their policies fit the decisions they had to make with us."

Restrictions announced

EPA Administrator Carol Browner announced Guthion's restrictions at an Aug. 2 news conference at the agency's Washington headquarters.

"When a family gathers around the kitchen table, they should know that the food is as safe as it can be for every family member -- from the youngest to the oldest. And that's what this administration is guaranteeing."

But when it comes to the EPA and pesticides, that's not true.

In fact, the agency isn't even following the law.

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 required the EPA to weigh risks from all organophosphates together -- and Guthion by itself consumes almost all of the allowable risk to children.

At least partly as a result of political pressure, the agency is still years away from acting on its own finding that Guthion and 39 other organophosphates together pose an unacceptable risk.

EPA officials say they are still trying to figure out the science that will enable them to act. The agency acknowledges that it may not be able to do so until at least 2001, five years after passage of the Food Quality Protection Act, and after a new president is in office.

With 16 acres of orchards near Rock Island, Wash., Don Brandenburg knows the codling moths will be back next year, their larvae hungry for his apples.

When it looked as though Guthion was in trouble earlier this year, he stocked up. The idea was to have supplies for next year governed by product labeling with old Guthion rules. He's not sure how the new regulations will affect his orchard. But he does know that if too many of the moths survive, his farm won't. If the government eventually restricts Guthion further, other bug-killing tools remain, still waiting their turn to go through the EPA's computer.

The EPA has already begun reviewing other organophosphates. But entirely different classes of pesticides won't be looked at for years to come.

So as far as Brandenburg can see into the future, he will do what he has always done to protect his apples: fire up his tractor, mix the chemicals and pull his air-blast sprayer through the orchard, the poison wind appearing to vanish behind him.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Rosset, Collins, Lappe on Green Revolution and Biotech

Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:30:26 -0800 (PST)

Lessons from the Green Revolution

Do We Need New Technology to End Hunger?

by Peter Rosset, Joseph Collins, and Frances Moore LappÈ*

[from Tikkun Magazine, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 52-56, March/April 2000]

Faced with an estimated 786 million hungry people in the world, cheerleaders for our social order have an easy solution: we will grow more food through the magic of chemicals and genetic engineering. For those who remember the original "Green Revolution" promise to end hunger through miracle seeds, this call for "Green Revolution II" should ring hollow. Yet Monsanto, Novartis, AgrEvo, DuPont, and other chemical companies who are reinventing themselves as biotechnology companies, together with the World Bank and other international agencies, would have the world's anti-hunger energies aimed down the path of more agrochemicals and genetically modified crops. This second Green Revolution, they tell us, will save the world from hunger and starvation if we just allow these various companies, spurred by the free market, to do their magic.

The Green Revolution myth goes like this: the miracle seeds of the Green Revolution increase grain yields and therefore are a key to ending world hunger. Higher yields mean more income for poor farmers, helping them to climb out of poverty, and more food means less hunger. Dealing with the root causes of poverty that contribute to hunger takes a very long time and people are starving now. So we must do what we can-increase production. The Green Revolution buys the time Third World countries desperately need to deal with the underlying social causes of poverty and to cut birth rates. In any case, outsiders-like the scientists and policy advisers behind the Green Revolution-can't tell a poor country to reform its economic and political system, but they can contribute invaluable expertise in food production. While the first Green Revolution may have missed poorer areas with more marginal lands, we can learn valuable lessons from that experience to help launch a second Green Revolution to defeat hunger once and for all.

Improving seeds through experimentation is what people have been up to since the beginning of agriculture, but the term "Green Revolution" was coined in the 1960s to highlight a particularly striking breakthrough. In test plots in northwest Mexico, improved varieties of wheat dramatically increased yields. Much of the reason why these "modern varieties" produced more than traditional varieties was that they were more responsive to controlled irrigation and to petrochemical fertilizers, allowing for much more efficient conversion of industrial inputs into food. With a big boost from the International Agricultural Research Centers created by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the "miracle" seeds quickly spread to Asia, and soon new strains of rice and corn were developed as well.

By the 1970s, the term "revolution" was well deserved, for the new seeds-accompanied by chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and, for the most part, irrigation-had replaced the traditional farming practices of millions of Third World farmers. By the 1990s, almost 75 percent of Asian rice areas were sown with these new varieties. The same was true for almost half of the wheat planted in Africa and more than half of that in Latin America and Asia, and about 70 percent of the world's corn as well. Overall, it was estimated that 40 percent of all farmers in the Third World were using Green Revolution seeds, with the greatest use found in Asia, followed by Latin America.

Clearly, the production advances of the Green Revolution are no myth. Thanks to the new seeds, tens of millions of extra tons of grain a year are being harvested. But has the Green Revolution actually proven itself a successful strategy for ending hunger? Not really.

Narrowly focusing on increasing production-as the Green Revolution does-cannot alleviate hunger because it fails to alter the tightly concentrated distribution of economic power, especially access to land and purchasing power. Even the World Bank concluded in a major 1986 study of world hunger that a rapid increase in food production does not necessarily result in food security-that is, less hunger. Current hunger can only be alleviated by "redistributing purchasing power and resources toward those who are undernourished," the study said. In a nutshell-if the poor don't have the money to buy food, increased production is not going to help them.

Introducing any new agricultural technology into a social system stacked in favor of the rich and against the poor-without addressing the social questions of access to the technology's benefits-will over time lead to an even greater concentration of the rewards from agriculture, as is happening in the United States.

Because the Green Revolution approach does nothing to address the insecurity that lies at the root of high birth rates-and can even heighten that insecurity-it cannot buy time until population growth slows. Finally, a narrow focus on production ultimately defeats itself as it destroys the very resource base on which agriculture depends. We've come to see that without a strategy for change that addresses the powerlessness of the poor, the tragic result will be more food and yet more hunger.

More Food and Yet More Hunger?

Despite three decades of rapidly expanding global food supplies, there are still an estimated 786 million hungry people in the world in the 1990s. Where are these 786 million hungry people? Since the early 1980s, media representations of famines in Africa have awakened Westerners to hunger there, but Africa represents less than one-quarter of the hunger in the world today. We are made blind to the day-in-day-out hunger suffered by hundreds of millions more. For example, by the mid-1980s, newspaper headlines were applauding the Asian success stories-India and Indonesia, we were told, had become "self-sufficient in food" or even "food exporters." But it is in Asia, precisely where Green Revolution seeds have contributed to the greatest production success, that roughly two-thirds of the undernourished in the entire world live.

According to Business Week magazine, "even though Indian granaries are overflowing now," thanks to the success of the Green Revolution in raising wheat and rice yields, "5,000 children die each day of malnutrition. One-third of India's 900 million people are poverty-stricken." Since the poor can't afford to buy what is produced, "the government is left trying to store millions of tons of foods. Some is rotting, and there is concern that rotten grain will find its way to public markets." The article concludes that the Green Revolution may have reduced India's grain imports substantially, but did not have a similar impact on hunger.

Such analysis raises serious questions about the number of hungry people in the world in 1970 versus 1990, spanning the two decades of major Green Revolution advances. At first glance, it looks as though great progress was made, with food production up and hunger down. The total food available per person in the world rose by 11 percent over those two decades, while the estimated number of hungry people fell from 942 million to 786 million, a 16 percent drop. This was apparent progress, for which those behind the Green Revolution were understandably happy to take the credit.

But these figures merit a closer look. If you eliminate China from the analysis, the number of hungry people in the rest of the world actually increased by more than 11 percent, from 536 to 597 million. In South America, for example, while per capita food supplies rose almost 8 percent, the number of hungry people also went up, by 19 percent. In south Asia, there was 9 percent more food per person by 1990, but there were also 9 percent more hungry people. Nor was it increased population that made for more hungry people. The total food available per person actually increased. What made possible greater hunger was the failure to address unequal access to food and food-producing resources.

The remarkable difference in China, where the number of hungry dropped from 406 million to 189 million, almost begs the question: which has been more effective at reducing hunger-the Green Revolution or the Chinese Revolution, where broad-based changes in access to land paved the way for rising living standards?

Whether the Green Revolution or any other strategy to boost food production will alleviate hunger depends on the economic, political, and cultural rules that people make. These rules determine who benefits as a supplier of the increased production-whose land and crops prosper and for whose profit-and who benefits as a consumer of the increased production-who gets the food and at what price.

The poor pay more and get less. Poor farmers can't afford to buy fertilizer and other inputs in volume; big growers can get discounts for large purchases. Poor farmers can't hold out for the best price for their crops, as can larger farmers whose circumstances are far less desperate. In much of the world, water is the limiting factor in farming success, and irrigation is often out of the reach of the poor. Canal irrigation favors those near the top of the flow. Tubewells, often promoted by development agencies, favor the bigger operators, who can better afford the initial investment and have lower costs per unit. Credit is also critical. It is common for small farmers to depend on local moneylenders and pay interest rates several times as high as wealthier farmers. Government-subsidized credit overwhelmingly benefits the big farmers. Most of all, the poor lack clout. They can't command the subsidies and other government favors accruing to the rich.

With the Green Revolution, farming becomes petro-dependent. Some of the more recently developed seeds may produce higher yields even without manufactured inputs, but the best results require the right amounts of chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and water. So as the new seeds spread, petrochemicals become part of farming. In India, adoption of the new seeds has been accompanied by a sixfold rise in fertilizer use per acre. Yet the quantity of agricultural production per ton of fertilizer used in India dropped by two-thirds during the Green Revolution years. In fact, over the past thirty years the annual growth of fertilizer use on Asian rice has been from three to forty times faster than the growth of rice yields.

Because farming methods that depend heavily on chemical fertilizers do not maintain the soil's natural fertility and because pesticides generate resistant pests, farmers need ever more fertilizers and pesticides just to achieve the same results. At the same time, those who profit from the increased use of fertilizers and pesticides fear labor organizing and use their new wealth to buy tractors and other machines, even though they are not required by the new seeds. This incremental shift leads to the industrialization of farming.

Once on the path of industrial agriculture, farming costs more. It can be more profitable, of course, but only if the prices farmers get for their crops stay ahead of the costs of petrochemicals and machinery. Green Revolution proponents claim increases in net incomes from farms of all sizes once farmers adopt the more responsive seeds. But recent studies also show another trend: outlays for fertilizers and pesticides may be going up faster than yields, suggesting that Green Revolution farmers are now facing what U.S. farmers have experienced for decades-a cost-price squeeze.

In Central Luzon, Philippines, rice yield increased 13 percent during the 1980s, but came at the cost of a 21 percent increase in fertilizer use. In the Central Plains, yields went up only 6.5 percent, while fertilizer use rose 24 percent and pesticides jumped by 53 percent. In West Java, a 23 percent yield increase was virtually canceled by 65 and 69 percent increases in fertilizers and pesticides respectively.

To anyone following farm news here at home, these reports have a painfully familiar ring-and why wouldn't they? After all, the United States-not Mexico-is the true birthplace of the Green Revolution. Improved seeds combined with chemical fertilizers and pesticides have pushed corn yields up nearly three-fold since 1950, with smaller but still significant gains for wheat, rice, and soybeans. Since World War II, as larger harvests have pushed down the prices farmers get for their crops while the costs of farming have shot up, farmers' profit margins have been drastically narrowed. By the early 1990s, production costs had risen from about half to over 80 percent of gross farm income. So who survives today? Two very different groups: those few farmers who chose not to buy into industrialized agriculture and those able to keep expanding their acreage to make up for their lower per acre profit. Among this second select group are the top 1.2 percent of farms by income, those with $500,000 or more in yearly sales, dubbed "superfarms" by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1969, the superfarms earned 16 percent of net farm income; by the late 1980s, they garnered nearly 40 percent.

Superfarms triumph not because they are more efficient food producers or because the Green Revolution technology itself favored them, but because of advantages that accrue to wealth and size. They have the capital to invest and the volume necessary to stay afloat even if profits per unit shrink. They have the political clout to shape tax policies in their favor. Over time, why should we expect the result of the cost-price squeeze to be any different in the Third World? In the United States, we've seen the number of farms drop by two-thirds and average farm size more than double since World War II. The gutting of rural communities, the creation of inner-city slums, and the exacerbation of unemployment all followed in the wake of this vast migration from the land. Think what the equivalent rural exodus means in the Third World, where the number of jobless people is already double or triple our own.

Not Ecologically Sustainable

There is also growing evidence that Green Revolution-style farming is not ecologically sustainable, even for large farmers. In the 1990s, Green Revolution researchers themselves sounded the alarm about a disturbing trend that had only just come to light. After achieving dramatic increases in the early stages of the technological transformation, yields began falling in a number of Green Revolution areas. In Central Luzon, Philippines, rice yields grew steadily during the 1970s, peaked in the early 1980s, and have been dropping gradually ever since. Long-term experiments conducted by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in both Central Luzon and Laguna Province confirm these results. Similar patterns have now been observed for rice-wheat systems in India and Nepal. The causes of this phenomenon have to do with forms of long-term soil degradation that are still poorly understood by scientists. An Indian farmer told Business Week his story:

Dyal Singh knows that the soil on his 3.3-hectare [8 acre] farm in Punjab is becoming less fertile. So far, it hasn't hurt his harvest of wheat and corn. "There will be a great problem after 5 or 10 years," says the 63-year-old Sikh farmer. Years of using high-yield seeds that require heavy irrigation and chemical fertilizers have taken their toll on much of India's farmland.^  So far, 6 percent of agricultural land has been rendered useless.

Where yields are not actually declining, the rate of growth is slowing rapidly or leveling off, as has now been documented in China, North Korea, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

The Green Revolution: Some Lessons

Having seen food production advance while hunger widens, we are now prepared to ask: under what conditions are greater harvests doomed to failure in eliminating hunger?

First, where farmland is bought and sold like any other commodity and society allows the unlimited accumulation of farmland by a few, superfarms replace family farms and all of society suffers.

Second, where the main producers of food-small farmers and farm workers-lack bargaining power relative to suppliers of farm inputs and food marketers, producers get a shrinking share of the rewards from farming.

Third, where dominant technology destroys the very basis for future production, by degrading the soil and generating pest and weed problems, it becomes increasingly difficult and costly to sustain yields.

Under these three conditions, mountains of additional food could not eliminate hunger, as hunger in America should never let us forget. The alternative is to create a viable and productive small farm agriculture using the principles of agroecology. That is the only model with the potential to end rural poverty, feed everyone, and protect the environment and the productivity of the land for future generations.

Successful Examples

That sounds good, but has it ever worked? From the United States to India, alternative agriculture is proving itself viable. In the United States, a landmark study by the prestigious National Research Council found that "alternative farmers often produce high per acre yields with significant reductions in costs per unit of crop harvested," despite the fact that "many federal policies discourage adoption of alternative practices." The Council concluded that "Federal commodity programs must be restructured to help farmers realize the full benefits of the productivity gains possible through alternative practices."

In South India, a 1993 study was carried out to compare "ecological farms" with matched "conventional" or chemical-intensive farms. The study's author found that the ecological farms were just as productive and profitable as the chemical ones. He concluded that if extrapolated nationally, ecological farming would have "no negative impact on food security," and would reduce soil erosion and the depletion of soil fertility while greatly lessening dependence on external inputs.

But Cuba is where alternative agriculture has been put to its greatest test. Changes underway in that island nation since the collapse of trade with the former socialist bloc provide evidence that the alternative approach can work on a large scale. Before 1989, Cuba was a model Green Revolution-style farm economy, based on enormous production units, using vast quantities of imported chemicals and machinery to produce export crops, while over half of the island's food was imported. Although the government's commitment to equity, as well as favorable terms of trade offered by Eastern Europe, meant that Cubans were not undernourished, the underlying vulnerability of this style of farming was exposed when the collapse of the socialist bloc joined the already existing and soon to be tightened U.S. trade embargo.

Cuba was plunged into the worst food crisis in its history, with consumption of calories and protein dropping by perhaps as much as 30 percent. Nevertheless, by 1997, Cubans were eating almost as well as they did before 1989, yet comparatively little food and agrochemicals were being imported. What happened?

Faced with the impossibility of importing either food or agrochemical inputs, Cuba turned inward to create a more self-reliant agriculture based on higher crop prices to farmers, agroecological technology, smaller production units, and urban agriculture. The combination of a trade embargo, food shortages, and the opening of farmers' markets meant that farmers began to receive much better prices for their products. Given this incentive to produce, they did so, even in the absence of Green Revolution-style inputs. They were given a huge boost by the reorientation of government education, research, and extension toward alternative methods, as well as the rediscovery of traditional farming techniques.

As small farmers and cooperatives responded by increasing production while large-scale state farms stagnated and faced plunging yields, the government initiated the newest phase of revolutionary land reform, parceling out the state farms to their former employees as smaller-scale production units. Finally, the government mobilized support for a growing urban agriculture movement-small-scale organic farming on vacant lots-which, together with the other changes, transformed Cuban cities and urban diets in just a few years.

The Cuban experience tells us that we can feed a nation's people with a small-farm model based on agroecological technology, and in so doing we can become more self-reliant in food production. A key lesson is that when farmers receive fairer prices, they produce, with or without Green Revolution seed and chemical inputs. If these expensive and noxious inputs are unnecessary, then we can dispense with them.

The Bottom Line

In the final analysis, if the history of the Green Revolution has taught us one thing, it is that increased food production can-and often does-go hand in hand with greater hunger. If the very basis of staying competitive in farming is buying expensive inputs, then wealthier farmers will inexorably win out over the poor, who are unlikely to find adequate employment to compensate for the loss of farming livelihoods. Hunger is not caused by a shortage of food, and cannot be eliminated by producing more.

This is why we must be skeptical when Monsanto, DuPont, Novartis, and other chemical-cum-biotechnology companies tell us that genetic engineering will boost crop yields and feed the hungry. The technologies they push have dubious benefits and well-documented risks, and the second Green Revolution they promise is no more likely to end hunger than the first.

Far too many people do not have access to the food that is already available because of deep and growing inequality. If agriculture can play any role in alleviating hunger, it will only be to the extent that the bias toward wealthier and larger farmers is reversed through pro-poor alternatives like land reform and sustainable agriculture, which reduce inequality and make small farmers the center of an economically vibrant rural economy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* Peter Rosset has a Ph.D. in agricultural ecology and is the executive director of Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy (http://www.foodfirst.org), which was founded by Joseph Collins and Frances Moore LappÈ in 1975. This article is based on research presented in World Hunger: 12 Myths, second edition by Frances Moore LappÈ, Joseph Collins, and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza (Grove Press/Earthscan, 1998). You can order the book at the Food First web site above.

© Tikkun Magazine
2107 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 302
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 575-1200, (415) 575-1434 fax
magazine@tikkun.org
www.tikkun.org

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Thailand:Threat of mass rally against GM testing: Farmers say scrap tests

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:03:50 -0500

Bangkok Post

March 15, 2000

Threat of Mass Rally Against GM Testing: Farmer Groups Say Scrap Tests Right Now

A network of 35 farmer groups and non-governmental organisations has threatened to stage a mass rally unless concerned agencies respond positively to their call for a halt to the testing of genetically modified plants. The network issued the threat in a statement submitted to the Agriculture and Co-operatives Ministry, seeking to know the result of an investigation into the reported spread of genetically modified cotton, or Bt cotton, from trial fields to open farms. It also wanted the ministry to clarify reports that the Agriculture Department had sent seeds of jasmine rice and other crops to be genetically modified in the United States in 1997, and then planted them in field trial.

It wanted a halt to the trial. Veeraphol Sopha, an adviser to the Forum of the Poor, submitted the demand to Somsak Singholka, deputy permanent secretary for agriculture. Mr Somsak maintained the ministry had stopped the testing of GM jasmine rice since 1998 and had no plans to continue it. The testing was initiated because the government wished to solve the problem of diseases with rice crops and genetic modification was one option, he said. In its statement, the farmers' network said the ministry had allowed the import of genetically modified seeds to be tested in the country since 1995. All Bt plants had to be burnt for biosafety reasons after the experiment ended. However, it was found that Bt cotton had been planted on some farms. The network demanded the ministry immediately stop testing GM seeds until there were water-tight biosafety measures.

Copyright 2000 FT Asia Intelligence Wire All Rights Reserved Copyright 2000 Bangkok Post

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: NGO seminar urges campaign against 'unfair' biopiracy

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:06:25 -0500

The Jakarta Post - 20 March 2000

NGO seminar urges campaign against 'unfair' biopiracy

JAKARTA (JP): Activists urged on Saturday a further delay of the enforcement of trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, which should have begun in January.

In a workshop on the piracy of biological resources, or biopiracy, activists asserted that the interests of local communities, who are said to own these resources, had yet to be protected by law.

The House of Representatives will hold a hearing on Monday with the government about a draft on patent regulation.

"People aren't ready to use patents, and developed countries are abusing this for their own interests," said Tini Hadad, an executive board member of the Indonesian Consumers Foundation.

In view of this Tini said the enforcement of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) here should be delayed.

Indonesia signed the agreement at the World Trade Organization (WTO) conference in Morocco in 1994.

It was ratified in Law No. 13/1997. However, the law is to be reviewed to better meet WTO standarda, thus delaying the agreed time of enforcement, which was set for January 2000.

Riza Tjahjadi, who chairs the Pesticide Action Network in Indonesia, said the hearing was believed to be in anticipation of the review on TRIPS by WTO next June.

State Minister of Environment Sonny Keraf, who addressed the workshop, described biopiracy as a new form of imperialism noting that developed states benefited from developing countries' slow anticipation of patents.

"It's ridiculous if we have to pay to use herbs growing in our land which we've used since ancient times," Sonny said.

The minister said a patent is an acknowledgment of intellectual rights, but added it was not fair to patent biological diversity.

Riza said Shiseido, a well-known Japanese cosmetic firm, had quietly patented several local traditional formulas of herbs and spices.

Among the formulas patented by Shiseido were antiaging agents made from Sambiloto (Andrographis panicurata) and Kemukus (Piper cubeba), and hair tonic from Javanese chili, Riza said. (08)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:31:19 -0800

Subject: Health office fires critic 3/20/00 ( -Forwarded)

Health office fires critic 3/20/00

JAN HOLLINGSWORTH

of The Tampa Tribune

The epidemiologist who refused to alter a draft report linking illness in Medfly spray zones to malathion bait has been fired from his job at the state Health Department.

Florida health officials earlier this month accused Omar Shafey of falsifying travel records and of conduct unbecoming a public employee.

The most serious charge, according to Health Department documents, ``resulted in an overpayment of $12.50'' for a November trip to Chicago.

Shafey calls the charges ``false and malicious.'' He said that he plans to sue the agency under state and federal ``whistleblower'' laws.

Tallahassee lawyer Jerry Traynham, who plans to represent Shafey in the state litigation, said he believes the agency was ``striking out'' at a scientist who stood by politically unpopular opinions.

Shafey's dismissal comes a little more than a year after he recommended an end to the aerial spraying of malathion bait on urban populations.

Shafey, who coordinated the state's Pesticide Poisoning Surveillance Program, refused to change the conclusions of a draft report documenting acute pesticide-related illness in Lake, Manatee and Highlands counties during the 1998 campaign to eradicate the Mediterranean fruit fly.

The crop-killing pest poses a serious threat to the state's agriculture industry, and malathion bait sprayed from planes and helicopters has long been viewed as the cheapest, most effective remedy.

Shafey said he was asked to alter his report ``based on political realities and the need to avoid making health recommendations'' that the state Agriculture Department ``finds problematic,'' according to an internal Health Department memo he wrote to a superior early last year.

Shafey's bosses rewrote the report to conclude that an association between the spray campaign and rashes, breathing problems and other documented health effects had not been established.

Detailed case histories that included physician diagnoses and the severity of symptoms, some of which required hospitalization, were stripped from the document. Agricultural officials staunchly denied any role in the changes.

Health Department officials said the changes were the result of ``genuine scientific disagreement.``

But scientists outside the agency criticized the removal of information from the report. And the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention later supported Shafey's conclusions.

Health officials won't comment on the dismissal, citing the possibility of future litigation.

The agency's March 3 letter firing Shafey makes no mention of the Medfly affair.

``You are being dismissed from your position ... for a first occurrence of Falsification of Records or Statements, a first occurrence of Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee and a first occurrence of Threatening and/or Abusive Language,'' according to a letter signed by Sharon Heber, director of the agency's division of environmental health.

Heber, who was involved in altering the draft Medfly report, on Dec. 10 launched a three-month investigation into Shafey's November travel records.

The falsification of records charge came from Shafey's submitting an expense report for the Chicago trip. State employees are entitled to $50 per day expenses while on a business trip. The department's inspector general determined Shafey worked three-quarters of the day one day and was not entitled to the entire payment.

The inspector general also noted discrepancies in a travel report related to a trip to Immokalee that same month. None of these resulted in monetary compensation.

Shafey's response to the allegations, dated March 2, contended there was ``flawed evidence and faulty conclusions'' in the inspector general's report ``that cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in the public record.''

Shafey was placed on administrative leave that morning and fired the next day. His five-page rebuttal was never turned over to the department.

The ``conduct unbecoming'' charge is related to a February e-mail Shafey sent to a colleague at the CDC. He noted that potassium chloride used in the state's first execution by lethal injection had not been approved for that use by the Food and Drug Administration. The correspondence was ``inappropriate'' and ``outside the scope of your job duties and outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Health,'' Heber wrote.

The abusive language charge stemmed from an incident that occurred when Shafey was informed of the agency's intent to fire him. According to Heber's letter, Shafey called his boss, among other things, a ``worm'' and ``the lowest form of life.''

Penalties for the violations can range from written reprimand to dismissal for a first occurrence.

The charges are the first mark on an unblemished record during his two years with the agency.

In his August 1998 evaluation, one month before he produced his first Medfly report, Heber wrote: ``Dr. Shafey has done an excellent job in establishing the pesticide surveillance program. His involvement in the Medfly eradication program has been invaluable.''

Those who worked with Shafey through the pesticide surveillance program call him ``a straight-shooter'' dedicated to protecting public health.

``They had a real gem there,'' said Stuart Brooks, director of a research and education center at the University of South Florida's College of Public Health. ``He tried to do everything right.''

Shafey is now working for an Atlanta Internet research firm.

Jan Hollingsworth can be reached at jhollingsworth@tampatrib.comor (813) 259-7607.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Boston protest draws 2500+ demonstrators

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:38:29 -0500

Posted below are two articles about the genetically engineered foods demonstration in Boston on Sunday. The Boston police reported there were between 2500 and 3500 people involved in this peaceful march.

If you want to see pictures of the event and listen to audio clips of music and speeches, here is a web site set up by the Boston Independent Media Center: http://boston.indymedia.org

**************

U.S. demonstrators protest genetic engineering

BOSTON, March 26 (Reuters) - In what organisers said was the largest demonstration ever held in the United States to protest genetic engineering of foods, up to 3,500 people marched Sunday in Boston at the opening of Bio2000.

Boston police had geared up for Seattle-style protests that disrupted the World Trade Organisation meeting in December. But after a four-hour rally and march by what police said was between 2,500 and 3,500 people, there were no arrests.

``Everything was remarkably peaceful,'' a Boston police spokesman said.

Costumed as mutant vegetables and animals, the demonstrators complained of the lack of testing and information available to consumers about genetically modified foods - especially in corn and soybean that are key components of many processed foods.

``Government and industry attitude appears to be 'Don't Ask. Don't Find,''' Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecker, a professor from the University of Liverpool in England, told the crowd gathered at Copley Square before they marched to the Hynes convention centre about a quarter-mile away.

The Centre is hosting Bio2000, a biotechnology industry convention where some 7,000 researchers and business executives are gathered.

Steven Drucker, one of the protest organisers, estimated that 60 to 70 percent of the processed foods in the United States use genetically altered crops. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require such foods to be labeled.

But Carl Feldbaum, head of Bio2000, called the demonstrators ``a festive, colourful group... (that) doesn't have a clue about what the biotechnology industry does.''

He said the FDA ``has very strict labeling rules that changes to a foods composition, its nutrition or anything that puts in an allergen must be so labeled. There is no scientific reasons to require a label on foods'' that contain bioengineered ingredients.

19:00 03-26-00

*******************************************************

Boston Globe

March 27, 2000

Biotech protest draws 2,500

Demonstrators march peacefully, seek ethics debate

By Raphael Lewis and Jamal E. Watson, Globe Staff, Globe Correspondent

Despite fears of violence in the streets, an estimated 2,500 chanting, costumed demonstrators kept their promise to march peacefully through the Back Bay yesterday as they voiced their opposition to the spread of biotechnology.

Police reported no arrests. Protesters dressed as mutant creatures and macabre vegetables marched along five blocks of Boylston Street. The demonstration capped three days of a counter-conference staged in the shadow of Bio2000, a biotechnology convention at the Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center.

Organizers of ''Biodevastation 2000'' yesterday said the march, and the three-hour rally in Copley Square that preceded it, offered proof that the fledgling movement is catching up with those in Europe, where protesters have forced governments to rethink the sale of genetically modified foods.

''This went about as well as we could have possibly hoped,'' said Jessica Hayes, one of the rally's organizers, who noted that about 400 protesters greeted members of the biotechnology industry when they met last May in Seattle.

But if the ranks of the opponents of biotechnology are swelling, they are well behind the sustained growth the industry itself is enjoying. Bio2000, which runs through Thursday, has drawn nearly 8,000 scientists, researchers, and executives from around the world to discuss the latest innovations in gene-splicing and cross-species transplants. The industry last year had $18.6 billion in revenues.

While the protesters chanted, danced, and drummed, convention delegates peered down from windows in the Hynes, many wondering what the fuss was about.

''I thought it was a festive, colorful gathering, and I'm glad that it's been peaceful so far. However, their message was muddled, and they had so much misinformation,'' said Carl B. Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which is sponsoring the conference.

One industry leader was not so charitable in his assessment.

''It's just garbage, unreal garbage,'' said David Dennis, president of Performance Plants of Kingston, Ontario, moments after he engaged one of Biodevastation 2000's leaders in a spontaneous debate. ''These are the most tested products in history. These people have no idea what they are talking about.''

Hayes and other leaders of Biodevastation 2000 yesterday challenged those at Bio2000 to a public debate on the scientific, moral, and economic basis for their work.

Such a discussion is not likely to occur, however, since industry representatives said they had requested a private forum to set the ground rules of a public debate, something the protesters rejected, according to Janice Bourque, executive director of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council.

''As we move forward, we could hopefully have a chance to talk about our viewpoints; that's still our goal,'' Bourque said. ''Unfortunately, the timing is such that it's not practical to organize something like this.''

The rally began as people dressed as freakish half-tomato, half-fish mutants, among other creatures, arrived at Copley Square. They were met by squads of police on foot, on horseback, on motorcycles, and in cruisers. Officers also kept an eye on the day's events from a helicopter and from the rooftops of several buildings.

Under brilliant blue skies and warm temperatures, those who planned on taking part in the protest - which had a permit for 1,000 people - were soon joined by numerous bystanders taken up by the cause.

''I took some of their literature to find out what all this is about,'' said Johnny Durant, 50, of Dorchester. ''It's real interesting, so I'm going to walk with them.''

Biodevastation 2000 organizers were upset when a group calling itself the Church of Euthanasia from Somerville arrived with placards and signs advocating positions far from their own. A few shoving matches broke out, as well as several arguments. In the end, the group relocated to the periphery of Copley Square.

Police officials said they were grateful to the rally's organizers for keeping their promise to stage a peaceful protest. But they said they would remain vigilant, monitoring other planned protests, including one scheduled for last night at the Museum of Fine Arts, where a Bio2000 reception was planned.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:42:19 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: GE plantings to drop 24%: USDA (fwd)

By Philip Brasher / AP Farm Writer

WASHINGTON -- Farmers are turning away from genetically engineered crops, especially a biotech corn that's toxic to insects, amid consumer resistance that started overseas and is now being felt in the United States.

Plantings of the gene-altered corn are projected to drop 24 percent this year, according to findings of an Agriculture Department survey released Friday. The report also suggested declines in biotech varieties of cotton and soybeans.

"We don't want to go out here and spend any more money ... than we absolutely have to," said Allan Morris, who farms near Mason, Ill. "We can't afford to do that with the margins we have in agriculture."

According to the USDA survey, farmers in major corn-producing states intend to plant 19 percent of their corn acreage this year to the Bt variety, down from 25 percent in 1999.

Plantings of biotech cotton are projected to decline from 55 percent last year to 48 percent in 2000. Some 52 percent of this year's soybean acreage is expected to be a biotech variety that is resistant to a popular herbicide. About 57 percent of soybeans last year were herbicide resistant, including a small amount that was conventionally bred.

"Producers are just trying to protect themselves. The industry seems to be saying they want less biotech and that's what their interest is, going to where the industry is telling them to go," said Don Roose, an analyst with U.S. Commodities Inc.

Farm groups had expected the reduction in biotech corn because of resistance to the crop in overseas markets and a decline in infestations of the European corn borer, the pest the corn is designed to kill.

"Farmers need markets. They always say the consumer is king, and the consumer in this case isn't that interested in genetically engineered corn," said Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Seed companies have insisted that demand for biotech varieties is in line with last year, although some have been offering discounts to farmers to maintain sales. Monsanto Co.'s biotech sales are "flat to marginally better" than last year, said spokesman Dan Verakis.

Jerry Dittrich, who farms near Tilden, Neb., planted at least 75 percent of his corn and soybean acreage to biotech varieties last year and isn't cutting back. They save work and reduce the need for insecticides and herbicides, he said. "I haven't seen any proof that it's not safe," he said.

But Morris, the Illinois farmer, planted Bt seed on just 10 percent of his corn acreage in 1999 and said he's going to grow even less this year.

Overall, farmers plan to plant an estimated 77.9 million acres of corn this year, up 1 percent from 1999, and a record 74.9 million acres of soybeans, also a 1 percent increase, according to the USDA survey.

Total cotton plantings are expected to reach 15.6 million acres this year, an increase of 5 percent from last year, and the second-largest acreage since 1962. Sugarbeet acreage is expected to rise by 1 percent to 1.6 million.

Wheat acreage is expected to total 61.7 million acres, down 2 percent from 1999, reflecting a shift to crops that producers consider more lucrative.

Soybeans have become increasingly popular with farmers in recent years because of federal price supports that make the crop more profitable than some other commodities, according to analysts.

On the Net:

USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service site:

http://www.usda.gov/nass

USDA's biotechnology site: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology

-----------------------------------------------------

Northeast Resistance Against Genetic Engineering

http://www.biodev.org

http://www.nativeforest.org/nerage

For extensive photos, audio and video footage from Biodevastation 2000:

http://boston.indymedia.org

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Resistance is Fertile actions (fwd)

Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:39:43 -0700 (PDT)

Resistance is Fertile is an international campaign of actions against genetic engineering, happening from April 1 - 10. For continuing updates, photos, etc., see http://www.resistanceisfertile.com/action.htm.

March 30 also saw the culminating actions of Biodevastation 2000 in Boston: a funeral march for biodiversity, led by activists in biohazard suits (when they arrived at the BIO convention site, the biohazard suits came off, and the coffin was altered to read 'biotech industry'), and an intervention at the biotech industry convention's closing luncheon (5 activists were arrested for telling the truth inside BIO 2000). See http://boston.indymedia.org.

1. Greenpeace exposes GE contamination of Nestle food in New Zealand Auckland, New Zealand, 30 March 2000

Greenpeace activists today have halted distribution of Nestle products at Nestle's South Auckland distribution centre. The action aims to prevent food potentially contaminated with GE ingredients from being distributed.

"Greenpeace is closing down Nestle's distribution site today because we have discovered that its instant soy drink, marketed under the brand name 'Carnation', is contaminated with Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup Ready Soya" says Carl Reller, Greenpeace GE Campaigner.

"Nestle have guaranteed that they will rid their food products of genetically engineered ingredients in Austria, France, Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong over the past year. But at the same time they are still supplying GE food to New Zealanders. This is unacceptable to consumers in New Zealand. GE food is not wanted, and its not needed. We invite Nestle today to make a public commitment to go GE free in New Zealand" says Carl Reller.

Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybean was first commercially planted in 1996. It now accounts for 50% of the US soya crop. Whilst little is known about the environmental and health implications of the swift introduction of commercially grown GE crops, the potential risks to biodiversity would be irreversible. Greenpeace activists are currently at the Nestle Distribution Centre, Nesdale Ave, Wiri .

Greenpeace Media Desk: Margie Taylor 09 630-6317

GE campaigner, Carl Reller 09 630 6317

On site, contact Sue Connor, 021 213 5603

Video footage and background information can also be obtained by phoning Margie Taylor on 09 630 6317.

2. 1 April - Monterey Bay RAGE showed up at the west-side Safeway in Santa Cruz, CA with costumes etc. and publicly label all foods that may contain GMOs.

About 15 people, some dressed in biohazardsuits, all wearing patches reading "you've been fooled by the FDA" entered a Safeway today and began labelling the 'Frankenfood 15' with labels reading "this food may contain unlabelled genetically modified organisms". others simply went in and raised a ruckus by staging theater pieces about GMOs. didn't take them long to boot us but we got out hundreds of stickers and talked to a bunch of customers, many of whom were really interested and concerned. the manager told two plain clothes regular looking folks who expressed concern about the eviction of the labellers "if you're concerned about it (GMOs) you shouldn't shop here!" ok, we won't, but we will be back....

3. April Fools!

Six campaigners from the UK, dressed up as biotech 'heroes' including 'Bob Shapiro', 'Terminator Gene' and 'Ms Canderelle', played a playful visit to Monsanto's headquarters in St. Louis, USA on April 1st.

Monsanto's security arrived within minutes, but before escaping in their getaway vehicle, the mischievious six had managed to make some alterations to the sign at the entrance. Monsanto's famous slogan of 'Food, Health and Hope' now read 'Fraud, Stealth and Hype', and the logo of a healthy green plant was now a withering symbol of the society-wide collapse of support for genetically engineered food. The action was inspired by a satirical song from the English band "Seize the Day", which accuses the corporation of "turning Satan into Santa", and was launched on the web a year ago to the day, at www.seizetheday.org .

-----------------------------------------------------

Northeast Resistance Against Genetic Engineering
http://www.biodev.org
http://www.nativeforest.org/nerage

For extensive photos, audio and video footage from Biodevastation 2000:
http://boston.indymedia.org

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Leading Scientists Debate the Merits of Biotechnology

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:18:43 -0700 (PDT)

April 5, 2000

Leading Scientists Debate the Merits of Biotechnology

Read the debate on transgenic crops published in AgBioForum. Miguel Altieri of the University of California at Berkeley and Peter Rosset of Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy argue that biotechnology is not the solution to world hunger. Martina McGloughlin of the University of California, Davis, responds with a defense of biotechnology, to which Altieri and Rosset reply:

1) Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world. Altieri, M.A. and Rosset, P. (1999). AgBioForum, 2(3&4), 155-162. http://www.agbioforum.org/Default/altieri.htm

2) Ten reasons why biotechnology will be important to the developing world. McGloughlin, M (1999). AgBioForum, 2(3&4), 163-174. http://www.agbioforum.org/Default/mcgloughlin.htm

3) Strengthening the case for why biotechnology will not help the developing world: a response to McGloughlin. Altieri, M.A. and Rosset, P. (1999). AgBioForum, 2(3&4), 226-236. http://www.agbioforum.org/Default/altierireply.htm

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: genetically engineered tree release from biodev 3/27/00

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:05:50 -0700 (PDT)

FOR IMMEDIATE MEDIA RELEASE Monday, March 27, 2000

Boston, MA -- Activists from the Native Forest Network, today joined with the World Rainforest Movement in Uruguay, ACERCA (Action for Community and Ecology in the Regions of Central America), and Rainforest Action Network to publicly announce the launching of a major international campaign against genetically engineered trees.

This announcement was made at a press conference following attendance of Biodevastation 2000, a counter-conference and protest to BIO 2000, the International Biotechnology Meeting and Exhibition, occurring through Thursday. The announcement was also made simultaneous to the beginning of "New Trees Grow Closer: The Ecological, Ethical and Scientific Issues of Forest Biotechnology", BIO's major Symposium this morning at BIO 2000. "The next 50 years will see a forestry endeavor worldwide profoundly shaped by biotechnology," the BIO agenda reads.

"Genetic engineering of trees poses a real threat to forest and their ecosystems," said Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, a genetic scientist who works with the University of Liverpool. She continued, "Proper risk assessment is impossible; we neither know the stakes nor the odds."

Public relations experts for the biotech industry have said genetic engineering is no different from efforts to breed plants and animals to meet human needs, except the outcomes can be achieved more quickly. The truth is genetics can alter structures of life in ways that could never occur in nature, the consequences of which are unknown.

"GE trees present a tremendous threat to forests around the world," stated Patrick Reinsborough (in a statement from San Francisco read at today's Press Conference), Outreach Coordinator for the Rainforest Action Network. "RAN is especially concerned about the threat of these designer trees to the world's rainforests, which is where many of the test plots of these trees are located," he continued.

Mick Petrie, NFN's campaigner on GE Trees, went on to say, "Additionally, because GE trees are still very close to their wild relatives, they are extremely susceptible to genetic pollution. Many of us see forests as diverse habitats providing the last refuge for the earth's declining biodiversity. The risks of genetic pollution in our remaining native forests are unknown, irreversible and potentially one of the greatest threats to biodiversity ever."

Another key concern is the growing dominance of a few corporations with the power to affect all life on earth. This seems especially threatening when biotech and chemical giants are partnered with some of the world's largest landowners. Some of the principal players involved in Agbio, such as Monsanto, are also involved in forest biotechnology. In addition, ForBio, International Paper, Fletcher Challenge Forests, GenFor, Canada Interlink, Silvagen, the Chilean Development Agency, Shell and Toyota have all initiated GR tree research.

"We are at a crossroads. The threat of a future where all life, trees, animals, food, and even humans are engineered to maximize the profit of a few trans-national corporations is upon us now," said Orin Langelle of ACERCA and the Native Forest Network. "It is the height of arrogance to believe we can manipulate genes, the very building blocks of life, without risk to our forests and our futures on this fragile planet."

"Terminator trees, genetically engineered never to flower, could ensure a silent spring in the forests of the future. Such trees will grow faster than before, but will be devoid of the bees, butterflies, birds and squirrels which depend on pollen, seed and nectar." --London's Daily Telegraph

NATIVE FOREST NETWORK
Eastern North American Resource Center
POB 57, Burlington, VT 05402 USA
(802)863-0571 FAX: (802)864-8203
EMAIL: nfnena@sover.net
http://www.nativeforest.org

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 12:51:25 -0700

Subject: National Academy of Sciences report on GMOs

GENETIC ENGINEERING: Report Cautious On Approval, Urges Oversight

Overall, the federal government does a "good job" of regulating genetically modified foods and crops, but could improve its oversight in a few areas, according to a new report by the National Academy of Sciences (Andrea Knox, Philadelphia Inquirer).

The "much anticipated report" said plants engineered to produce their own pesticides, such as Bt corn, are safe to eat. And crops engineered for pest control can help the environment by reducing chemical pesticide use on farms. But the scientific panel also cited "a potential for undesirable effects" (Bill Lambrecht, St. Louis Post-Dispatch). It advises the government to conduct studies on the effects of long-term consumption of biotech foods, and recommends that the U.S. EPA regulate crops modified to resists viruses, which some fear could create "so-called super weeds" (Petersen, New York Times).=20

The panel said it found no evidence that genetically modified ingredients are unsafe for consumption and "essentially endorsed" how the EPA determines the safety of the crops, although "there are some loopholes that could be a problem in five years or so" (Scott Kilman, Wall Street Journal).

The report "gives a boost to the embattled crop biotechnology industry," after an increase in resistance from consumers and farmers (Marc Kaufman, Washington Post). Val Giddings of the Biotechnology Industrial Organizati= on said the report "will reassure consumers on the thoroughness of the scientific scrutiny in place by U.S. regulatory agencies" (Lambrecht, St. Louis Post-Dispatch).

But the report "drew fire form environmental opponents." And Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Jack Metcalf (R-WA), who are co-authors of a bill that would require labels on genetically modified foods, accused the panel of pro-industry "bias" (Tom Abate, San Francisco Chronicle).

Additional coverage of the study can be found in the CBS "Evening News" , Financial Times, Hartford Courant, Kansas City Star and San Jose Mercury News.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Scientists fear thousands may have CJD
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:58:07 -0400

April 9 2000
BRITAIN

Victim: a baby is feared to have inherited CJD from her mother

Photograph: Simon Townsley

Scientists fear thousands may have CJD

Jonathan Leake Science Editor

SCIENTISTS have moved one step closer to confirming that thousands of Britons could be infected with variant CJD, the human form of "mad cow" disease (BSE).

A government-funded study of appendix and tonsil tissues taken from 2,000 people since the 1980s is understood to have found a small number of samples which tested positive for the infective prion particles that cause the disease. If confirmed, the results suggest the number of people who might get the disease could reach thousands.

The researchers are, however, thought to be worried about the accuracy of the tests and are to carry out checks before announcing them to a government committee next month.

Details of the work were discussed last week when researchers into CJD, BSE and other prion diseases held a private meeting at Keele University.

The event, organised by the agriculture and health ministries and by the government's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, was conducted amid unprecedented security. It was not announced to the press and every scientist attending had to pledge not to reveal anything.

The study was ordered to try to find out how many people were at risk of contracting variant CJD. Half of it is being carried out by Professor James Ironside at the CJD national surveillance unit in Edinburgh, and the other half is being done at Derriford hospital in Plymouth by Dr David Hilton.

Both men attended last week's meeting and are understood to have held discussions with other scientists on the nature of their results.

The research followed the death of Tony Barrett, a Devon coastguard, who died of variant CJD in 1998. His appendix had been removed in 1995. When it was re-examined after his death scientists found abnormal prion protein - showing that his illness could have been diagnosed before he became ill.

Since then the two research centres have been collecting tonsil and appendix samples re-moved between the mid-1980s and late 1990s - the period when exposure to BSE-contaminated meat was at its peak.

If the tests do find any positive cases of variant CJD then the implications would be serious. Extrapolating the result to the population as a whole suggests that for each positive result picked up by the study, 30,000 people in the population would get the disease.

So far there have been more than 50 deaths from variant CJD with at least a dozen more people currently dying from the disease. Among them is a woman who gave birth just before she was diagnosed and whose child is now suspected of being the first case in which the disease has passed from mother to child.

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Organic farming, seeking the mainstream

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:44:24 -0400

The New York Times

Organic Farming, Seeking the Mainstream

By BARNABY J. FEDER

KUTZTOWN, Pa. -- The Rodale Institute's 330-acre research farm here got something it prefers to a bumper crop when a record drought struck eastern Pennsylvania last year.

Rodale plants crops with the goal of harvesting evidence that organic farming should be the wave of the future in agriculture. After the drought last summer, Rodale's parched organic plots yielded 24 to 30 bushels of soybeans an acre, well below the 40-bushel average of previous years for the research site, but Rodale could not have been happier. That was because yields on comparison plots just next to them that had been doused year after year with synthetic fertilizers and conventional farm chemicals had plummeted to 16 bushels.

Laura Pedrick for The New York Times

A human-powered planter is used to seed a spinach plot on the Rodale Institute's organic research farm in Kutztown, Pa.

"These are very significant findings for farmers around the world," exulted Jeff Moyer, Rodale's farm manager. "Our trials show that improving the quality of the soil through organic processes can mean the difference between a harvest or hardship in times of drought."

The results last year also reinforced long-term comparisons, begun by Rodale in 1981, that document how organic farming can be more profitable for small farmers -- even if yields are not always as high and, by some calculations, even without the premium prices that organic crops generally receive.

Good research news from bad weather. Sales growing faster than any other segment of the food industry. Consumer fears about biotechnology spurring interest. Low prices for commodity crops encouraging conventional farmers to take the organic plunge. Add it all up and there has never been a more receptive moment for organic farming.

So is the organic movement finally on track to becoming the mainstream enterprise that Rodale and other advocates have long envisioned? Hardly. Organics are starting from such a small base in the United States -- an estimated one-fifth of 1 percent of farmland and 1 percent of retail sales - -- that it would take years of mind-boggling growth to gain a truly substantial share of the retail food sector, which the Department of Agriculture put at $756 billion in 1998.

Such growth is almost inconceivable, say agricultural economists and even many people in the organic movement. One reason is the many challenges of farming organically; another is the heavy investment in current farming methods. Perhaps most important, though, is the deep-seated suspicion of many organic farmers and consumers about anything that smacks of big business.

Issue in Depth <http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/sunday/index.html>The New York Times: Your Money

"Getting to 5 percent of food sales in 10 years would be miraculous," said Katherine DiMatteo, director of the Organic Trade Association in Greenfield, Mass. Many farmers, she and others said, will advertise organic practices, like not using pesticides, and siphon off potential organic customers without making the commitment to having their products comply with the certification requirements of monitoring groups.

If the industry is not on track to achieving market power, it is winning respect -- and that alone is something of a revolution in agriculture. From the 1950's to the early 1990's, farming without chemicals was widely derided in the United States as the province of hobbyists, the health-obsessed and misty-eyed urban and suburban refugees pursuing romantic dreams of rural life.

"It's not a niche market anymore in terms of consumer interest," said Harvey Hartman, a market researcher and retail industry consultant in Seattle. Surveys by his company, the Hartman Group, found last fall that 90 percent of American consumers were either buying organic products or considering doing so, up from 60 percent two years earlier.

Interest is stronger still in Europe and Japan, where fears are running high about the use of growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and genetic engineering in conventional agriculture. Sweden, one of several European countries that subsidize farmers in switching to organic methods, has set a goal of converting 20 percent of its farm acreage to organic farming by 2005.

In the United States, back-to-the-earth neophytes continue to set up organic farms, making organics the only sector of agriculture that is attracting new blood. But thousands of conventional farmers are also weighing the risks and benefits of heading down the organic path, lured by premium prices that are averaging 20 percent above those for conventional crops and sometimes many times more.

"Farmers have been losing money in conventional agriculture, and organic is looking profitable," said Mark Ritchie, director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis. But the farmers who are making the switch are more of a trickle than a flood.

One barrier may be the new national standards that the Agriculture Department is proposing for the industry. The aim is to overcome the consumer confusion caused by having more than 40 different private and state groups, often with conflicting rules, certifying which products are organic. But the proposed national standard is so restrictive -- at the industry's own insistence -- that Ms. DiMatteo and other experts contend that some farmers now selling "organic" products may no longer qualify.

Other hurdles are deeply rooted. "Everything in agriculture has been built around a simplified rotation of one or two crops," said Rich Welsh, an agriculture economist and rural sociologist at the Henry A. Wallace Institute in Beltsville, Md. To grow more crops in rotation -- a requirement for organic certification -- farmers would need to develop an array of new markets and systems for storing and distributing their products.

Labor could also be a barrier to growth, at least in the United States. Rapid expansion could leave the industry short of qualified inspectors to certify organic products. And many organic crops require periodic weeding by hand or other labor-intensive care.

"When we got started, we thought it was a good thing that it needs more people," said Thomas Beddard, of Chambersburg, Pa., who started Lady Moon Farm with his wife 14 years ago. Now, having become the East Coast's biggest organic vegetable grower, with 400 acres split between Florida and Pennsylvania, he frets about the consequences of his success.

"It's clear we are reliant on poor immigrants and that the work is brutal," Mr. Beddard said.

Perhaps the biggest barrier is the difficult transition from conventional to organic production. When they stop using chemicals on their land, farmers initially get sharply reduced yields. Research by Rodale and others shows that it takes three to five years for organic soil to be built up to high fertility levels and perhaps longer for farmers to learn how to deal with the weed, pest and disease problems they have to confront without chemical help. During the first three years, under nearly universal certification rules, the crop cannot be labeled as organic unless it is grown on previously unfarmed land, meaning that the farmer cannot sell it for a premium price. Some farmers also struggle to figure out how to market their crops.

"One of the hardest things about the organic industry is getting the information you need to get into it," said Gary Reding, a fifth-generation Indiana farmer who is converting 250 of his farm's 600 acres to organics.

For all the hurdles, experts say, organics could easily achieve an influential share of 10 percent or more in some parts of the industry. In fact, they already account for nearly one-third of all herb production, according to the Agriculture Department, and high percentages of specialty grains and vegetables.

More important, although once dismissed as clownish, negligent farming, the organic movement is now seen as an innovative standard setter that is pulling all of conventional agriculture toward higher environmental standards and more sustainable practices. This year, for the first time, the Agriculture Department has budgeted $5.5 million specifically for organics research; state universities are scrambling to get their extension agents, who advise farmers, up to speed.

"The trend is to adopt a lot of organic practices in conventional agriculture," said John Diener, who has put 20 percent of his diversified farm in Fresno County, Calif., into Greenway Organic Farms, a 2,000-acre partnership with two neighboring farms. "We've cut the use of commercial phosphate fertilizers on the conventional farm by two-thirds since we started with organic."

And organic farming could be essential to maintaining small farms in the developed world. The premium prices that organic products command can help small farmers earn enough to stay afloat as agriculture in general moves toward the industrial model of ever-larger farms producing food as cheaply as possible, often under contract to a meatpacker or food processor.

Finding ways to make small organic farmers efficient has been a focus for Rodale and most other organics researchers.

"We're coming from the premise that it's bad for 10 percent of the farmers to produce 80 percent of the food," Mr. Moyer said recently, as Rodale planned to plant this year's crops.

Organic farmers might never have a better chance to gain public support. Their market centers on a growing demographic group -- wealthy baby boomers drawn to what Mr. Hartman calls "healthy lifestyles." These people are willing to pay more for products that they believe are healthier or fresher, better for the environment and more humane for livestock. Many people also see supporting small, local farms as a social good.

Some big companies are also throwing money into raising organics' profile. General Mills acquired Small Planet Foods, the producer of Cascadian Farms and other organic brands, and H. J. Heinz recently bought 19 percent of the Hain Food Group, which makes a variety of organic and "natural" products.

"Visibility with consumers has been a limiting factor," said David Neuman, vice president of sales and marketing for Nature's Path, which distributes organic breakfast cereals and other foods, primarily to natural-food stores. "General Mills put $15 million into marketing Sunrise, their new organic cereal, last year and they did $40 million in sales," Mr. Neuman said -- an amount more than his company brought in for all 30 brands it sells. "They can force-feed the distribution system."

Lately, supermarket chains that once had no interest in stocking organic products have been scrambling to line up reliable suppliers in the highly fragmented industry, especially for the produce aisles. They are competing with upstart retail chains like Whole Foods and Wild Oats Inc., which heavily promote their broad selections of organic goods.

In addition to that generally supportive climate, organic farmers are getting a boost from having what appears to be the perfect public enemy: genetic engineering. Critics of biotechnology, with the support of many organic farmers, have popularized a David-versus-Goliath image of small organic farms threatened with extinction by the products of giant agribusinesses like Monsanto, Novartis and DuPont. Drifting bioengineered pollen will pollute organic crops, they say, and insects will destroy what is left after feeding on transgenic corn and developing resistance to natural pesticides.

The Agriculture Department -- the public-sector face of the agricultural establishment -- helped spotlight the confrontation. Ignoring advice from the organics sector, it issued proposed national organic food standards two years ago that would have allowed ingredients from genetically altered plants and animals. After being inundated with 275,000 negative comments, the agency issued a new proposal this year that would ban transgenic ingredients.

he controversy lured many biotechnology supporters into denigrating organic farming. They have argued that the public should accept biotechnology because farming without it -- especially organic farming -- is too inefficient to feed the world.

The arguments assume that feeding the world is a priority for everyone in agriculture. That may not be the case for organic farmers.

In contrast to the Internet world, where it seems as if every small enterprise would be thrilled to be bought out by a large, wealthy competitor, organic farming circles are engaged in constant, bitter debates over whether big farmers, giant food processors and supermarket chains should be welcomed into the business. Many fear that such a development -- which could accelerate growth rapidly -- will erode the price premiums upon which they rely for survival.

"There's a fundamental conflict because, to a lot of people, this is supposed to be the alternative to the industrial agriculture system," said Charles Benbrook, a consultant in Sand Point, Idaho, who has been a prominent proponent of organic farming. "Is this about getting better food grown in an environmental way to the most people possible, or is it about creating an alternative food system that is small, local and sensitive to issues like social justice?"

If feeding the world organically becomes the main objective, many people in the organic sector say that the blanket opposition to genetic engineering might soften before long. Some organic farmers say genetic engineering has already created some products that they should be allowed to use, like Ecogen Inc.'s pesticides extracted from genetically-altered bacteria grown in fermenters. Such products, the proponents say, are simply more efficiently produced forms of sprays that organic farmers already use.

Others say genetic engineering should be considered where breakthrough gains for sustainable farming might be achieved, such as inventing a perennial form of wheat that could be mowed rather than harvested and replanted each year.

"Among organic farmers the views about transgenics range from 'no, never' to 'not yet,' " said Brian Baker, policy director of the Organic Material Review Institute, a nonprofit group in Eugene, Ore., that rates the acceptability of materials for organic farming.

The partisans of the small and local have the high ground when it comes to poetic thinking; some of them talk, for instance, of developing a society based on "foodsheds," just as the ecology of rivers is based on watersheds - -- but the marketplace seems to be moving away from them. Many organic farmers on the East Coast say they are under heavy pressure from larger operations in California and imports from Mexico.

"All the same patterns that affect conventional agriculture are happening in organic," said Jim Crawford, whose New Morning Farm in Hustontown, Pa., is the headquarters for the Tuscarora Organic Growers Cooperative, which represents 20 farms in the area. "We're not even selling that we are organic at this point. We are selling freshness, quality and nearness to our markets."

Mr. Crawford added that sales to restaurants in the mid-Atlantic corridor had jumped from zero to 60 percent of the co-op's total revenue in the last four years.

Even the nation's biggest organic farmers, like the Lundberg family in California's Central Valley, have no intention of betting the entire farm on the organic business.

"About 55 to 60 percent of our sales are organic," said Bryce Lundberg, whose family currently grows organic rice on about 6,000 acres near Richvale, Calif. Although organic sales are way up from the 1970's, their share of the total farm revenue is down from 75 percent because major weed problems forced the Lundbergs to sharply reduce organic production for several years.

"It's a little more profitable, but much higher risk," said Tim O'Donnell, the Lundbergs' vice president of sales and marketing. "There's years when you could lose everything."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Israel, European Union & GE Salmon

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 18:41:21 -0400

Health Ministry: Modified foods to be labeled as such

By Tamara Traubman

Ha'aretz Correspondent

The Health Ministry has recently decided to force food producers to mark food products which have undergone genetic modification. The products in question are those containing edible produce whose genetic composition has been altered - often by the insertion of animal genes, bacteria or viruses - in order to improve resistance to pests or to increase the crops' yield.

Genetically engineered crops are currently the focus of a worldwide debate, with consumers' and environmental groups claiming that the crops are liable to be hazardous to human health and the environment.

The Israeli Consumers' Council and the Organic Consumers' Association have been pressing the Health Ministry for the last year to have labels put on such food products. In order for the new rule to come into effect more quickly, the ministry decided not to bring the issue to a vote before the Knesset plenum, but instead to have it approved in the Knesset's Finance Committee. Dr. Brian Coussin, the director of the ministry's food branch who is responsible for markings on food, has predicted that the new regulation will go into effect by the end of the year.

The ministry decided that when the engineered produce constitutes the bulk of the product - such as packets of frozen corn - the product's name will be followed by a line saying that it has undergone genetic engineering. The observance of the regulation will be based on declarations by the producers themselves and on laboratory tests to be conducted by the ministry. The ministry is currently examining the various tests available. The next meeting of the ministry's "council for new foods," which was entrusted with the task of studying and making decisions on the matter of genetically-engineered food, is expected to determine many of the technical details concerning the implementation of the new regulation. The meeting will be attended by representatives from the food industry as well as consumer groups.

***************************************************************

EU Rejects Modified Food Rules

.c The Associated Press

STRASBOURG, France (AP) - The European parliament on Wednesday rejected tougher conditions for growing and marketing genetically modified foods in the 15-nation European Union.

The Christian Democrats, as the biggest party in the 626-member assembly, used their voting weight to block the introduction of ``environmental liability rules'' that would have held makers of genetically modified food responsible for damaging the environment or public health.

The proposal was one of a series of measures put forward by the Greens to curb the marketing of genetically modified foods.

The Greens party in the European Parliament termed the outcome a ``capitulation'' to the commercial interests of the agro-food industry at the expense of public health.

The parliament's vote is not final. The issues now go back to the EU governments for another round of debate there.

A proposal to set up a public registry was narrowly adopted. The registry will allow consumers to look up where a genetically modified food was made and by whom.

The parliament vote came two days after EU rules on the labeling of genetically modified products took effect, forcing food companies to label products containing more than 1 percent of genetically modified foods.

***************************************************************

EU parliament rejects tough GMO crop laws

By David Evans

STRASBOURG, France, April 12 (Reuters) - The European Parliament on Wednesday turned down calls for tough laws governing genetically-modified crops, which biotech companies said would have driven the industry out of Europe.

It rejected proposals calling for GMO producers to be held liable for any environmental damage, outlawing the transfer of genes between new and existing crop varieties and banning immediately genes resistant to antibiotics.

Instead MEPs voted to include GMOs in plans to draw up a more general environmental liability law before 2002, to assess the impact of genetic transfer on a case by case basis and phase out antibiotic resistant genes by 2005.

The move was welcomed by EU industry group EuropaBio, which said the changes would have saddled Europe's companies with an intolerable financial and regulatory burden.

``The revised directive will also contribute to a more stable investment climate, improved competitiveness and additional jobs in European biotechnology,'' it said.

GREENS DISAPPOINTED

But Green deputies and environmental groups, who said the measures were needed to protect public health, were critical of the outcome.

``The whole package is a present to the industry because it will do nothing to reduce public mistrust and will in fact increase the pressure for local initiatives to keep out GMOs,'' German Green MEP Hiltrut Breyer said.

British Labour environment spokesman David Bowe said the EU once again faced a legal vacuum on the GMO issue.

``In the face of pressure from industry and the European Commission, GM liability has been kicked into touch once again.''

``GM companies say their products are safe, but today's vote shows they are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is,'' he said.

European Union governments and the European Commission have already agreed a new authorisation procedure for GMOs -- with a 10-year approval lifespan -- but under EU rules on ``co-decision'' the parliament has new rights to have its say on legislation.

EUOPEAN COMMISSION WELCOMES VOTE

EU environment commissioner Margot Wallstrom welcomed the vote. She said it was a ``more balanced and effective framework for risk assessment and approval of GMOs in the future.''

``GMO legislation must provide a high level of protection for human health and the environment, and at the same time allow society to profit from the benefits of these new technologies.''

The EU's authorisation process for GMOs has been on hold for two years, while this new legislation is drawn up.

The United States, the world's major grower of the new crop varieties, has accused the EU of foot dragging and the GMO issue continues to plague transatlantic trade relations.

Greenpeace called the parliament's failure to force companies to assume liability for their products a scandal and Friends of the Earth pledged to continue their campaign to stop what it called environmental pollution.

***************************************************************

BBC NEWS

Wednesday, 12 April, 2000, 13:57 GMT 14:57 UK EU rejects strict GM food controls

GM companies said proposals would destroy industry

The European Parliament has rejected a European Union law amendment that would have made GM producers legally responsible for any damage caused by their products to public health or to the environment.

Instead, the parliament called on the European Commission to come up with a more general plan by the end of the year that would still include some liability rules.

The proposed changes had been under attack by Europe's biotech industry, which claims they would force the fledgling sector out of Europe.

The industry says the proposed legislation would have saddled companies with an intolerable financial and regulatory burden.

Green MEPs and non-governmental organisations argued the measures were needed to protect public health.

They were disappointed by the outcome.

"The whole package is a present to the industry because it will do nothing to reduce public mistrust and will in fact increase the pressure for local initiatives to keep out GMOs [genetically modified organisms]," German MEP Hiltrut Breyer said.

The environmental campaigning organisation Greenpeace has also criticised the vote.

"It is a scandal that the parliament failed to put the financial responsibility where it belongs, on companies pushing these crops to market," the organisation spokeswoman Ceri Lewis said.

Friends of the Earth said that Euro MPs had failed to give the environment the "tough protection" it needed.

"The biotech industry has been given permission to pollute our countryside, contaminate our food and gamble with our health without making them liable for the damage if things do go wrong," Friends of the Earth campaigns director Liana Stupples said.

Antibiotics

Another rejected controversial proposal would have banned the use of certain marker genes used in GM crops. These genes confer resistance to antibiotics.

A third rejected amendment was aimed at preventing the accidental transfer of modified genes to other crops by cross pollination.

These amendments were not only opposed by the GM crop companies but also by the EU's member states and by the European Commission.

Public opinion polls show widespread concern among Europeans regarding the long-term safety of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients.

The rejected proposals:

*Producers of genetically-modified organisms would have been legally responsible for any damage caused by their products to public health or the environment.

*European Union governments would have been responsible to outlaw genetic transfer between GMO crops and other existing organisms.

*Certain marker genes used to confer resistance to antibiotics would be banned.

*Anti-GM campaigners fear that this antibiotic resistance could transfer to bacteria in cattle, potentially leading to untreatable "superbugs".

***************************************************************

Environmentalists alarmed over giant GM fish

By Paul Majendie

LONDON, April 11 (Reuters) - Environmentalists warned on Tuesday that genetically modified fish which can grow 10 times faster than normal could taint the gene pool and upset the delicate balance of nature.

The latest alarm bells about what critics call ``Frankenstein Foods'' were sounded after a U.S firm -- AF Protein -- engineered GM fish which could cut the cost of raising salmon and trout by half.

Both British and U.S. environmentalists said more tests were needed before the fish are served up on dinner plates.

GM proponents say the technology could help feed the developing world, cut costs and reduce the need for pesticides. Detractors say the health risks of the fledgling technology are unclear and the environmental hazards potentially alarming.

GROWTH HORMONE GENES

British supermarkets are wary of stocking GM food due to deep-seated consumer fears about their safety and most leading chains have now pulled such produce from their shelves.

AF Protein is reported to have inserted growth hormone genes from one fish and genes from another fish, which can activate them, into Atlantic salmon.

It says the technology is precise enough to be sure that only genetically modified fish can produce the growth hormone. It also made sure that all its ``guinea pig'' fish are infertile.

But Andrew Kimbrell, from the Washington-based Centre For Food Safety, said: ``It is not possible to ensure 100 percent of the fish are sterile.''

He told BBC Radio: ``Once you have an organism out there, you can't recall it. It reproduces, it disseminates, it mutates.

``We have low probability, admittedly, but very high consequences if a few of those fish do escape and they do mate with native wild populations, no one, nothing, can stop that genetic pollution from destroying that species.''

British environmentalists were equally concerned, echoing the anger they vented last year when details were revealed about similar experiments being done in Scotland.

Christopher Poupard, director of the Salmon and Trout Association which lobbies on behalf of game anglers, said: ``Salmon are unique and highly complex. They migrate thousands of miles and still manage to return to their home river. This has evolved since the last ice age.''

He said environmentalists share the same concern: ``Escaped GM fish might breed with wild fish and interrupt that process.''

AF Protein are said to be confident that U.S. authorities would clear the fish for human consumption within a year.

AF Protein President Elliot Entis said toxilogical tests were unnecessary. ``There is no level at which you could examine our fish and find any difference between our fish and the non-GM fish,'' he told BBC Radio.

``FRANKEN-FISH''

Environmental groups reacted angrily last year to news that Britain had allowed experiments in Scotland to create GM salmon.

Details of the so-called ``Franken-fish'' experiments emerged when Scottish Secretary John Reid told parliament that thousands of fish were given an extra gene to make them grow faster.

The experiment took place three years ago in a confined, land-based area to prevent the fish from escaping into the wild.

``Approximately 50 of the fish grew at four times the normal rate with no sign of abnormalities. The project was terminated after approximately a year and all the fish were destroyed,'' Reid said. He denied that the tests were kept secret.

***************************************************************

Monster salmon scare for fish farmers

GM food: special report

Paul Brown, Environment correspondent

Wednesday April 12, 2000

The Guardian

Genetically modified salmon which grow 10 times faster than normal fish and could reach 12ft long and weigh 200lb are ready to be sold in US supermarkets, according to the company that has developed them.

But the prospect of potentially giant salmon escaping into the wild and attempting to interbreed with native populations has alarmed both environmentalists and the industry.

The developer, A/F Protein of Massachusetts, said there was no risk because the fish would be sterile. However, objectors dispute this.

Any interbreeding with native stock would wreck the normal life cycle of the species which has to drift down river from its spawning grounds and then return after maturing at sea. The growth rate of the GM fish would make this life cycle almost impossible not least because they would eat almost everything in the river.

The Food Standards Agency said yesterday that it had not received an application from the company to market the fish in the UK but could process the application within 90 days if asked to do so. As long as it was clear the fish were safe and no EU partners objected, the salmon could go on sale.

The Department of Environment said that anyone wishing to import super-salmon eggs would need a license and would not get one unless the department was assured there was no threat to native species. A spokesman pointed out that an experiment on Loch Fyne on GM salmon was abandoned eight years ago because of fears of what the fish might do to other species if it escaped into the environment.

David King, editor of GenEthics News, said it was well documented that farmed salmon did escape and the scientific data showed that not all GM fish were sterile.

"It is not 100% certain you could stop them breeding with wild salmon. The research shows that this company has managed to grow fish 40 times faster than wild ones but they developed deformities, so they have had to slow the growth rate down to produce fish that appear normal.

"In the wild size is important, the biggest fish is top fish, so goodness knows what would happen to the wild population if these bred."

Julie Edgar from Scottish Quality Assurance, which represents salmon farms north of the border, said she did not believe that there was any market for GM salmon in Britain. "The consumer won't want them and certainly the salmon producers do not. We would also worry about these things escaping, there is no doubt that it happens. Fish like this are just not needed. There would be a lot of objections if someone applied for a license to grow them in Scotland."

* The European Parliament will today vote on a number of tough measures to control GM crops. MEPs are being asked to make GM companies liable in law if there are adverse environmental or health affects from their crops.

Another resolution demands that antibiotics marker genes should be banned. There are fears that these genes when used in crops and fed to cattle might allow super-bugs to breed in animals and be passed on to humans.

Some MEPs are asking for the setting up of a public register of all GM sites in Europe.

-----------------------------------------------------

Subject: NPR TALK OF THE NATION/SCIENCE FRIDAY transcript and audio GE Crops Debate

Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 11:43:25 -0700 (PDT)

Listen to the show on RealAudio at:

http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/totn/20000414.totn.rmm

Order a tape or transcript:

http://www.npr.org/inside/transcripts/

Copyright 2000 National Public Radio (R). All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio.

SHOW: TALK OF THE NATION/SCIENCE FRIDAY (2:00 PM ET)

14 April 2000, Friday

Debate:

PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF USING GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS

IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Dr. Peter Rosset

Executive Director

Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy (IFDP)

Oakland, CA

http://www.foodfirst.org

vs.

Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen

Director General

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

Washington, DC

http://www.cgiar.org/ifpri/

IRA FLATOW, host:

This is TALK OF THE NATION/SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow.

The debate over the safety of genetically modified crops has been heating up in the United States. Europeans have long been suspicious about this technology, but here in the US we've only recently begun to seriously talk about how these high-tech food crops should be regulated and about whether or not they are safe. About a year ago, the National Academy of Sciences appointed a committee to look into these very issues. The committee issued its report last week, and a bit later in the program we'll talk with one of the committee members about its findings.

One of the issues that always comes up is how important this technology might be for people in the developing world. If you could get past the barrage of news this week about the plight of one little boy in Florida, you might have been able to pick out a ghastly sight from Africa: the faces of starving children; lots of them. Eight million people in Africa don't have enough food to eat and are dying from a drought that has wiped out their food supply.

World Hunger says proponents of genetically modified crops is one of the truly chronic plagues that can be addressed by GM foods. For example, a strain of rice called golden rice has already been created with a gene for vitamin A spliced into it. Regular rice doesn't produce vitamin A. Some people that live mostly on rice are missing this important nutrient. This new rice could make a big difference for those people. Seems like a great idea.

But opponents to GM foods say what if there were unforeseen consequences of growing the rice? What if it threw off the natural cycle of life in the rice paddy in a way that researchers haven't even thought of? What kinds of consequences would that have? And who gets to decide if growing that rice is worth the risk to the environment? And how do we know that the rice is safe to eat? And are we just using poor, starving people as guinea pigs for an untested technology? And besides, we don't need to have new rice, we've got easy techniques of feeding these people nutrients anyhow, so why fool around with something that we really don't know much about yet?

Those are must some of the things we'll be talking about this hour on SCIENCE FRIDAY. We'd like to hear what you think. So give us a call. Our number is 1 (800) 989-8255. That's 1 (800) 989-TALK. And if you want more information about what we're talking about this hour, go to our Web site at sciencefriday.com where you'll find Internet links to our topic.

Let me introduce my guests. Per Pinstrup-Andersen is the director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, DC. It's a non-profit agricultural research group. He joins us from our NPR studios in Washington.

Thank you for being with us today, Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen.

Dr. PER PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN (Director General, International Food Policy Research Institute): Thank you. It's a great pleasure to be here.

FLATOW: You're welcome.

<bold>Peter Rosset</boldis the executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy; also known as Food First. He joins us by phone from his office in Oakland, California.

Thank you for joining us, Dr. Rosset.

Dr. <bold>PETER ROSSET</bold(Executive Director, Food First): Thank you. It's a great pleasure to be here today.

FLATOW: You're welcome.

Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen, let me start with you. Once again for those of us who were able to watch the BBC or other places on TV where they were actually showing news around the world, there was some really terrible, terrible scenes this week of starving people in Ethiopia. Give us some--what are the reasons for that hunger in that country?

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: Yeah. These pictures were absolutely horrible and, unfortunately, there's a lot of this going on that we don't see on television. Television tends to be rolled in when disaster hits. But disasters end the lives of many, many millions of people on a daily basis. One of the key reasons why Ethiopia is once again faced with famine is, of course, that the rains didn't come on time. But that is only one of the reasons.

Ethiopia does not have the kind of infrastructure that permits--that is roads and markets and so on--that permits food to be moved from one region to another. Ethiopia right now has surplus production in some regions; deficit production in others. And because food can't be moved, people are starving in the areas where the rains didn't come. Bad policies in a number of areas are also part of the issue.

And more relevant to what we're talking about this afternoon, the technology that's most appropriate for small farmers in Africa is not readily available. What the Ethiopian farmers needed, and will need in the future, are crop varieties that will produce at least something during a drought. And we can develop drought resistant crop varieties. In fact, it has been done for several environments. And this, of course, is where modern biotechnology might be one of the solutions. But I want to emphasize, Ira, that modern biotechnology is not a silver bullet.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm.

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: It is a very important component of the solution to poor people's problems, and without modern science, there is no way that future generations will get access to enough food.

FLATOW: In fact, Dr. Rosset, you write that--you point out that there really is no food shortage in the whole world. In fact, in total in the whole world there's enough food to give everybody over four pounds of food a day. So...

Dr. ROSSET: That's right. I mean, the terrible crime is really hunger in the midst of plenty. We call it the paradox of plenty. There's more food available today on the planet per person than ever before in human history. Yet, 800 million people go hungry; 36 million of them according to USDA statistics right here in the richest nation on Earth. So the real crime is the crime of distribution and access to food.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen, if there's already enough food to go around, why would developing countries be interested in genetically modified crops? What would they get out of that if they--or they can't get food that's there?

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: Because I think that's the wrong question to ask, Ira. The real question is: How can we help people who are currently unable to obtain enough food, either from their own production or from purchase--how can we help them either produce more food or earn enough income so that they can buy it?

It is correct that the world has enough food so that if it were equally distributed everybody would get access to enough to eat. But that's pure theory. That has absolutely no relevance to the actual problems because the world is not going to redistribute its food. We are not going to redistribute our incomes. We are not going to redistribute a lot of assets that are poorly distributed. So the issue is really not so much whether the world has enough food, but rather whether the 800 million people have access to enough food.

And 70 percent of those people depend on agriculture, directly or indirectly. And if we can help each of those people, each of those households, to reduce the risk of losing the crop due to drought or insect attack or plant diseases, if we can help those people to produce more, to earn more income, then they will be able to feed their children and then the many thousands of children who are going to die today from nutrition illnesses wouldn't have to die.

So the argument that the world has enough food is a wonderful academic argument. It has no practical value whatsoever for the people who don't have access to it.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm. What about the promise of biotechnology of genetically modified foods? I mentioned that we know about this golden rice that has vitamin A in it. Are there other possibilities of other kinds of foods that will help starving people probably cope better?

Dr. ROSSET: I would like to actually address the vitamin A rice, because I think that it's quite misleading. Yes, there is a serious problem of vitamin A deficiency in many rice producing regions of the world, but we have to understand why that deficiency is common, and it's usually associated with other micronutrient and protein deficiencies as well.

First of all, growing poverty has led too many people to depend on rice alone for their diet. And so the problem isn't so much that rice doesn't contain one particular nutrient or another, but the fact that they have insufficient dietary diversity because of poverty. We have regions where the green revolution has changed cropping systems from diverse systems with many green, leafy vegetables in them which supply ample beta carotene and vitamin A to situations which depend largely on rice.

For example, in rural Indonesia, prior to the green revolution, rice provided 43 percent of calories. Today it's 83 percent of calories. So it's not surprising if you're depending that strongly on rice that you will have these deficiencies. And since it's just a symptom of a broader nutritional problem, a magic bullet to insert one single vitamin or vitamin precursor is not going to resolve the larger issue.

I certainly agree that the problem is how the 70 percent of the world's population that Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen describes can better feed themselves. The solution to that is not a magic bullet to insert vitamin A because the dietary problems and the structural reasons for those dietary problems are much broader.

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: I agree that the problems are much broader and we need to use all of the available solutions to help poor people solve their problems. But how are you going to tell a child in India that has just gone blind from lack of vitamin A that improved vitamin A content of what that child eats is a bad thing? I mean, we got to somehow get down from this global perspective and look at individuals and how they are affected in their daily lives.

Dr. ROSSET: Oh, I'd like to say exactly what I would tell that child in India is what a friend of mine who's a pediatrician in India tells them, which is that their parents should feed them red rice, an indigenous local rice variety that's very high in beta carotene that's already an accepted part of the diet in India, and it's excellent for curing vitamin A deficiency. Or I would suggest that they harvest green, leafy vegetables. According to a study produced by Dr. Vandana Shiva there are 50 to 100 green, leafy vegetables in rice-growing areas, all of which provide ample beta carotene, the precursor for vitamin A. So we don't need this particular technology.

Not only that, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, they've discovered to their horror that this vitamin A strain contains more than 30 patented technologies; patented by different private-sector companies. And it may, in fact, be impossible to bring this to market.

FLATOW: Rockefeller paid for this research, correct?

Dr. ROSSET: That's right. Tens of millions of dollars for the research. Now they've discovered to their horror that many of the genetic mechanisms used to produce the variety are patented.

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: Well, that wasn't exactly a new discovery. I mean, they knew that while they were doing the research. But that's a slightly different issue, which I'd certainly be glad to comment on the property rights; the rights to these things.

But let me just say one more thing about the little child that has gone blind from lack of vitamin A. To the extent that there are other solutions, such as the ones Peter points out, by all means let's use them. And I would be the last one to argue that biotechnology is a silver bullet that should be applied first before we look at any other options. Absolutely not. Let's look at all the options that are available. Let's help poor people pick the options that suit their situation best.

That's what I think we all should be in favor of, because Peter and I, I'm sure, share the same final objective of what we're trying to do to make sure that nobody goes hungry and that the environment is used sustainably. So the question is: How do we combine all these many things? Is it dark green vegetables? Is it a red rice in India? Is it building in some additional nutrient content into seeds through agricultural research? Or is it simply making poor people less poor? Let's look at all of those options. I'm very much in favor of that.

The problem I have with the debate on modern biotechnology is that the--many of the opponents exclude that from being considered, and that means we're not giving poor people a choice among the various options available, and that is wrong. That is elitist, and we must stop doing that. Let's ask poor people what they want. Give them all the options to choose from, and see what they pick.

Dr. ROSSET: May I address that issue?

FLATOW: Sure.

Dr. ROSSET: Because I have to say that--and I expressed this before the show as well--I feel a little bit uncomfortable that we're two white male academics from a northern country debating how best to help people in the south, and that we don't have a representative from southern countries here to speak on the program. It sort of highlights an issue, which is a lot of the reasons why there is widespread malnutrition, for example, in areas where previous gene revolutions, the green revolutions, have reduced dietary diversity as a result of reducing cropping diversity, are a result of people like us in the north feeling that we know best how to help poor people in the south.

Now one of the reasons why per capita food production is declining in Africa today is because northern countries, through the World Bank and the IMF and structural adjustment, caused African governments to privatize the grain and basic food marketing boards that did a not great job, but a job, of purchasing products from small farmers. Today, with only private traders left, those private traders prefer to buy their food on the international market and small farmers are left with no market. And the privatization of banks imposed under the same process has led to no credit for small farmers.

So we in the north have a tremendous amount of responsibility for having caused these problems...

FLATOW: All right.

Dr. ROSSET: ...always claiming that we've done it with good intentions...

FLATOW: All right.

Dr. ROSSET: ...and with the best wishes of the south at heart.

FLATOW: Well, we have to get back. I have to take a quick break. We'll come back to talk lots more, so stay with us.

This is TALK OF THE NATION/SCIENCE FRIDAY from National Public Radio.

(Soundbite of music)

FLATOW: This is TALK OF THE NATION/SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow.

We're talking this hour about genetically modified foods and feeding the world's growing population and parts of the world that don't have enough food. Last week a committee appointed by the National Academy of Sciences to look into the safety of bioengineered plants released its report, and there were some recommendations for how the federal government should regulate these crops. Now joining me to talk about the committee's report is one of the committee members. Dr. Fred Gould is the William Neal Reynolds professor of entomology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. He joins us by phone from his office.

Thank you for taking time to talk with us, Dr. Gould.

Dr. FRED GOULD (Professor, North Carolina State University): Well, I'm glad to be here, Ira.

FLATOW: It's true that the committee only looked at plants that produced their own pesticides, right? That wa...

Dr. GOULD: Yes. We restricted our study to those kind of plants, not the plants that would have, for example, a higher vitamin A content.

FLATOW: So you're talking about Bt, corn, soybeans, cottons, things like that.

Dr. GOULD: Yes. As well as plants that have resistance to viral diseases or fungal diseases.

FLATOW: And the main point is that the committee found that there was no evidence to say that these plants were unsafe, right?

Dr. GOULD: Right. Looking through all the information available to us, looking through piles of data that were submitted by the companies for the registration process, as well as literature in the peer review journals, we found no evidence there was any reason to suspect these crops of not being safe. And we say that very clearly that we didn't find any evidence that they were not safe, as opposed to putting some kind of a stamp on it that you'd never see anything in those crops that could be a problem.

What we did, indeed, was to compare them, however, to conventionally bred crops that are also producing their own compounds to protect themselves from pests. And what we did find was that if you were comfortable with the level of safety in conventionally bred crops, we could say that there was no added concern from having genetically engineered crops with the same kind of traits. And that's an important thing so that people aren't--I guess the findings in the report is there's nothing special about the genetically engineering itself, that process, that's going to make the plant less safe.

FLATOW: Even though you introduced things into plants that you might not find in nature, in a normally cross breeding of plants?

Dr. GOULD: Yeah. Well, actually in going through the report and educating ourselves as we went along to all the things that are put into plants using conventional breeding and things that can be put into plants using biotechnology, we found that, of course, if you wanted to you could certainly engineer into a plant something that would be toxic to people. But the whole idea is that you have a regulatory scheme in place, you can be very sure of not having those things appear in any kind of commercially available variety. So given that the regulatory system is in place, and in our estimation it's doing a very good job, there isn't any safety concern.

FLATOW: But there is concern about that regulatory system?

Dr. GOULD: Well, what--I think a fair assessment would be is what we felt was that the agencies were actually doing a good job up till now with the kind of products that are being developed and put on the market today, and that all the products that have gone through safety reviews have received careful safety reviews. Our report is more of a forward-looking report for the next five or 10 years, and in looking forward, we see that there could be a lot of new, novel products that could come on the market or could at least be put forward to the regulatory agencies. And as the numbers and the diversity of those increases, there's going to be a need for some tightening of restrictions, as well as more interaction between the agencies. And probably, mostly, there's going to be a need to make the whole process very transparent to the public.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm. There were some charges last week that came out after the committee report that the committee itself was weighted with biotech proponents, that some of the members, including you, got grant money from biotech companies and, therefore, were biased. How do you react to that?

Dr. GOULD: Yeah. Well, that's sort of a long story, and one that's really worth considering, especially on a program like SCIENCE FRIDAY. I mean, how do you get any report out that you can view as objective. And I'd like to just say that, indeed, some of the members on the committee had received money directly from either environmental organizations or from industry organizations. And those conflicts of interests had to be discussed in our first panel meetings and had to be made public on the World Wide Web.

Others--and there's a difference between what you call conflict of interest vs. bias. I mean, you know, everybody's biased in some way. The conflict of interests really indicates that there's some potential, especially financially for profit, and you need to especially look out for that. But in the panel hearings, those things were considered and we, of course, had people from different spectrums of opinion and we had to sit down and deal with that. But the important thing is that the National Academy recognizes that anytime they have a panel meeting they're going to have bias in that and some conflict of interests, and they have procedures to try and safeguard against any of those things showing up in a report.

And to just outline that to you briefly so that your listening audience would know what they're doing. And I was quite impressed by the process. First of all, the committee is appointed. After that, we have letters coming in from the public asking for us to adjust the composition of the committee. The National Academy looked over those requests and found some of them had merit and they adjusted the committee composition. So we got input from the public in that way. Then after--as the report was going on, a very active committee with differing opinions. So anytime somebody would bring something up that somebody disagreed with, there'd have to be information available to put anything in the report. You know, there couldn't be opinion.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm.

Dr. GOULD: Then once the report came together, it was sent out to review to at least 10 people. And the reviews came--and those were people who range all the way to people in industry to people in environmental groups. When we got those back, we had to address every point made by the reviewers. And once we addressed those, then that--our responses to those comments had to go to a committee of the National Academy so they could look over our responses and see if we responded appropriately. After that was done, if there were anything where there was questions, those responses were sent back out to the reviewers and back again. So there was a very detailed assessment to make sure that nothing in the way of conflict of interests biased the report.

FLATOW: It'd be very hard these days, from the way I follow the funding paths, to find any university that doesn't get some sort of--if it does agricultural research, some sort of funding from a business, some kind of business.

Dr. GOULD: Well, I guess you could find some people, but not in this area.

FLATOW: Yeah.

Dr. GOULD: I think it would be kind of hard to find people who didn't have some funding from biotechnology groups. That doesn't always mean that the findings of the investigators are things that the companies would like to see. You know, companies need to get research done by what are considered more impartial investigators instead of doing it themselves when they're going to present things to the Environmental Protection Agency, for example. So they need to fund certain studies.

I mean, you know, we were talking about ideal worlds there earlier in the program. I mean, in a more ideal world, the government would put more resources into this research and the research would be conducted somewhat more independently.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm.

Dr. GOULD: There certainly are issues of bias and conflict of interests when you are being funded by a company.

FLATOW: Yeah. Can you stay with us for the rest of the hour, Dr. Gould?

Dr. GOULD: Sure. Yeah, I can.

FLATOW: Let me bring in my other guests: Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute; Dr. <bold>Peter Rosset,</boldexecutive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy.

Dr. ROSSET: I would love to address the...

FLATOW: Well, let me finish introducing you.

Dr. ROSSET: Yes.

FLATOW: Then you can just jump right in and I'll give you a shot. Develop--also known as Food First. I'm Ira Flatow. This is TALK OF THE NATION. We're talking about food and genetically modified food. Now, Dr. Rosset, go ahead.

Dr. ROSSET: Yes. I know many very distinguished scientists who are not happy with the result of the report. I, myself, can see major gaps. I do not agree with the conclusion that the transgenic insecticidally modified plants are the same as ones produced by conventional breeding.

When the Bt gene was put into the plants, it was put in together with a promoter, which means that it expresses itself at a much higher rate than it does in bacteria, and with what are called recombinantion hot spots at each end of the genetic material, meaning that it can be more easily broken out of the host plant chromosome and carried by vectors, such as plasmids or viruses, into other organisms in the environment. It was moved in without other regulatory genes that would normally be together with it, as part of the genome that would enter with a gene when you do normal plant breeding.

Studies have shown that the length of the molecule is much shorter than the molecule in the normal Bt bacteria, which is an organic insecticide, which is used by organic farmers because it's non-toxic to people and other insects. It turns out that the spectrum of action of this shorter molecule in the genetically engineered corn is much broader. It kills natural enemies of pests, something which the normal Bt doesn't, and it raises issues about human health.

Unfortunately, the EPA, which would be required to test any new insecticidal product in a plant, ruled a priori that all of the strains, except for one, that are currently spliced into food crops were not substantially different from the bacterial one that's approved for use by organic farmers. However, we now know that the molecule is different. It's much shorter. It's toxic to other insects that the bacterial one is not, and so we would have hoped that they would have required human health testing. The FDA has also not required any human health testing of these products.

So there really are reasons for concern. I mean, very serious reasons that I, certainly as a consumer, and also as a biologist, worry about.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm. 1 (800) 989-8255 is our number. Let's go to Kim in Eugene, Oregon. Hi, Kim.

KIM (Caller): Hi. Hi, Ira. Thank you very much for having this show today. I work with the Center for Rural Affairs as the research and technology policy coordinator. And I would just like to address some of the issues that have been talked about today by Dr. Gould and Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen and <bold>Peter Rosset.</boldI think some of our concerns based on sort of concerns from family farmers and in the sustainable agriculture community and rural communities are that so much emphasis has been put on biotechnology as the sort of silver bullet to feeding the world when, actually, there's a lot of results coming out of agroecological research that could very well improve production and earn more income for family farmers around the world, and so...

FLATOW: Such as? Such as?

KIM: Sustainable agriculture, crop rotations, diversifying cropping systems, and improving soil biology.

And just on one of the points that Dr. Gould talked about in the National Research Council's report that there aren't really any concerns, I'd like to point out that new studies on the impacts of Bt corn on soil communities have not concluded whether Bt corn and the resulting toxins pose a risk to non-target insects and organisms. And there was an article in Soil Biology and Biochemistry in 1997 by scientists Koskella and Stotzky that looked at this issue. And so I'd like just to point this out.

FLATOW: OK.

KIM: And, also, on behalf of the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, I'd like to pull people's attention to a position paper.

FLATOW: Wait, wait, wait. We can't just keep going through your press release here, so, you know.

KIM: No, no, no. OK. Well, it's available on the Web. And basically it gives policy recommendations on sort of the implications of genetic engineering for family farmers, consumers and the environment.

FLATOW: Uh-huh.

KIM: And I think that maybe it covers some of the issues from some different perspectives than the National Research Council's report. And so it is available on the Web for people.

FLATOW: Right.

KIM: And I could give you that Web site.

FLATOW: Let me remind everybody that this is TALK OF THE NATION/SCIENCE FRIDAY from National Public Radio.

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: Can I address...

FLATOW: I will. Let me just finish intro--boy, everybody's doing my job for me today. I'm Ira Flatow. We're talking to Dr.--oh, we're talking to everybody. I don't want to go through the list of names I'll go through later. Let me call them up but one. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen, go ahead. Why don't you go first?

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: OK. Thank you. I think it's very important that we don't confuse sustainable use of natural resources with organic farming. There are a lot of ways that we can have sustainable agriculture. And one way is to integrate the best aspects of organic farming with the best aspects of what is currently not part of organic farming, namely fertilizers and modern technology. I don't understand that we kind of have to take a position on one particular part of the solution rather than work with the people who need the solution and say which parts of all of the possible solutions available would be most appropriate.

Let me try to be a little less abstract here. If a West African farmer is losing her crop every second or third year to insect attacks, or to various kinds of pest attacks or to droughts and so on, she may well be practicing agroecological approaches using organic fertilizers--green manure, cow manure and whatnot--but why are we telling her that she cannot plant a seed that would have a resistance to the insect that eats her crop every third year? Why have we decided that somehow that's a no-no rather than ask the farmer whether that is what she would like to do? And if you ask her, I will almost guarantee you that she's gonna say, 'I want to have all of the parts of the solution that apply to my situation. And one of the parts is going to be to try to build into the seed the kind of characteristics that I need to make sure that I can feed my kids even when the insects come.'

So this idea of somehow dividing up the solutions and say, 'I'm for this, and against that,' is not helping poor people. It's a very academic approach, and I think we need to go out there and find out what poor people want. And I'm in complete agreement with what Peter said earlier, that we should not be sitting back here in the United States telling them what they should have. And that is precisely what we do if we tell them they cannot have access to modern technology. So let's find out what they would like and make it available to them.

Dr. ROSSET: Perfect segue to what I have to say. I have a letter here from Tewolde Gebre Egziaber, who is the chief spokesperson for all the African governments in the biosafety negotiations, and he says, "We are appalled at the use made of the poverty of the rural people of the south to justify genetically modified foods" And I think that that's very key. Nobody has said that this is something that there's a great demand for in the south. In fact, farmers organizations from India; farmers organizations from Africa; farmers organizations from Latin America have all spoken out against these varieties. They feel that they're actually much more dangerous in their circumstances.

I give you the example of the Bt crops. Here in the US, the EPA has finally mandated the planting of a refuge so that the crops will have some kind of functionality for more than two or three years before they become useless because insects develop resistance. But the international research centers agree that that's not going to happen anywhere in the south, and that the best possible circumstance is that the benefit would only last for a very short period of time with tremendous unknown costs.

So what we're really saying and what we're joining with farmers organizations from southern countries in saying this is that there should be a moratorium on the commercialization of these crops. They have been rushed to market before adequate testing has been done and ignoring alternatives.

As the caller said, there are on-the-shelf agroecological, proven methods developed by farmer organizations and NGOs, for example throughout Africa that are much better--much better--at dealing with pest attack, with drought and which give yield increases way beyond the most glowing projections of the biotech industry.

FLATOW: Dr. Gould, would you agree that these have been rushed without adequate testing? Has the committee looked into that?

Dr. GOULD: No, I don't think I agree with that. I think Peter is using some sort of exaggerations that upset me a little bit. And I'd just like to speak to this a little bit in terms of the report. And to get back to the comment from your caller.

FLATOW: All right. We're going to have to take a break. But let me get back and we'll come back after this quick message. So stay with us.

Dr. GOULD: Yeah.

FLATOW: This is TALK OF THE NATION/SCIENCE FRIDAY from National Public Radio.

(Announcements)

(Soundbite of music)

FLATOW: Welcome back to TALK OF THE NATION/SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. A brief program note before we continue: Join Juan Williams and guests in this hour on Monday for a look at the new protest movement. Who is protesting and why?

We're talking this hour about genetically modified crops and their uses in combating hunger and malnutrition with my guests. Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen is director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute. Dr. <bold>Peter Rosset</bold> is the executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, also known as Food First. Dr. Fred Gould is a professor of entomology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. And our number: 1 (800) 989-8255.

And getting back to the food fight that's developing, let me go to Dr.--who was--Dr. Gould, you were finishing up your thought, right?

Dr. GOULD: Gould. Yes. I was saying that I think <bold> Peter Rosset,</bold> you know, made this comment that there were tremendous unknown costs and that we were putting these crops out prematurely. I think these are exaggerations that are not really useful. But before I go on, I would like to say it's very important that, you know, the public have access to, you know, what is available. And we wrote, you know, a 260-page report that has a lot of information in it I think that would address some of the concerns of your caller and some of the issues that Peter is bringing up. And that's easily accessible at <<http://www.national-academies--plural> www.national-academies--plural, academies--.org. And you can actually get the entire manuscript from the Web. So I think that that's useful for your listeners 'cause, you know, they can evaluate for themselves whether we did a reasonable job or not.

FLATOW: We'll have it up on--we have it on our Web site at sciencefriday.com so there's a link. Yeah.

Dr. GOULD: Oh, good. OK. Well, I think that's just an important side note there.

FLATOW: OK.

Dr. GOULD: But, you know, a lot of comments been made about the dangers of these genetically engineered plants. But I guess in looking carefully at what's being done and looking at plant varieties that are released based on conventional methods year after year--and these are new, too. We're moving genes into these plants from sources that we've never dealt with before as well. And if you compare the two in terms of the chance of some tremendous unknown cost, you don't really see a difference between them. So to say that just because it's genetic engineering it's going to have some dire effect on the world compared to what we're doing right now, I think is missing the point.

I think we do have to be concerned...

Dr. ROSSET: Well, Fred, I frankly don't agree with you. We've got (unintelligible). We've got recombinant hot spots.

FLATOW: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Whoa, whoa. Let him finish. Let him finish. Dr. Rosset, let him finish his point and you'll get plenty of time to rebut, OK?

Dr. GOULD: I think we do really need to be concerned about poor people in India and other countries. I just came back from India and I see some of the poverty there. You know, it really is an issue and I think Peter has some important points to make about other approaches. But to just throw the baby out with the bath water this way I think is a problem.

FLATOW: Dr. Rosset, now go ahead.

Dr. ROSSET: Well, to call for a moratorium until adequate health and safety testing has taken place is not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I want to go on record for saying that. And, you know, I could not disagree more with the suggestion that the conventionally bred varieties are not substantially different from the genetically engineered ones.

We have evidence that there's a much higher frequency of genetic material moving around, both through normal recombination because of recombinant hot spots, genes behaving in unexpected ways because they're moved without modifying or regulator genes. They've also--something I forgot to mention--been inserted together with antibiotic resistance genes, which also because of these recombinant hot spots are more likely to move out into other organisms, including possible disease organisms in the environment.

And the whole other issue of gene flow: What will happen if the Bt insecticidal gene moves through pollen transfer into related wild relatives in southern countries and wild relatives begin to express insecticidal properties? What effect will that have on the food chain?

Even more of concern are the virus-resistant crops where virus resistance can move to weed populations, which may be normally be regulated or controlled by naturally occurring viruses. Those weeds can be liberated from that control and become far more severe competitors with crops; far more severe weed pest problems. There's growing evidence. We need to stop and say, 'Let's let the evidence grow.'

Dr. GOULD: Peter, before you go on with your list, I think...

Dr. ROSSET: Let's take a little larger percentage of the research money to evaluate risks. Right now, almost all of the research money has gone into rushing products to market.

Dr. GOULD: I think that Peter is mistaken here. I think that I also would say that the readers should look at the entire report and you'll see that each of the points that Peter is bringing up have been addressed in the report. So I think, you know, I just don't want the readers--or the listeners to think based on quick statements that indeed there's been nothing done in terms of the research on the safety of these organisms.

In terms of these issues of hot spots and such, we've looked into all of those details. And if you look at the genes that are in commercially released varieties, they're not ones that can move around. And I think that you should look at the data, not at just statements that are generally made.

Dr. ROSSET: I have looked at the data. I've got a pile of scientific papers right in front of me. I, you know, don't want to bore the audience by reading them all out. But there is a lot of data.

FLATOW: All right. All right. Let me get some other opinions in here. Let me go to the phones to Miguel in Berkeley. Is it Miguel?

Professor MIGUEL ALTIERI (Caller): Yes.

FLATOW: Yes. Go ahead.

Prof. ALTIERI: My name is Miguel Altieri. I'm a professor here at UC-Berkeley. I know all my colleagues that are talking. Even if the report of the NRC was correct, which I have my doubts about because we had a meeting here in Berkeley with scientists looking at environmental impacts of transgenic crops, and we found that there are things to worry about, the report is not relevant to the developing countries, especially to cropping systems that small farmers use, which is the target of your program, because these systems are much, much, much more biodiverse systems and the possibilities of encounter with sexually compatible cultivars is much higher than in the United States. So all the biosafety protocols have to be corrected for the diversity of cropping systems in the south.

In addition to that, the Bt crops will also introduce tremendous risks to small farmers who rely on biological control agents in their mixed cropping systems, which are going to be wiped out by Bt crops because of the inter-trophic effects that have been shown by the research of Hilbeck. And, also, the poisoning of the soil by the toxins that can remain up to 254 days in the soil will eliminate a lot of organisms in the soil which provide soil fertility for the poor farmers that cannot afford the fertilizers.

FLATOW: Miguel, let me ask you, Bt crops aside, what about these rice varieties and these other varieties that may be giving poor people the needed nutrients that they...

Prof. ALTIERI: Well, <bold> Peter Rosset </bold> already made the point--I totally agree with him--there's all kinds of diversity out there of other crops and also green-leafed vegetables and non-rice components and so on. And I think that he addressed that issue.

FLATOW: All right.

Prof. ALTIERI: Let me say, finally, that the alternatives are very real and that we need to mobilize and scale up what is successful. Two hundred and twenty-three thousand farmers in southern Brazil are using cover crops and green manures and have doubled yields of maize and wheat to four to five tons per hectare. Forty-five thousand farmers in Guatemala and Honduras have tripled maize yields in their systems in the hillsides and have survived Mitch, as opposed to green revolution and commercial systems that suffered 98-percent damage after Mitch. More than 300,000 farmers in dry lands of India are using a range of water and salt management technologies and have tripled sorghum and millet yields to some two to 2.5 tons per hectare. And there are thousands of other examples like this. We need to mobilize immediately the know-how and we don't need this biotechnology, which is also protected by IPR and will not be able to be accessed by small farmers. Not even the institutions of the south will be able to do that.

FLATOW: OK, Miguel. Thanks for calling.

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: Can I comment on that?

FLATOW: Yes, Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen, go ahead.

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: I continue to be amazed by the fact that those who argue for certain parts of the solution are opposed to other parts. Why don't we get together and help poor people solve their problems instead of having this argument of luxury of saying, 'Well, maybe sometime in the future there's going to be some ecological problems?' Let's deal with the problems that poor people have right now rather than...

FLATOW: Wait. But wasn't Miguel just giving us a list of things that have been done successfully as alternatives?

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: Yeah. Yes. And my point is: Let's move ahead as fast as we can with what works, including agroecological approaches.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm.

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: But let's not ignore other possible solutions. And, again, I want to come back to my West African farmer that I was talking about. She may well apply parts of an agroecological approach, and she may well apply seeds that are resistant to certain pests. And why are we so determined not to let her have access to something that she would like to have? And it is correct, of course, that you can get letters from organizations that are opposed to biotechnology in developing countries, but you could also get those kinds of letters back in the '60s when the green revolution was introduced.

Dr. ROSSET: Excuse me. This is from the chief negotiator for all of the African countries. The African countries took the lead in the negotiations in Cartagena and in Montreal to negotiate a treaty that would give them the sovereign right to ban the import of these crops should they decide to do so. And it's Western countries--the United States and Europe--that tried to take away that right from them. So I say, yeah, I agree. Let African countries decide. If they would like to ban genetically altered crops, they should have that right and it should not be governments in the north through international treaties, through the World Trade Organization and other agencies that take away that right from them.

Luckily, they had a partial victory and the biosafety protocol does recognize genetically altered crops as potential biohazards and does give countries the right to partially ban these products in international trade should they decide that that's necessary for their own good of their own country.

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: Probably...

FLATOW: Let me just interrupt rudely and say I'm Ira Flatow, and this is TALK OF THE NATION/SCIENCE FRIDAY from National Public Radio. And we'll get back to our debate about genetically modified foods. Who was I interrupting there?

Dr. ROSSET: Peter.

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: Actually, I was trying to address Peter's point. I think it's very important to recognize that the representation that goes to the Biodiversity Convention is a different one from the one that goes to the agriculture meeting and the finance meetings. And I could equally well cite these kinds of statements from the ministries of agriculture. When they met at FAO, for example, they are very much for biotechnology for agriculture.

But my point is: Why don't we ask the people that we pretend to help what they want? And if you had asked the people that we pretend to help if they wanted green revolution crops back when they were available, they would have said yes. But don't take their word for it. They actually adopted the improved varieties, and that made it possible for them to send their kids to school, to build better houses, to buy a bicycle and to become non-poor. And I feel that the debate is very similar to the debate we had back in the '60s where we also had people from our part of the world saying, 'The green revolution is bad for poor people.'

Don't tell that to the millions and millions of Asians who today are so much better off and many of the kids who would otherwise not have survived. And I think we enter the same debate right now. Let's make the technology available to poor people and let them decide if they want to use it or not. That is the ultimate test, not whether somebody comes to a meeting in Montreal, but whether the people we're pretending to help actually wants to have it or not. Make it available to them.

Dr. ROSSET: OK. I must respond to that by saying, number one, our organization works with farmer organizations and non-profits throughout the south. And we take this position because they've asked us to. Number two, the same 77 southern countries that pushed for the biosafety protocol were the same ones who caused the World Trade Organization talks to collapse in Seattle by walking out. And so despite the fact that it wasn't the same finance--it was the finance ministers in one case and the environment ministers in the other, there was a similar north-south dynamic. And, third of all, now that you've mentioned the green revolution, while the green revolution tremendously boosted food yields, because it was inequitable, because the expensive varieties and chemicals were adopted by richer farmers, it increased inequity and, in fact, hunger increased along with production, intensifying what we call the paradox of plenty.

I urge people to read our book "World Hunger: Twelve Myths."

FLATOW: All right.

Dr. ROSSET: Or go to our Web site, foodfirst.org, and re-read the history of the green revolution.

FLATOW: All right. I have to re-read my script, which says that we're out of time. So thank you, all. And we will re-visit this issue, you can be sure of that. We've only begun to talk about it. It's certainly gonna come up very often in the future.

Thank you very much for joining us, Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute; Dr. <bold> Peter Rosset,</bold> executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, also known as Food First; Dr. Fred Gould, professor of entomology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. Thanks again for all of you.

Dr. GOULD: Thank you.

Dr. ROSSET: Thank you.

FLATOW: You're welcome.

Dr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN: It was a pleasure.

(Credits given)

FLATOW: If you'd like to write us, please send your letters to TALK OF THE NATION/SCIENCE FRIDAY, WNYC Radio, 1 Center Street, New York, New York 10007. No, the old one was a gymnast. Or you can go to our Web site at sciencefriday.com where Charles had all of our references we made today. And there were a lot of them, so you might want to go over there and check out all those references.

I'm Ira Flatow in New York.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Genuardi's goes against industry on food labeling

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:06:26 -0400

The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 19, 2000

---------

Genuardi's goes against industry on food labeling The supermarket chain says consumers should be told whether what they buy has been genetically modified.

By Andrea Knox

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER Genuardi's Family Markets broke ranks with the supermarket industry yesterday in announcing that it supports mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

The move makes Genuardi's the first mainstream supermarket chain in the nation to back mandatory labeling, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio), who has introduced a mandatory-labeling bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The 33-store Genuardi's chain, which has the second-largest market share in the Philadelphia area, said it takes no position on whether the foods are safe but believes that consumers should be given information that would allow them to choose.

Genuardi's said it would try to eliminate genetically modified ingredients "where feasible" in its corporate-branded products and in fresh foods prepared in its stores. The Norristown company also said it would expand its offerings of organic foods to provide alternatives to genetically modified foods. By federal regulation, organic foods may not contain genetically modified ingredients.

Genuardi's also said it would try to provide alternatives to irradiated foods, which the Food and Drug Administration requires be labeled.

Each of the nine Genuardi family members who share ownership of the chain has written to state and national legislators to urge mandatory labeling, a company spokesman, Alan Tempest, said.

"This is really the beginning of something," Kucinich said. "It will have an impact across the country."

Until now, only organic and natural food stores, including Fresh Fields' parent company, Whole Food Markets, have supported labeling.

The Food and Drug Administration, which oversees the safety of the food supply, has agreed with the food-industry position that genetically modified foods are no different than traditional foods and therefore don't need to be labeled.

The Grocery Manufacturers of America has strongly opposed labeling, which it says would give the impression that there is something wrong with genetically modified foods. In January, the group circulated a letter signed by 35 food-industry organizations urging lawmakers not to adopt mandatory labeling because it would cause "consumer confusion, not consumer education."

One signatory was the Food Marketing Institute, the supermarket trade association. The group's senior vice president, Karen Brown, said yesterday that it favors voluntary labeling of foods known to be free of genetically modified ingredients.

Opponents of genetically modified foods say that not enough testing has been done to ensure that the crops pose no environmental or health risks.

In genetic modification, a gene is inserted into a plant to give it a desired trait. The vast majority of genetically modified food on the market today is corn and soybeans. The corn is engineered to produce a substance toxic to corn borers, and the soybeans are altered to survive when a field is sprayed with Roundup herbicide. A small percentage of potatoes and zucchini also are grown from genetically modified seed.

Half the nation's soybeans and more than half its corn were grown from genetically modified crops last year, according to Monsanto Co., a leading producer of genetically modified seeds. Farm surveys have suggested that plantings of genetically modified crops will decrease this year, especially corn, because resistance among European and Japanese consumers makes exporting genetically modified crops to those markets more difficult.

Brown, of the Food Marketing Institute, said she believes that mandatory labeling won't be possible for at least two years because there is no consensus on which tests for genetically modified content are reliable or what threshold of genetically modified content would trigger the need for a label. And it will take several years for farmers, grain elevators and shippers to establish systems and facilities for keeping genetically modified crops separate from others, she said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) has introduced a mandatory labeling bill in the U.S. Senate.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: Exec. Summary - Ecol. aspects of transgenic crops

Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 11:19:46 -0700 (PDT)

International Workshop on the Ecological Impacts of

Transgenic Crops?

(2-4 March 2000)

UC Berkeley

Attended by 21 scientists from Universities (Berkeley, Santa Cruz, Cornell, Guelph, Iowa State, Minnesota, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Elmhurst College and Open University) , International Agricultural Research Centers (CIMMYT, CIP) , NGOs (Union of Concerned Scientists, Food First, Consumers Union, AS-PTA Brasil) and Private Organizations (Dynamac Corp.)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Miguel A. Altieri

University of California, Berkeley

Transgenic crops are increasingly becoming a dominant feature of the agricultural landscapes of the USA and other countries such as China, Argentina, Mexico and Canada. Worldwide, the areas planted to transgenic crops jumped more than twenty-fold in the past four seasons, from 3 million hectares in 1996 to nearly 40 million hectares in 1999. In the USA, Argentina and Canada, over half of the average for major crops such as soybean, corn and canola are planted in transgenic varieties. Herbicide resistant crops (HRC) and insect resistant crops (Bt crops) accounted respectively for 54 and 31 percent of the total global area of all crops in 1997. The rapid deployment and widespread commercialization of such crops in large monocultures raises questions regarding the potential of genetically modified crops (GMCs) to cause unacceptable impacts on the environment. Besides the widely acknowledged drawbacks of GMCs: a) the spread of transgenes to related weeds or conspecifics via crop-weed hybridization and, b)the rapid evolution of resistance of insect pests such as Lepidoptera to Bt, the workshop was concerned about the overall ecological implications of other more subtle effects that research is now starting to unravel:

* accumulation of the insecticidal Bt toxin, which remains active in the soil after the crop is ploughed under and binds tightly to clays and humic acids;
* disruption of natural control of insect pests through intertrophic-level effects of the Bt toxin on predators;
* unanticipated effects on non-target herbivorous insects (i.e. monarch butterflies) through deposition of transgenic pollen on foliage of surrounding wild vegetation;
* vector-mediated horizontal gene transfer and recombination to create new pathogenic organisms, and
* reduction of the fitness of non-target organisms through the acquisition of transgenic traits via hybridization.

By examining specific studies that describe such effects, the group was able to assess the scale, magnitude and ecological significance of such findings.

Approach

The workshop was attended by a group of 21 scientists working on the ecological aspects of transgenic crops in research organizations located in the US, Europe, and Latin America. During the first day and a half of the workshop, participants were able to examine through formal presentations and group discussions, data on the environmental impacts of HRCs, Bt and other pesticide-producing crops and virus resistant crops. Discussions focused on known documented impacts and their overall implications, although emphasis was placed on research questions directed at dealing with potential unknown, hard to detect or low magnitude impacts, but which ecological theory predicts as probable and likely to scale up. Issues of gene flow, fitness effects of introduced transgenics on wild relatives, effects across multiple trophic levels and effects on soil ecosystems were all analyzed from an integrated and multidisciplinary perspective.

The second half of the workshop was spent evaluating the level of knowledge available on the ecological impacts of transgenic crops and the severity and scope of risks that their field deployment represents. Following is a summary of the main conclusion s and recommendations that emerged after two and a half days of intense multidisciplinary deliberation.

General Ecological Concerns

The rushed commercialization of existing GMCs is unwarranted from an ecological point of view as many scientists had already raised concerns about obvious potential impacts of GMCs. Given this fact, HRCs and Bt crops have been a poor choice of traits to feature the technology given predicted environmental problems and the issue of resistance evolution. In fact, there is enough evidence to suggest that both these types of crops are not really needed to address the problems they were designed to solve. On the contrary, they tend to reduce the pest management options available to farmers. There are many alternative approaches, (i.e. rotations, strip-cropping, biological control, etc.) that farmers can use to effectively regulate the insect and weed populations that are being targeted by the biotechnology industry. To the extent that transgenic crops further entrench the current monocultural system, they impede farmers from using a plethora of alternative methods.

At issue is the potential for transgene insertions to cause expression of not simply the target trait, but also unintended secondary outcomes that could pose environmental risks. Risk assessments of transgenic crops focus narrowly on only the intended outcomes, virtually ignoring the possibility of unintended outcomes or side-effects. The resulting phenotypes carry novel hazards, and regulatory agencies must address these in appropriate manners. From an ecological perspective, transgenic crops can not be considered substantially equivalent to conventional crops, as the effects of trangenes are often broader than expected, with pleiotropic or gene insertion site effects common. Workshop participants were also concerned about the genetic constructs used to transform plants and the possible ecological impacts from promoter and marker gene sequences.

Gene flow

The general consensus of the group is that just as it occurs between tradtionally improved crops and wild relatives, pollen mediated gene flow will occur between GMCs and wild relatives or conspecifics despite all possible efforts to reduce it. Little is known about the long-term persistence of crop genes in wild populations or about the impact of fitness-related crop genes on the population dynamics of weedy relatives. The main concern with trangenes that confer significant biological advantages that may transform wild/weed plants into new or worse weeds. In the cases of hybridization of HRCs with populations of free living relatives will make these plants increasingly difficult to control, especially if they are already recognized as agricultural weeds and if they acquire resistance to widely used herbicides. A case discussed suggested that transgenic resistance to glufosinate is capable of introgressing from Brassica napus into populations of weedy Brassica napa, and to persist under natural conditions.

Another case discussed suggested that introgression with genetically modified oats, Avena sativa, resistant to barley yellow dwarf virus (BYVD) would confer virus resistance to wild oats, Avena fatua. This would release wild oats, which are more susceptible to BYVD, from natural suppression, thus potentially triggering a more severe weed problem.

In addition to having high levels of agrobiodiversity, many developing countries constitute centers of genetic diversity, and in such environments the transfer of coding traits from transgenic crops to wild or weedy populations of these taxa and their close relatives is expected to be high. Genetic exchange between crops and their wild relatives is common in traditional agroecosystems and transgenic crops are bound to frequently encounter sexually compatible plant relatives, therefore the potential for gene exchange via pollen transfer in traditional agroecosystems is worrisome.

Until recently, gene flow risk assessment research has centered on addressing four basic questions:

1) Can crops and their wild relatives produce viable offspring?
2) What is the likelihood of progeny formation under field conditions?
3) Do the progeny survive to reproductive maturity?
4) What is the relative fitness of the F1 compared to the parents under field conditions?

A problem with these questions is that they center largely on probability of gene flow events. The data have been collected using simple genetic markers and model systems that are in most cases of too small scale, and involve only traditionally improved crop varieties. One must question the usefulness of continuing to collect data that may be of limited value in truly estimating the risk of wide-scale GM crop release. Therefore, it is suggested that risk assessment research begin to move away from these probabilistic models and begin to address questions relating specifically to consequences of gene flow events in agroecosystems at scales that are comparable to modern agricultural settings.

The problem facing the ecological community centers on the identification of the right sets of questions that will allow a direct rebuttal to the USDA policy that "there is not problem until a problem is identified". The data that have been collected for most crop-wild complexes are very clear, the likelihood of gene transfer is high when the proper conditions for such events are met (i.e. range overlap, sexual compatibility, and flowering time synchrony). It follows that the potential for an "identifiable problem" should be high. Thus, more energy and resources must be directed towards articulating the possible consequences of gene flow events (vertical and horizontal) in agroecosystems so that appropriate experiments can be proposed, and gaps in the data pool be filled. One way to address the deficiencies in our data set is to assess the long-term effects of pollen flow from widely used traditionally improved crops to their sympatric, compatible relatives. Greater understanding of the historical consequences of gene flow will allow us to better evaluate the possible effects of introgression of a transgene into the wild populations. Secondly, data addressing biotic and abiotic factors that limit the distributions and abundance of the wild relatives needs to be collected, or more likely, retrieved from the weed science literature. Again, these data will provide us with the means to seriously consider the potential consequence of transgene persistence and spread.

Ecological, economic and agronomic implications of HRCs

World-wide in 1999, transgenic herbicide resistant crops were planted on 28 million hectares. In North America, there are now commercially available transgenic glufosinate resistant cultivars of canola and corn, and transgenic glyphosate resistant cultivars of soybean, corn, cotton, and canola. Bromoxynil resistant transgenic cotton has also been developed. Published research indicates that herbicide resistance has been transferred successfully to many other crops using genetic engineering techniques.

Transgenic herbicide resistance in crop plants simplifies chemically based weed management because it typically involves compounds that are active on a very broad spectrum of weed species, yet which do not damage the crop. Post-emergence application timing for these materials fits well with reduced or zero-tillage production methods, which can conserve soil and reduce fuel and tillage costs. This is why in 1998 about 44 percent of Midwestern soybean was glyphosate resistant (Roundup Ready).

However, HRCs also have significant problems. Reliance on HRCs perpetuates the weed resistance problems and species shifts that are common to conventional herbicide based approaches. The use of HRCs in areas where weedy relatives of crops are present creates the additional possibility of crop-to-weed resistance gene transfer. Herbicide resistance becomes more of a problem as the number of herbicide modes of action to which weeds are exposed becomes fewer and fewer, a trend that HRCs may exacerbate due to the dictates of the marketplace and the limits of synthetic chemistry. Pleiotropic effects may affect the performance of HRCs, as indicated by recent evidence of stem cracking in glyphosate tolerant soybean under high temperature conditions. Lower yields in transgenic glyphosate resistant soybean varieties, compared with conventional non-transgenic cultivars, may represent pleiotropic effects or a lack of attention from plant breeders. If consumers reject GMOs in the marketplace, use of HRCs will further decrease the prices farmers receive for low-value commodities.

Perhaps the greatest problem of using HRCs to solve weed problems is that they steer efforts away from crop diversification and help to maintain cropping systems dominated by one or two annual species. Crop diversification can not only reduce the need for herbicides, but also improve soil and water quality, minimize requirements for synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, regulate insect pest and pathogen populations, increase crop yields, and reduce yield variance. Thus, to the extent that transgenic HRCs inhibit the adoption of diversified cropping systems that include perennial crops, cover crops and green manure, they hinder the development of sustainable agriculture.

Ecological risks of Bt crops

Based on the fact that more than 500 species of pests have already evolved resistance to conventional insecticides, pests can also evolve resistance to Bt toxins present in transgenic crops. No one questions if Bt resistance will develop, the question is now how fast it will develop. Susceptibility to Bt toxins can therefore be viewed as a natural resource that could be quickly depleted by inappropriate use of Bt crops. However, cautiously restricted use of these crops should substantially delay the evolution of resistance. The question is whether cautious use of Bt crops is possible given commercial pressures that have resulted in a rapid roll-out of Bt crops reaching 9 million acres in the USA in 1997. Will the refuge strategy of setting aside 20-30 percent of the land to non-Bt crops work? Can such regional plans be enforced and will it be commercially viable for farmers? If instead 20-30 percent of the land was devoted to growing soybeans and corn in a strip cropping design, would similar pest control advantages emerge from such mixed and rotational cropping systems? Data from the Midwest shows that Bt corn saves on some insecticide use and yields are 2.4 bu/acre higher than conventional corn but only under high European corn borer infestations. On the other hand organic corn growers use no insecticides and obtain yields (4.8-9 t/ha) similar or slightly higher than conventional farmers (5.0-7.l t/ha) .

A concern of the group was the spill over effects resulting from the massive use of Bt toxin in cotton or other crops occupying a larger area of the agricultural landscape, onto neighboring farmers who grow crops other than cotton, but that share similar pest complexes. Such farmers may end up with resistant insect populations colonizing their fields. As Lepidopteran pests that develop resistance to Bt cotton move to adjacent fields where farmers use Bt as a microbial insecticide, this may render farmers defenseless against such pest, as the biopesticide becomes ineffective thus farmers stand losing an important biological control tool. Among those most affected would be organic farmers who rely on Bt based microbial insecticides for their pest management programs.

In the case of cotton there is not demonstrated need to introduce the Bt toxin into the crop at all, as the Lepidopteran pests of this crop are pesticide-induced secondary pests. Therefore, the best way to deal with such pests is not to spray insecticides, but instead to use cultural and biocontrol techniques. In the Southeast, the key pest is the boll weevil, a beetle immune to the Bt toxin. To fully assess the need for Bt cotton to control Lepidoterans in the Southeastern USA, experimental tests need to be conducted in areas not disrupted by insecticide misuse to determine the real pest status of each species before the need for biotechnology or any particular technology can be assessed.

Bacillus thuringiensis proteins are becoming ubiquitous, highly bioactive substances in agroecosystems present for many months. Most, if not all, non-target herbivores colonizing Bt crops in the field, although not lethally affected, ingest plant tissue containing Bt protein which they can pass on to their natural enemies in a more or less processed form. Polyphagous natural enemies that move between crop cultures are found to frequently encounter Bt containing non-target herbivorous prey in more that one crop during the entire season. This is a major ecological concern given previous studies that documented that Cry1 Ab adversely affected Chrysoperla carnea reared on Bt corn-fed prey larvae. These effects are not unique to Bt crops, as researchers in Scotland found that predaceous Coccinellidae feeding on aphids reared on GNA potatoes (containing snowdrop lectin) had lowered fecundity than ladybugs fed on control potato aphids. Such ladybugs lived twice as long as females fed on aphids from GNA potatoes.

These findings are problematic for small farmers in developing countries who rely for insect pest control, on the rich complex of predators and parasites associated with their mixed cropping systems. Research results showing that natural enemies can be affected directly through inter-trophic level effects of the toxin present in Bt crops raises serious concerns about the potential disruption of natural pest control, as polyphagous predators that move within and between crop cultivars will encounter Bt-containing, non-target prey throughout the crop season. Disrupted biocontrol mechanisms will likely result in increased crop losses due to pests or to the increased use of pesticides by farmers with consequent health and environmental hazards. There is a clear need for tri-trophic level studies to assess the long-term interactions of transgenic, insecticidal plants with natural enemies.

Effects of Bt crops on the soil ecosystem

There are many transgenic plants that are being considered, developed or released which produce insecticidal, nematicidal, or anti-microbial products. Due to natural wounding, senescence, root exudates, and sloughing-off of root cells, along with tillage of plants into the soil, soil biota will be exposed to these transgenic products. Because of the importance of soil biota in mineralization and immobilization of nutrients, physical and biochemical degradation of organic matter, biological control of plant pests, and as food sources for other organisms, it is crucial to evaluate the potential impacts of transgenic plants on soil ecosystems. Research in this area has been quite limited but the little research conducted has already demonstrated long term persistence of insecticidal products (Bt and proteinase inhibitors) in soil. The insecticidal toxin produced by Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurskatki remain active in the soil, where it binds rapidly and tightly to clays and humic acids. The bound toxin retains its insecticidal properties and is protected against microbial degradation by being bound to soil particles, persisting in various soils for at least 234 days. In another study researchers confirmed the presence of the toxin in exudates from Bt corn and verified that it was active in an insecticidal bioassay using larvae of the tobacco hornworm. Given the persistence and the possible presence of exudates, there is potential for prolonged exposure of the microbial and invertebrate community to such toxins, and therefore studies should evaluate the effects of transgenic plants on both microbial and invertebrate communities and the ecological processes they mediate.

Published research has already shown that exposure of soil organisms to transgenci plants caused changes in population levels of collembola, and changes in both levels and species composition of nematodes, bacteria and fungi. Perhaps the finding of most concern from these studies is that effects were not due to the transgenic products but rather from unintentional changes in plant characteristics that resulted from the process of genetic engineering. This suggests that responsible risk assessment of transgenic plants must consider not only the engineered traits but also attempt to account for unanticipated changes in the engineered plant that may also impact the soil ecosystem.

Studies need to be performed that compare soil biota and processes in fields under sustainable agricultural practices and conventional agricultural chemical practices with fields containing transgenic plants. Levels and species composition of arthropods, nematodes, protozoa, earthworms, enchytraeids, bacteria and fungi should be monitored. When possible, multiple methodological approaches (microscopic, culturable, metabolic, and molecular) should be employed to limit the bias introduced by any one method. Efforts should be made to characterize the food webs and trophic interactions. In addition, evaluation of key soil processes (e.g. decomposition, nutrient cycling) should be included to determine if any observed difference in soil biota levels or community composition are impacting biogeochemical cycles. Finally, above-ground measurements of plant health (e.g. biomass, fitness, phenology, morphology, chemistry) are needed to assess the ecological significance of any changes occurring in the soil ecosystem resulting from the exposure to transgenic plants.

If transgenic crops substantially alter soil biota and affect processes such as soil organic matter decomposition and mineralization, this would be of serious concern to organic farmers and most poor farmers in the developing world who cannot purchase or don't want to use expensive chemical fertilizers, and that rely instead on local residues, organic matter and especially soil organisms for soil fertility (i.e. key invertebrate, fungal or bacterial species) which can be affected by the soil bound toxin. Soil fertility could be dramatically reduced if crop leachates inhibit the activity of the soil biota and slow down natural rates of decomposition and nutrient release. Virus resistant crops

Some researchers have expressed concerns about the risks of new pathogens evolving due to transgenic viral coat proteins. In plants containing coat protein genes, there is the possibility that such genes will be taken up by unrelated viruses infecting the plant. In such situations, the foreign gene changes the coat structure of the viruses and may confer properties such as changed methods of transmission between plants. The second potential risk is that recombination between RNA virus and a viral RNA inside the transgenic crop could produce a new pathogen leading to more severe disease problems. Some researchers have shown that recombination occurs in transgenic plants and that under certain conditions it produces a new viral strain with an altered host range.

A number of studies have demonstrated that plant viruses can acquire a variety of viral genes from transgenic plants:

* Defective red clover necrotic mosaic virus lacking the gene enabling it to move from cell to cell, and hence not infectious, recombined with a copy of that gene in transgenic Nicotiana benthamiana plants, and regenerated infectious viruses .

* Transgenic Brassica napus containing gene VI, a translational activator, from the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV), recombined with the complementary part of the virus missing that gene , and

gave infectious virus in 100 percent of the transgenic plants.

* The same experiment carried out in Nicotiana bigelovii gave infectious recombinants that expanded the host range of the virus.

* Nicotiana bethamiana plants expressing a segment of the cowpea chlorotic mottle virus (CCMV) coat-protein gene recombined with defective virus mission that gene.

As all these experiments involved recombination between defective virus and

transgene, it was thought that under natural conditions, when viruses are

not defective, no recombinant viruses would be generated .

Although many questions still remain, based on the available information on

the potential effects of virus resistant transgenic plants, the group

highlighted the importance of six points:

* The recombination of viral genetic information takes place constantly, and is a driving force in viral evolution. The literature is full of evidence of the creation of new viruses by recombination. If genetic engineering increases the potential for recombination between viruses, as many think is the case, novel viruses will be created.

* Use of entire, functional genes such as coat protein, movement protein, and replicase genes will facilitate the creation of new viruses. Defective copies may still provide enough material for effective recombination.

* Genetically engineered satellite RNAs may be able to be replicated by viruses other than their host virus, which may lead to new types of infections and could increase (or decrease) pathogenicity.

* Very little is known about the distribution of plant viruses in nature, and few researchers are currently working in the area of viral ecology. Yet, information in this area is critical to conduct proper and scientifically defensible risk assessments of plants genetically engineered to resist viruses.

* We know little more about the biology of viruses in plants, in particular in multiple infections. Some evidence indicates temporal and spatial separation of different viruses in multiple infections in nature, so that recombination in non-GE plants is more rare than would be found in a plant continually expressing a viral gene.

* Non-pathogenic viruses that make their way into the host cell, and then can't move, may have movement facilitated by the engineered transgene, which might serve as a movement protein. Even though they are not normally a pathogen of that particular plant, the non-pathogenic virus may be able to cause disease in the presence of the transgene, and/or have the opportunity to recombine with the transgene and in this way acquire pathogenic potential.

Given the possibility that transgenic virus-resistant plants may broaden the host range of some viruses or allow the production of new virus strains through recombination and transcapsidation demands careful further experimental investigation.

General Conclusions and Recommendations

The available scientific information allowed the group to conclude that although no catastrophic impacts have yet been recorded from the massive use of transgenic crops, the known and potential risks are substantial from an ecological point of view. It was generally agreed that because of the widespread use of transgenic crops, and the impossibility of effectively removing them once they are released, even more effects might persist and accumulate and eventually cause serious ecological impacts. For example nobody can really predict the impacts that will result from the Bt toxin that is released into the soil from roots during the growth of thousands of hectares of Bt corn , or the effects to the soil and general ecosystem from pollen during corn tasseling and as a result of the incorporation of tons of plant residues after crop harvesting.

Not enough research has been done to evaluate the environmental and health risks of transgenic crops, an unfortunate trend as most scientists feel that such knowledge was crucial to have before biotechnological innovations were upscaled to actual levels. There is a clear need to further assess the severity, magnitude and scope of risks associated with the massive field deployment of transgenic crops.

Much of the evaluation of risks must move beyond comparing GMC fields and conventionally managed systems to include alternative cropping systems featuring crop diversity and low-external input approaches. This will allow real risk/benefit analysis of transgenic crops in relation to known and effective alternatives.

The potential for ecological risks is to a large extent "event and context-specific". The particular risks which may be identified for the first wave GE offerings do no exhaust the list of potential risks from events yet in the pipeline. By the same token, ecological risks identified in the US or Canada may not be relevant to risks in Malaysia or Mexico - whether due to gene flow issues or to disruption of natural pest controls in more biodiverse environments. Risks in a "normal" weather year may not be predictive of those in a dry year (e.g. RR soybean stem splitting in Georgia), or to those experienced by farmers burdened by sporadic pest outbreaks. In short, identification and quantification of risks seems likely to remain an obligate and ongoing complement to the development and release of each new GE crop.

The repeated use of transgenic crops in an area may result in cumulative effects such as those resulting from the buildup of toxins in soils. For this reason, risk assessment studies not only have to be of an ecological nature in order to capture effects on ecosystem processes, but also of sufficient duration so that probable accumulative effects can be detected. The application of multiple methods will provide the most sensitive and comprehensive assessment of the potential ecological impact of transgenic crops.

Further empirical studies of the ecological impact of commercial-scale cultivation of transgenic plants are clearly needed, particularly with regard to the following questions:

* Which cultivated plants have sexually compatible wild relatives that could become troublesome weeds after inheriting fitness-related transgenes, and to what extent will this conversion to weediness occur?

* Will the propagation of certain transgenic plants result in the evolution of newly resistant plant pests (microbial pathogens, insects, and weeds), and if so, how can the evolution of these resistant biotypes be delayed or avoided?

* What effects will plant-produced pesticides have on the population dynamics of non-target organisms, especially beneficial predators, parasitoids, pollinators, components of soil food webs, and fundamental ecological processes?

Ecologists can provide valuable input in the planning and evaluation of high-risk genetically engineered plants, but does documenting the risks of such crops entails the best use of scarce ecological talent? Or should ecologists devote their time and skills to developing the best environmentally sound approaches to deal with real agricultural limitations, which in many cases are management options not related to biotechnology but rather to agroecology?

Overall the group felt that although biotechnology is an important tool, at this point alternative solutions exist to address the problems that current GMCs are designed to solve. The dramatic positive effects of rotations, multiple cropping, and biological control on crop health, environmental quality and agricultural productivity have been confirmed repeatedly by scientific research. Biotechnology should be considered as one more tool that can be used, provided the ecological risks are investigated and deemed acceptable, in conjunction with a host of other approaches to move agriculture towards sustainability.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Subject: McDonald's and other fast-food chains say no to GE potatoes

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 19:04:29 -0400

McDonald's, Other Fast-Food Chains Pull Monsanto's Bio-Engineered Potato

By Scott Kilman - Wall Street Journal

April 28, 2000

Monsanto Co.'s genetically modified potato is falling victim to the consumer backlash over crop biotechnology.

Fast-food chains such as McDonald's Corp. are quietly telling their french-fry suppliers to stop using the potato from Monsanto, the only biotechnology concern to commercialize a genetically modified spud.

So many food concerns are shrinking from the Monsanto potato that J.R. Simplot Co., a major supplier of french fries to McDonald's, is instructing its farmers to stop growing it.

"Virtually all the [fast food] chains have told us they prefer to take nongenetically modified potatoes," said Fred Zerza, spokesman for closely held J.R. Simplot, headquartered in Boise, Idaho.

Monsanto, the St. Louis agricultural unit of Pharmacia Corp., calls its potato "NewLeaf." It is the latest and smallest crop to feel the sting of a growing antibiotechnology campaign in the U.S. and abroad.

Critics have raised enough questions about the environmental and nutritional safety of crop biotechnology that surveys show many U.S. consumers want labels on groceries containing genetically modified ingredients, a move the food industry resists.

American farmers, worried by the controversy, are retreating from the genetically modified seed they raced to embrace in the late 1990s. Such modified plants are easier to grow than their conventional cousins; they make their own insecticides and tolerate exposure to potent weedkillers. But government and industry surveys show that U.S. farmers plan to grow millions fewer acres of genetically modified corn, soybeans and cotton than they did last year.

Potato farmers quickly accepted Monsanto's genetically modified version when it was introduced four years ago. Equipped with a gene from a micro-organism, the NewLeaf plant makes a toxin that repels a major pest called the Colorado Potato Beetle, greatly reducing the need for expensive chemical sprays.

U.S. farmers planted about 50,000 acres of NewLeaf potatoes last year, up from 10,000 acres in 1996. Total U.S. potato production last year was about a million acres.

Now, with food companies shrinking from the genetically modified potato, NewLeaf acreage will likely drop significantly this year.

Fargo, N.D., farmer Ronald Offutt, one of the nation's largest producers of potatoes, said he won't raise any genetically modified spuds this year. Last year, about 20% of the potatoes grown by his company, R.D. Offutt Co., were genetically engineered.

Mr. Offutt said he decided to eliminate the NewLeaf potato after Cincinnati consumer-products giant Procter & Gamble Co. asked how long it would take him to supply the company with only conventional potatoes. Mr. Offutt supplies potato flakes for making P&G's Pringles chips.

P&G declined to comment.

Frito-Lay Co. said Thursday that it is asking its farmers not to grow genetically modified potatoes this year. Frito-Lay makes potato-chip brands Lay's and Ruffles.

Frito-Lay, a Plano, Texas, unit of soft drink giant PepsiCo Inc., told its corn farmers this past winter to stop growing genetically modified varieties for use in its snack products.

Crop biotechnology is a delicate issue for food companies. Most executives believe the technology is safe but many customers are turned off by the idea of genetic manipulation.

NewLeaf potatoes are being sacrificed in large part because they're the easiest genetically modified crop to remove: the vast majority of spuds grown last year were conventional. It's far harder for the food industry to reject genetically modified soybeans, for example, because they represent half of the U.S. crop and are used to make many more food ingredients.

McDonald's declined to talk about its potato policy. A spokesman said the company doesn't comment on its procurement practices.

The Burger King unit of London's Diageo PLC said suppliers have assured it that the french fries it sells aren't made from genetically modified potatoes.

Hardee's, a fast food chain of CKE Restaurants Inc., said it hasn't asked suppliers to stop using genetically modified potatoes. But the chain is considering whether to change its french-fry policy.

**************************************************

Backlash Casts Pall on Biotech Spuds

.c The Associated Press

By BOB FICK

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - One of