Subject: MONSANTO WILL WAIT FOR STUDIES OF Terminator
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:12:44 -0400


**MONSANTO** WILL WAIT FOR STUDIES OF DISPUTED NEW GENE
TECHNOLOGY

(St. Louis Post-Dispatch; 04/23/99)



**Monsanto**'s "terminator technology" may not be terminated, but neither will it be germinated soon because of the global furor it has caused.

St. Louis-based **Monsanto** Co. announced Thursday that it would not market the controversial new gene technology until the completion of studies that examine the environmental, economic and social effects.

"We believe that the concerns about gene protection technologies should be heard and carefully considered before any decisions are made to commercialize them," the company said in a statement.

So-called terminator technology is one of the seed-sterilization methods being developed to prevent genetically modified seeds from being used for free. If crops produce sterile seeds, farmers must buy new seeds at the next planting.

For **Monsanto**, Thursday's announcement amounts to a retreat from its spirited defense of the technology. Philip Angell, **Monsanto**'s director of communications, said the company had taken its new position "because the reaction to terminator in a lot of different quarters in many countries was clearly becoming the dominant discussion about biotechnology."

Angell said **Monsanto** had consulted with prominent scientists before issuing its statement, which he described as "recognition that we need some level of public acceptance to do our business."

**Monsanto** is not alone in developing the technology, which is believed to be several years from the market. But **Monsanto** has drawn most of the heat because of a widely publicized U.S. patent for sterilization awarded last year to the Department of Agriculture and a Mississippi seed company that **Monsanto** is acquiring.

In parts of the world, seed-saving is fiercely protected. Farmers and their advocates fear the loss of this age-old practice along with diminished seed choices that they see resulting from recent consolidation of seed companies by **Monsanto** and its rivals.

Farmers have reacted angrily, even violently, to the prospect of these changes. In November, members of a farm cooperative in India - where 70 percent of farmers save seeds - burned two of **Monsanto**'s experimental fields.

Meanwhile, scientists and farm economists in the world's largest agriculture research network - the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research - voted late last year to condemn the technology.

It was unclear who would conduct new studies and when. A United Nations scientific and technology panel organized under the Convention on Biological Diversity already is studying terminator technologies, and several countries are pushing for wider U.N. involvement.

The International Food Policy Research Institute also may be studying the issue. Phil Pardey, a research fellow for the Washington-based institute, referred Thursday to "a woeful lack of understanding of the potential impacts on both developed and developing nations."

Jim Moody, president of Washington-based InterAction, said he had agreed to help disseminate information about the technology to the 160 organizations under his umbrella. InterAction is known primarily for helping refugees and disaster victims.

The Rural Advancement Foundation International, which has offices in the United States and Canada, coined the terminator technology phrase and has been the most vocal critic of plant sterility research. The foundation's Hope Shand predicted that studies will recommend that the technology be dropped.

**Monsanto** often has fought for global acceptance of biotechnology with little help from rivals, and it may be alone in the terminator controversy. A spokeswoman for Swiss-based Novartis, **Monsanto**'s main rival in the business of genetic science, referred to the issue as "a **Monsanto** matter" and declined to comment. A DuPont spokesman said his company had no plan to pursue the technology.

(Copyright 1999)

{A5:StLouisPostDispatch-0423.01058} 04/23/99






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


Subject: snapshot of GE in US
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:18:02 -0400

A snapshot of ag biotechnology in the United States

April 23, 1999

CHICAGO, Reuters [WS] via NewsEdge Corporation: Protests about genetically modified (GM) foods and crops in Europe are feeding fresh debates as the World Trade Organisation prepares to set an agenda at talks to open in Seattle later this year.

Meanwhile, with strong U.S. Agriculture Department support, the United States food system, a trend-setter for international production, continues to buy into the cost-saving, value-enhancing arguments of GM technology.

``As these products prove safe, using an independent and objective eye, we must use their immense potential to wage world war against hunger and for a sustainable future,'' U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman told European farm leaders at East-West Agricultural Forum in Berlin in January.

Plantings of biotech crops in the United States have exploded as seeds for three of the main four row crops -- corn, soybeans and cotton -- have become commercially available the last three years. Work on the fourth, wheat, continues, with drought-resistance a main quality being ``gene engineered.''

Ag biotech backers say the first phase of products has been aimed at cost-conscious farmers. GM crops with pest-fighting insecticides built in save on costs and help the environment, they say, while biodegradable herbicides like Roundup have fed a ``no-till'' planting surge, helping preserve topsoil.

Backers say phase two of biotech crops will build in more ``quality traits'' that will appeal to consumers, also making labelling or ``branding'' of the enhancements necessary.

That direction recognises the fact that livestock and crop production in the United States is increasingly becoming a ``mother lode'' for biochemistry, with its proteins, sugars, fats and carbohydrates broken down and ``enhanced'' into far more valuable catalysts for food, pharmaceutical, energy and fibre industries. These include, for example, crop-based insulin for diabetics, interferons for cancer therapies, and vaccines.

Gene-researched applications can now affect animal growth at the enzyme level, fermentation of beverages, crop resistance to diseases and insects, lactation, ripening, sweetness, and other food qualities. Not to mention recent advances with cloning of farm animals, which have added debates about ethics to the issues of food safety and environmental effects.

EXAMPLES

Examples of how GM is now in place in the US food system:

Dairy -- ``Bovine somatotropin (BST),'' also known as bovine growth hormone (BGH), is a protein produced by cattle. The gene for BST has been cloned into bacterial cells, a ``recombinant'' or genetically engineered version (RBGH) used to boost milk output in dairy herds. About 30 percent of herds are affected.

A less well-known use of biotech in dairy is the enzyme chymosin, a GM-derived rennet substitute now used in more than 50 percent of cheese production in the United States.

Grains -- Almost 35 percent or 27 million acres (10.93 million hectares) of the number one field crop in U.S, corn, will be planted to GM strains in 1999, according to industry groups. These include ``Bt'' corn altered with genes from a soil-based bacterium, ``bacillus thuringienis,'' that fights the European corn borer pest. It also includes ``Roundup Ready'' corn that withstands Monsanto's Roundup, a popular herbicide worldwide.

New varieties with ``stacked traits'' -- such as BT plus high corn oil yield -- are also being marketed.

Oilseeds - Growers say plantings of Roundup Ready soybeans and other GM varieties will account for up to 40 million acres (16.19 million hectares) in the U.S. this year, more than half 1999 acreage in the fourth year of use. Roundup Ready canola, a rapeseed developed in Canada, is also marketed in the U.S. and Canada.

Cotton - Bt, Roundup Ready and other GM cotton varieties are expected to account for more than half of the 14 million acres (5.666 million hectares) planted in the U.S. this year.

Sugar - Roundup Ready sugarbeets make U.S. debut in 1999.

Potatoes - Monsanto's New Leaf potatoes combat the Colorado potato beetle through a protein specific to the beetle added to the crop. Virus resistant traits are also added. Plantings in 1998 accounted for 60,000 acres (24,280 hectares) out of 1.37 million acres (554,400 hectares) of potatoes planted in the U.S.

(Peter Bohan, Chicago commodities desk(312)408 8720, chicago.commods.newsroom+reuters.com))





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


Subject: British stores Tesco and Unilever ban Genetically Manipulated products
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:56:57 -0400

INDEPENDENT (London) April 28

Brit. stores Tesco and Unilever ban Genetically Manipulated products

By Paul Waugh, Political Correspondent

GOVERNMENT reassurances about the safety of genetically modified foods were further undermined yesterday when both Tesco and Unilever announced they were banning GM ingredients from their products.

Britain's biggest supermarket chain and the world's largest food manufacturer unveiled their new policy just hours after Jack Cunningham, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, made a staunch defence of the benefits of GM crops and foods.

Tesco revealed it was working with Greenpeace to remove modified ingredients from its own meals and would label clearly all other products that contained them.

The company's decision follows pressure from customers and criticism from environmentalists that it was the only one of the big chains to refuse to respond to public concern.

Tesco, the market leader with a turnover of #18.5bn, joins Safeway, Sainsbury's, Iceland, Marks and Spencer and Waitrose in seeking GM-free products and boosting its organic range.

More than 150 of Tesco's its 20,000 own-label products contain modified soya and maize and the chain has agreed to work with Greenpeace in a task force to find reliable sources of GM-free ingredients.

John Longworth, Tesco trading law and technical director, said customers believed GM products offered no new benefits. "We will remove GM ingredients where we can and label where we can't. In the short and medium term I expect the number of products containing GM ingredients to decline steadily, quite possibly to zero."

Peter Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said that the spotlight was now on Nestle to phase out the ingredients.

Greenpeace said it was "delighted" that Unilever, owner of Birds Eye Walls and one of the most popular manufacturers of ready meals, had taken its decision.

Mr Cunningham had told MPs the GM foods and crops were now "a reality"and helped to boost Britain's #70bn a year biotechnology industry.

Mr Cunningham, who chairs the Cabinet committee set up by Tony Blair to co-ordinate Government policy on GM issues, told the environmental audit select committee that "media hysteria" had skewed public debate to date.

"Some aspects of the public debate have been ill-informed, often fuelled by a barrage of media hysteria," he said.

"About 4.5 million hectares of land are in cultivation in the UK. GM crops have grown for 19 years in North America with almost no effects on biodiversity."

Mr Cunningham did confirm that the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Officer had been commissioned to look into the health and safety aspects of GM foods and their report would be made publicly available in the next few weeks.





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


Subject: WAKE-UP CALL FOR BIOTECH FOODS
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:58:15 -0400

Wisconsin State Journal
04/22/99

After years of watching biotechnology top every community college's list of favored careers, I'm glad to see unmistakable signs that, in agriculture at least, the love affair may be stormier than the glossy company brochures predicted. Worldwide, agricultural biotechnologies are encountering problems, and biotechnology companies are scared for good reason.

*In Britain, for example, where genetically engineered food labeling is required, poll results last month showed that nine out of 10 shoppers would switch supermarkets and travel considerable distances to avoid such food.

*In Japan, 2,300 out of 3,300 local governments have asked the national government to require mandatory labeling of such food.

*International outrage has mounted against the "terminator gene" technology, designed to genetically program plants to sterilize themselves.

*A major lawsuit challenges corporations' right to even patent genes in food, undercutting the profit potential that has spurred billions of dollars of investments in agricultural biotechnology.

*The National Corn Growers Association acknowledges that U.S. corn sales to Europe plunged from nearly 70 million bushels in 1997 to less than 3 million last year because the U.S. crop contained a small amount of genetically engineered corn.

*Maybe most astonishing was multinational grain marketer Archer Daniels Midland's recent announcements that it will separately market soybeans that are not genetically engineered and will reject any genetically engineered corn not accepted in Europe.

Scientists in this field often dismiss consumer objections to agricultural biotechnologies as hysterical and uninformed, saying that their products have been thoroughly and scientifically tested and are perfectly safe and socially responsible. But consumers have solid reasons for their objections.

First, and probably most infuriating to industry researchers, is the issue of genetically engineered foods' effect on human health. Despite researchers' assurances that these foods are perfectly safe, consumers increasingly reject them. In Britain, where soy food allergies rose 50 percent in 1998, consumers are asking whether the culprit was the fact that 32 percent of the U.S. soybean crop that year used Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans. Such concerns arise because gene-spliced plants incorporate proteins from a wide variety of species not eaten by humans.

Scientific food safety assurances are particularly insufficient in Europe, where consumer confidence was trounced by the emergence of Mad Cow Disease despite scientific and government assurances of food safety.

Environmentalists worry about what happens when genetically changed plants cross- pollinate with native species. What happens when wildlife eats genetically engineered plants? How much more herbicide is sprayed when farmers plant Monsanto seed engineered to allow a plant to resist more of Monsanto's popular herbicide Roundup? When Monsanto and other companies took the naturally occurring insecticide bacterium Bacillus thuriengensis (Bt) and spliced its operating mechanism into crops, organic farmers were concerned that insects would quickly become resistant to Bt, removing a crucial tool of environmentally sound farming only to serve corporate interests. These concerns are being borne out in last year's cropping trials.

The pervasive objections to genetically engineered food say less about a hysterical public than about the astonishing arrogance of corporate researchers. Why hasn't the biotechnology industry actually asked the public what it wants? Why did researchers and corporate leaders decide that making cheap food would outweigh other consumer concerns?

The growing public concerns about agricultural biotechnology are a healthy sign that consumers can use their pocketbooks to tell biotechnology corporations what they should have been asked from the start. U.S. consumers will find it easier to do so when we have the same labeling restrictions that so many European countries have imposed. We should push for them.

(Copyright (c) Madison Newspapers, Inc. 1999)





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


Subject: WashPost BUSINESS Section 4/29/99
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:05:20 -0400

British Revolt Grows Over 'Genetic' Foods
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 29, 1999; Page E02

Britain's largest grocery chain yesterday announced it would phase out genetically modified foods from its shelves, and two large British food processors said they would work to eliminate gene-altered ingredients, adding momentum to a European consumer revolt that is threatening a number of U.S. exports.

Tesco stores, with more than 700 grocery outlets in the United Kingdom, said it would try to switch to suppliers whose foods are not made from gene-altered crops. Those crops, including many new varieties of soybean, corn, cotton and potato widely grown in this country, have stirred controversy in Europe because of fears that their cultivation may harm the environment or human health.

Nestle UK Ltd., noting that "consumer confidence in the technology appears to be low," also said it would ensure that the vast majority of its products will not be made with genetically modified ingredients -- and it would label any products that have such ingredients.

And Birds Eye Wall's and Van der Bergh Foods, two popular brands of processed foods owned by the consumer products giant Unilever UK, declared their intention to stop using, "for the time being," genetically modified ingredients.

"We have taken this decision in direct response to the wishes of a growing number of customers in the U.K.," said Isin Ferguson, chairman of Bird's Eye Wall's.

The dispute is over foods made from crops harboring extra genes that make them resistant to insects or weed-killing chemicals. The plants are not licensed to be grown in Europe yet, but are popular among U.S. farmers. About half of this year's U.S. soy crop will be grown from gene-altered seeds, for example, and those beans will not be kept separate from ordinary ones. About one-fourth of the U.S. soy harvest is typically exported to Europe, and soy is found in about 60 percent of all processed foods.

Yesterday's announcements followed similar declarations by other U.K. food distributors in recent months, despite repeated assurances from U.S. regulatory agencies, which have deemed the new varieties safe for consumption and environmentally safe when cultivated appropriately.

Activists applauded the news as a victory for consumers. But U.S. commodities experts called the growing movement a triumph of fear over scientific reason.

Separately, U.S. Department of Agriculture officials said late yesterday they had reached an agreement that defused a European Union threat to ban "hormone-free" beef imports. Earlier in the day, the EU had said it would impose such a ban because several samples of certified "hormone-free" beef had tested positive for growth hormones, used by most U.S. cattlemen. Details of the agreement, which would call for more careful oversight and sampling of hormone-free beef, were not yet worked out, USDA trade adviser Isi Siddiqui told Reuters yesterday.

C Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company

=============================================




Subject: Monsanto WashPost 5/2 Sunday
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 17:27:01 -0400

Monsanto Investigators Accused of Trespassing
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 2, 1999; Page A26

Private investigators working for Monsanto, the St. Louis-based agricultural company, trespassed on a Canadian farmer's property and surreptitiously obtained samples of his harvested seeds from a local mill to gather evidence for a lawsuit against him, according to newly released court documents and interviews with company officials and others.

The revelations have reignited a bitter controversy over Monsanto's ongoing pursuit of farmers who have allegedly saved and replanted the company's high-tech, genetically engineered seeds after harvest. Monsanto has a policy of precluding growers from saving seeds from those crops, demanding instead that they buy fresh seed every year.

The farmer, Percy Schmeiser of Bruno, Saskatchewan, is one of hundreds of growers that Monsanto has tracked down in the United States and Canada during the past year for allegedly violating the company's ban on saving the patented seeds.

But while the vast majority of farmers approached by Monsanto have paid fines and agreed to allow the company to inspect their fields for years to come, Schmeiser last year became something of a folk hero in Canada by fighting back against the multinational giant. He has gained the support of environmental groups and others around the world who oppose corporate restrictions on seed saving, which many subsistence farmers depend upon for survival.

Monsanto claims that Schmeiser knowingly grew, harvested and replanted seeds of the company's genetically enhanced "Roundup Ready" canola. The variety is tolerant to Roundup, Monsanto's popular weedkiller, allowing farmers to spray the herbicide freely without worrying about harming the crop itself.

Schmeiser has claimed that if any Roundup Ready canola was growing on his land, it was the result of cross pollination from neighbors' fields or from seeds blowing off other trucks after the previous year's harvest.

Monsanto's case is based largely upon DNA tests conducted on plants from Schmeiser's fields in 1998. According to the company, those tests prove that fully 900 acres were planted with Roundup Ready canola -- far more than could be expected from windblown contamination.

The company gathered the plant samples after obtaining a court order granting permission to go onto Schmeiser's land. But court documents filed April 22 by Schmeiser's lawyer, Terry Zakreski of Saskatoon, make public for the first time some of the questionable evidence-gathering tactics used by Monsanto before it was granted that court order.

In testimony filed with the Federal Court of Canada -- part of Zakreski's motion to dismiss the case -- a Monsanto representative reports that private investigators hired by the company in 1997 trespassed on Schmeiser's property to snip plant samples for DNA testing.

Moreover, according to the documents and interviews, a Monsanto representative approached an employee of the Humboldt Flour Mill, where Schmeiser brought his harvested seeds for cleaning, and asked for a sample of his harvest for DNA testing. The mill's manager at the time, Gary Pappenpoot, complied after checking with his boss -- a decision, he said Friday, he now regrets.

"Basically you've got trespassing and you've got theft," Schmeiser said. "As my wife said, if I went down to Monsanto's headquarters in St. Louis and trespassed or took a piece of paper out of that building I'm sure I'd end up in jail."

Philip Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, disputed the allegations against the company. Despite the sworn testimony, he said, it is still not completely clear that the investigators in 1997 actually crossed Schmeiser's property line. Even if they did, he said, trespassing is neither a criminal nor a civil offense in Saskatchewan -- a legal interpretation Zakreski disputes.

Angell also said -- and Pappenpoot confirmed -- that the Humboldt mill routinely saved samples of farmers' seeds in case questions arose later about contamination or mix-ups. Angell said Monsanto attorneys were now trying to determine whether those saved samples technically still belonged to Schmeiser or to the mill, which would then have the right to share them with anyone it chose to.

In any case, Angell said, neither the disputed 1997 DNA test results nor the flour mill samples were used by the company to get its court order for the more extensive field testing it conducted in 1998. The company believes that those early tests would have been admissible in court, he said, but they did not meet the company's high ethical standards.

Angell said Monsanto now has a written policy that precludes its hired investigators from trespassing to gather evidence.

C Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company







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


Subject: beginning of end of GM foods in Britain...
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 20:22:39 -0400

INDEPENDENT (London)
May 2, 1999

Genetic manipulation: consciousness-raising at work in UK.

By GEOFFREY LEAN

It was an extraordinary scene, a fitting start to the week that surely marks the beginning of the end for genetically modified foods in Britain. At nine o'clock last Monday morning two of the most powerful men in the global food industry turned up at a pressure group's door.

Richard Greenhalgh, chairman of Unilever UK, and Michel Ogrizek, the international head of corporate affairs for the giant multinational - the world's largest food manufacturing company - came to Greenpeace's offices in Islington, north London, in what appears to have been a last-ditch attempt to make peace. But next day the company had to admit defeat, announcing that it would stop using GM ingredients in its products in Britain.

The announcement started a week-long stampede by leading companies, all household names. The speed and suddenness of the flight from "Frankenstein foods" has surprised everyone, humiliated the Government and provided the most spectacular example to date of consumer power. Its repercussions will reverberate far beyond this country: it could prove a turning point in the battle over genetic modification worldwide.

Unilever insists that Monday's visit was just "part of a general ongoing discussion in regard to issues on genetically modified organisms". But Greenpeace recounts how it received a call from Mr Greenhalgh's office late the previous Friday, requesting an urgent meeting. It says that the company was "trying to resist going GM-free".

"Their suggestion was that some sort of full debate or discussion might be valuable," says Peter Melchett, Greenpeace's executive director. "We said that things had moved beyond that point."

Up to then Unilever had been one of the most committed proponents of GM foods - and even in defeat it insisted that its announcement did not "change our long-held belief in the potential of modern technology, including the genetic modification of food ingredients." It went on: "This technology offers huge future benefit to customers, but the realisation of this depends on winning full consumer trust and confidence."

It's right, at least, about the last part - as it knows only too well. For the giant company was forced into its reluctant volte-face by an unprecedented onslaught from its own customers. Bemused executives describe helplines swamped by worried and angry consumers since early this year. Worse, sales of its GM soya product, Beanfeast, have slumped precipitously. Some industry sources calculate they have fallen by 80 per cent; Unilever privately says it is "nearer 50 per cent". (The company has now promised to make it GM-free within two months.)

It is not suffering alone. Sainsbury will withdraw its GM tomato puree - the first genetically modified product to be introduced in Britain - from its shelves by June. Made from tomatoes modified to rot more slowly, it used to outsell its GM-free rival by two to one: now, says the company, "our customers do not want it".

No wonder Unilever's surprise announcement opened the floodgates. The next day Nestle, another of the world's biggest food companies, announced that it was phasing out GM products as fast as possible. The day after, Cadbury followed suit. Meanwhile Tesco, Britain's largest supermarket chain, said it would remove GM ingredients from its own- brand foods, joining Sainsbury, Safeway, Asda and Somerfield. And the Co-op will tomorrow announce changes that will make its products GM free as well.

When these phase-outs are complete, no major supermarket brands will continue to contain GM ingredients and - after last week's Unilever, Nestle and Cadbury announcements - many other foods will be free of them too. It's an extraordinary reversal from the rapid, silent, expansion of GM foods - from nothing to 60 per cent of the products on supermarket shelves in less than three years. And it has put environmental activists into the unfamiliar position of extolling market forces.

Those same forces will spread the effects of last week's events worldwide.

For these enormously wealthy companies (Unilever's turnover alone is more than #35bn) will now start scouring the world for GM-free soya and maize, raising their prices and providing a powerful incentive to farmers to plant them. This could tip the balance in the many countries that have been facing a close-fought decision on whether to introduce GM crops: some analysts expect that many farmers will now abandon them even in the United States, their greatest stronghold.

The speed of the reversal has taken everyone by surprise - even the pressure groups which campaigned for many months before the issue caught fire early this year. What made the difference, both they and the industry say, was press coverage, including the Independent on Sunday's campaign.

And no one has been more surprised by the Government, which is now left - together with Monsanto and other bioscience companies - as just about the only supporter of GM foods. Last week's events are a major blow to its credibility, and to the personal authority of the Prime Minister who went out of his way, at the height of the controversy earlier this year, to stress his confidence in them.

This is the Government's greatest failure yet to read the public mood. Right up until last week - and in some cases even now - senior ministers were convinced that the GM foods controversy was, as Mr Blair privately told Labour MPs, just "a flash in the pan". How could an administration which is usually so successful at catching the tides of public opinion, have got so out of step?

The answer lies in Mr Blair's similarity to Tony Benn. In the 1960s Mr Benn embodied the Wilson government's faith that the "white-heat of technology" was the answer to Britain's economic problems. Mr Blair and other modernisers, like Peter Mandelson, enthusiastically adopted this Old Labour belief. They became convinced that the country's future depended on knowledge-based industries, and equated biotechnology with them.

Thus GM foods became integrated into the Blairite "project": to express concerns about them was to doubt New Labour. Blinkered by this conviction, the Government failed to spot the many early signs of impending public revolt .

It has been a damaging failure, for the episode has crystallised some of the strongest popular concerns about the Government - that it is arrogant, overinfluenced by big business and oversubservient to the United States.

Ministers (with one or two honourable exceptions) have haughtily dismissed concerns about the effects of the crops on health and on the environment, parroting the reassurances of official scientific committees who have a majority of members with links to the food and biotechnology industries. And growing anti-Americanism and hostility to multinational companies has been stoked by the US decision to mix GM and ordinary soya (so that they could not be distinguished or separated) before shipping them to Europe; by Monsanto's heavy-handedness; and by the evangelical zeal with which the Clinton administration has been pushing GM foods.

But even within the White House there are signs of concern, if not change. A few days before the Unilever announcement, at the start of an official lunch in New York, my neighbour - one of the Clinton administration's most senior environmental policymakers - turned to me and opened the conversation; "Tell me. How do we get out from under this GM mess?"

=================== INDEPENDENT (London) 2 May 99

Ministers told to study GM food cancer risks

By MARIE WOOLF

THE COUNTRY'S most senior doctor has told ministers to set up a special panel to examine whether eating genetically modified food could cause birth defects, cancer or damage to the human immune system.

In a confidential report to the Government, the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser have recommended that ministers set up a GM health monitoring unit, similar to the body of experts which discovered a link between eating beef from BSE infected cows and human CJD.

They believe not enough research has been done to determine whether eating GM food could cause serious health problems in humans.

The report, seen last month by the ministerial committee on genetic modification, proposes "the creation of a new unit to monitor the health effects of GMOs, similar to the unit monitoring CJD". It should examine "potential health effects" including "foetal abnormalities, new cancers, and effects on the human immune system".

Professor Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, and Sir Robert May, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, concluded that "our understanding [of the effect of GMOs on human health] is still developing". While there is no conclusive evidence, their findings will renew public concern that GM food could lead to unknown health consequences.

Scientists, including Dr Michael Antoniou of Guy's Hospital in London, have warned that genetic engineering could lead to the creation of new allergies, cancers and other illnesses in human beings because of "the disruption of our natural genetic order".

"The reasons why we can't be specific about the health consequences of GM food is that we don't know enough," said Dr Antoniou. "Each genetic engineering event holds its own dangers. You could have acute toxicity or something that sneaks up over many years. Any of these things are possible."

=====================================



INDEPENDENT (London) May 2

GM Foods - Countdown to a consumer victory

By GEOFFREY LEAN

7 February

The Independent on Sunday launches its campaign to get a three-year freeze on developing genetically modified crops, and for all products containing modified food to be clearly labelled. More than 100 chefs and food writers back opposition to GM food; thousands of readers back the campaign.

12 February

English Nature warns it cannot recommend safety of GM foods.

13 February

Scientists stage Westminster news conference to demand that the findings of Dr Arpad Pusztai are reinstated after an international panel of 20 experts endorse his work. He claimed laboratory rats fed with GM potatoes had suffered damage to their immune systems and vital organs. Blair rejects demand for moratorium on GM food. Labour's former chief spokesman, David Hill, and Tony Blair's US pollster and strategist, Stan Greenberg, are revealed as advisers to GM food giant Monsanto.

15 February

Tony Blair gives personal assurance that GM is safe to eat. Lord Sainsbury, science minister, revealed as owning a key GM gene that is used to create most of the GM foods currently on the market, such as soya.

17 February

Royal Society scientists to re-issue report on dangers of GM foods after ministers ignored it for five months.

20 February

Tony Blair warns that banning GM food would jeopardise Britain's bio-tech industries. Pressure mounts on Lord Sainsbury.

21 February

IoS/NOP poll shows 59 per cent unhappy with way Government has handled issue; 68 per cent worried about eating GM food.

25 February

Prime Minister tells Commons there will be no inquiry into Government's handling of GM foods. Councils to ban GM food from schools, town halls and old people's homes.

28 February

Advertising Standards Authority criticises Monsanto for its misleading campaign.

3 March

Dr Jean Emberlin, director of National Pollen Research Unit at University College, Worcester, says dangers of contamination by GM pollen may have been seriously underestimated.

11 March

English Nature scientists warn science and technology select committee that GM crops pose a severe threat to wildlife and ecosystems.

15 March

Marks & Spencer to remove all GM ingredients. Novartis, world's third largest drug company, pans "hysteria" over GM. Lord Sainsbury says GM food poses a risk, but benefits outweigh possible dangers. Ministers meanwhile confident that they can persuade firms to back voluntary three-year freeze on GM crops.

18 March

Supermarkets Waitrose and the Co-op promise to make their own brands GM-free.

19 March

New laws on labelling of foods containing GM products come into force. Shops and restaurants failing to do so face fines of up to #5,000.

29-30 March

Protests against GM foods held across Britain, including demonstrations at supermarkets and the ripping-up of oil seed rape plants at farms. Two protesters cleared of criminal damage to #44,000 worth of crops at a Devon farm; Crown Prosecution Service says public opinion is one reason for not pursuing the case.

21 April

Britain's finest restaurants, including the Savoy and the River Cafe, announce that they will ban all GM products.

27 April

Tesco promises to remove GM foods from its shelves, wherever possible. Unilever announces a ban on its products.

29 April

Further rules governing the labelling of GM foods so that GM-free products can be clearly identified are being considered by the Government. Cadbury Schweppes announces that it is removing all GM ingredients from its chocolate.




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



Subject: GM coffee seen hard to swallow
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:10:08 -0400

Genetically modified coffee seen hard to swallow

PHILADELPHIA, PA, May 2 (Reuters) - Researchers may eventually be able to genetically modify coffee plants to resist insects or produce caffeine-free coffee beans, but public resistance could delay such developments for at least 10 years, a Monsanto Co (MTC - news). specialist said on Sunday.

James Zarndt, a commercial team leader within Monsanto's specialty crops group, said the company was concerned about the public's understanding of what genetic modification of plants really means. He said until people were ``comfortable'' with the idea, Monsanto would move moderately slowly into the area.

He told Reuters it was not feasible to suppose there could be any approvals for genetically modified coffee until at least the end of the next decade because of current public uncertainty and the perception of the industry.

``Processors and growers are telling us what their challenges are. Whether it is in the area of producing naturally decaffeinated coffee or insect-control issues, the scientists need to identify the genes that are responsible for controlling those issues within the plant,'' Zarndt said.

He said the process to remove caffeine from coffee hurt flavor and taste, so researchers would aim to produce trees which had been genetically modified to develop ``naturally'' decaffeinated beans.

``They (scientists) believe the proper genes have been identified in certain laboratories around the world but it has not been proven yet in the field or in the factory,'' Zarndt added.

While there had been very little research into genetically modified coffee yet, he said Monsanto was researching possible opportunities. According to Zarndt, Monsanto has not conducted any coffee-related consumer research but he believed U.S. coffee drinkers have shown less concern over accepting plant modifications than Europeans.

He cited many obstacles facing coffee growers, particularly pressures from disease and insect control.

``At the present time they are using pretty significant chemical solutions such as fungicides and insecticides but one has to wonder if those are sustainable practices. There are potential solutions in the area of insect control in particular that biotechnology may be able to provide,'' Zarndt said.

Speaking on the sidelines of a four-day Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) annual meeting and exhibition, Zarndt said Monsanto was currently looking at the opportunities which existed for coffee biotechnology but had not yet engaged in any genetic modification trials.





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


Subject: This food fear's justified
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 17:32:26 -0400

Journal of Commerce
Friday, May 07, 1999

Guest Opinion

This food fear's justified
BY BRONWEN SALTER-MURISON

LONDON -- People's perceptions of what presents a threat are often bizarre. As a medical writer, with at least some idea of the science behind an issue, I find this a constant source of entertainment. Most of us seem to have absolutely no idea what really presents a risk to us or our families.

For example, every time there's a birth-control pill scare, umpteen women stop taking the thing immediately, with a corresponding blip in the birth rate nine months down the line. No one ever seems to pick up on the fact that there has yet to be a pill that carries the same risk as having a baby.

Or the Ecstasy panic: If you compare the number of alcohol-related deaths of teens with those caused by Ecstasy, you'll know why I'm smiling, albeit grimly. And you'll know what you should really be fretting over when the kids are out after curfew.

People tend to respond more vigorously to what they perceive as an immediate threat than they do to a long-term threat -- which explains the pill-scare reaction.

And they respond more vigorously when the risk is an unknown quantity. Booze is a familiar risk, Ecstasy a new one -- which is why parents get so anxious.

But there's a gut reaction to certain sorts of risk that may not suit governments, but makes a lot of sense.

People get very antsy when something permanent starts happening to the fabric of life, which is where genetically modified foods come in. We know people die all the time. Indeed, though we try to forget it, we've all got to die of something.

But when a step is taken that appears to present a threat to future generations, people get very uncomfortable indeed. For example, far more people have died or been crippled in coal mines than in the nuclear fuel industry. It makes no difference to the perception of risk.

Sure, individuals are killed in coal mines, but it's contemplating the long-term, as well as the immediate, consequences of a nuclear accident to the whole community that makes people's blood run cold.

Whether it's nuclear contamination or altering the genetic structure of plants, people recognize what some scientists seem not to: Before you change the fabric of our world, you need to know what you're tinkering with.

And in terms of genetics, we simply don't know enough. We may know the genetic alphabet, but we're about as fluent in the language as a toddler using magnetic letters on a refrigerator door.

Of course genetic mutation happens all the time. Farmers and gardeners have always tried to improve plants, hurrying or twisting Darwinian forces.

But what is new about genetically modified food is the radical nature of that mutation.

Changes are being made that could not have happened before the technology: genetic material from animals used to alter plants; modifications made to plants in a single generation that could not have been previously achieved without decades of careful breeding. Breeding that would, of course, have given us some history with which to consider any unforeseen effects of those changes.

What scares people about the genetic modification of food is that no one can tell us what the long-term effects will be. For a start, we're not talking about a single food or a single modification.

Maybe some of the plants modified so far are safe. Maybe some of the modifications are safe. Maybe all of them are safe.

But no one can tell us for certain, and if they say they can, they're lying. There are too many unknowns. We simply haven't had the time yet to collect all the facts or make the necessary observations about genetically modified foods.

The future of these foods may hold no additional risks whatsoever. Or it may contain a complete global failure of a staple crop. Or a rash of birth defects three generations down the line. Or a tiny, catastrophic gap in the food chain.

We simply don't know. Can't know.

Genetically modified food has been foisted on the population without debate or even a chance to opt out -- and there's no going back. Already it's almost impossible to find certain foods, American soy for example, that have not been contaminated with modified genetic material. Our choice has been removed, and basic foodstuffs altered forever. No wonder people are worried. No wonder they're angry. For once they've got a point.

Now I hear that genetically modified foods are proving a commercial disaster. Good. Perhaps that'll teach 'em.

Bronwen Salter-Murison is a free-lance writer based in Surrey, England, who specializes in health and medical issues. She has written several books on health-related topics, as well as working in multimedia and the World Wide Web. This article was distributed by Bridge News.





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


Subject: ADM and GM Soya
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 22:28:13 -0400

ADM to offer premium to grow non-genetic soy

CHICAGO, May 5 (Reuters) - Major grain processor Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM - news) said Wednesday it will pay farmers a premium price for soybeans grown with a certain non-genetically altered variety of seed.

The soybeans, known as Synchrony Treated Soybeans (STS), are produced by DuPont Co. (DD - news), and are bred to resist Synchrony herbicide, also produced by DuPont.

Farmers participating in the STS program would receive an 18-cent per bushel premium over the Decatur, Ill., market price for soybeans, Martin Andreas, senior vice president for Decatur-based ADM, said in an interview.

Andreas said the program offers farmers a way to avoid the recent problems revolving around genetically-modified crops, also referred to as GMO (genetically modified organism) crops. The program took effect on April 27, Andreas said.

``He's got a home for his product, he's got a good premium price, and he's taken out of the political difficulties surrounding the GMO issue,'' said Andreas. ``I think it's a pretty decent program for the farmer.''

Genetically modified crops have rapidly grown in popularity among U.S. farmers in recent years, but have met resistance in the U.S.' major markets overseas, such as Europe and Asia. Resistance revolves primarily around over whether food products containing genetically modified crops are entirely safe for human consumption.

For example, Roundup Ready soybeans, a product of Monsanto Co. (MTC - news), are genetically modified to resist Monsanto's Roundup Ready herbicide.

The STS variety could be exported about anywhere in the world, because it is not genetically modified, Andreas said.

According to Andreas, DuPont expects to offer contracts to plant STS on 9 million to 10 million acres this year. U.S. soybean acreage this year is expected to total about 73 million acres. Most of the STS variety would be grown in Illinois, with some in Iowa and Indiana, Andreas said.





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


Subject: Dan Glickman's Actual Speech on Ag/GMOs
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 17:46:04 -0400

Full text of Glickman's speech at Purdue follows, but they are also
accessible on the internet at:
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/04/0187
======================================

Remarks by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Purdue University West Lafayette, in -- April 29, 1999 As Prepared for Delivery Release No. 0187.99

Remarks As Prepared for Delivery by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Purdue University

West Lafayette, in -- April 29, 1999

"Thank you very much, Vic, for that kind introduction. And thank you for the expertise that you're lending to USDA, as Chairman of our Advisory Board on Research, Extension, Education and Economics.

"It's a great honor to be at one of the most prestigious land-grant universities. Touring your new Food Science Center and getting a glimpse of some of your biotech research just confirmed what I already knew -- that this is a school with a rich tradition of accomplishment and innovation in the field of agriculture. That's one of the reasons I'm here. The other reason is that I wanted to visit the home of the 1999 NCAA Women's Basketball Champions...even if the Boilermakers are a Big Ten rival of my alma mater, the University of Michigan.

"I'm proud that USDA and Purdue have built such strong partnerships on everything from soil erosion to plant genetics to food safety. And it's good to know that we share personnel too.

"In fact, if you browse through the faculty directory here, it almost seems like the Department of Agriculture is some kind of farm team for Purdue University. Purdue is home to one of my predecessors, former Secretary and now professor emeritus Earl Butz...as well as Don Paarlberg, who served as a senior adviser to the Secretary of Agriculture before I was old enough to shave.

"I also want to single out Jill Long-Thompson, who is with me today. Jill was a strong leader for Indiana in the House of Representatives, and now she's doing an outstanding job as USDA's Under Secretary for Rural Development.

"I work closely with both of your Senators, Evan Bayh and Dick Lugar. Senator Lugar is a good friend, and he has served this state and championed this university so effectively for so many years. And as Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, he is a friend to farmers -- and an advocate for their interests -- nationwide.

"Those of you emerging from Purdue's agriculture program will be tomorrow's leaders in farm production, agribusiness and science. You will be the ones to steer the ship at a time of staggering change in the structure and composition of the farm economy, but also the national economy and the global economy. So this seemed an ideal place to have a forward-looking discussion about the place agriculture may occupy in American life in the 21st century. All of us involved in agriculture students, faculty, researchers, farmers, community leaders, and those of us in government must work together to deal with the monumental changes taking place in agriculture and we must make our decisions and set our priorities accordingly.

"It can be a little difficult to have this kind of objective, intellectual dialogue when we're in the middle of serious farm problems. Falling prices and natural disasters demand stopgaps, quick fixes and emergency responses. It's hard to talk about the long-term when there are many producers staring every day at the prospect that they may not have a long-term at all...at least not in farming.

"Nevertheless, we can't let our focus become all trees and no forest. Eventually, farm prices and income will rebound and exports will improve. Without minimizing or neglecting the very real hardship being experienced in farm country, we have to look toward the future. We have to ask and begin to answer -- the questions: What might American agriculture look like in the 21st century? And perhaps more importantly: What do we want it to look like? Because we can't just sit idly by and let change happen to us.

Role of Government

"The role of government in the farm economy is changing dramatically, particularly as it relates to the operation of farm programs. We will spend $15 billion this year in direct payments to farmers, the highest of any fiscal year on record. But notwithstanding that, with the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill, we are in the process of minimizing the government role, of stripping USDA of many of its authorities to intervene in the market on farmers' behalf and deal with issues of supply and demand. So we have to rely on different tools.

"The '96 Farm Bill, however, didn't provide a clear roadmap for federal farm policy in the future. It offered no hard guidelines. In fact, the part of the bill covering farm programs is called "The Agricultural Market Transition Act." So there's got to be a transition...but to what we don't really know.

"On some level, there will always be farm programs. But we have to start thinking in terms of partnerships rather than supports. We can be catalysts, helping farmers and ranchers compete, without artificially guaranteeing them a certain level of income. Government can no longer assume complete production and marketing risks, but we can point producers toward the tools that will help them manage those risks. We can and should find sensible ways to strengthen the farm safety net, with a strong crop insurance program and other risk management tools. But policymakers, particularly in Washington, have to get away from this focus on micro program changes, and instead explore ways to empower farmers to thrive in a modern world.

"For example, the National Commission on Small Farms, which I appointed two years ago, has come back to me with a number of recommendations that put USDA in an empowering rather than an enabling role. It suggested a Beginning Farmer Development Program, which would establish training and assistance centers for beginning farmers; a small farm research initiative; and an entrepreneurial development initiative for small farmers.

Producing For The Market

"We also have to help farmers learn to thrive in a consumer-driven environment. What we have had in the past -- although I think it's changing now -- is a kind of "if we grow it, they will come" mentality. The Big Three automakers found out what happens when you defy the consumer. They used to forcefeed cars to a closed-mouth public, and they got left in the dust by Japanese and German competitors. But they learned their lesson, and now they tailor their production to the needs and demands of their consumers.

"Many farmers are doing this. But to be successful, agriculture must always stay ahead of the consumer curve. And it just so happens that, when it comes to food, we're living in a time when consumer tastes and preferences are becoming more and more sharply defined. Who would have thought forty years ago that grocery shoppers would be asking for turkey bacon, veggie burgers or tofu ice cream? Americans and people around the world are more knowledgeable about food and nutrition and more discriminating about what they put in their mouths. In addition to the traditional foods that most consumers buy, many people are now looking for leaner beef, organic foods, free-range chicken or foods that are "natural".

"There is a heightened consciousness about food labeling. People want to know where their food comes from and what goes into it. They're worried about their cholesterol levels and their recommended daily allowance of folic acid. These are the kinds of consumer dynamics that farmers must learn to read and respond to or else ignore them at their own peril. And there are even more consumer dynamics to consider when it comes to our overseas customers, who represent the greatest potential growth market for American agriculture.

"Farmers and ranchers must develop market antennae. As Barry Flinchbaugh of Kansas State University and the chair of the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture put it: producers must learn to manage markets in the same way that they used to manage farm programs. The days of farmers simply growing crops and raising livestock without meeting specific market needs are over.

"All of us have to be partners and facilitators in this process. We in government have to help farmers make the transition, instead of simply reauthorizing and refunding the same old programs year after year. And the land-grant colleges have a pivotal role as well. Just as government can't be a captive of the past, neither can you. Agriculture can't be taught the way it was in the past. You in this room and at land-grants around the country have to adapt your extension and outreach programs for this modern, market-driven farm economy. And your research priorities must reflect these new realities as well.

Concentration

"It so happens that watershed changes in farm policy are happening at a time of increased concern about structural and technological changes in agriculture. So farmers, without the kind of support they've traditionally enjoyed from their government, are preparing to compete in a world of transition and a climate of uncertainty. This is especially true of small and medium-sized operators.

"One of the things that we see in agriculture and, really, in every other sector of the economy is a trend toward fewer and larger operations. This has been a long time in the making. In 1900, there were 5.7 million farms averaging 147 acres apiece. By 1950, it was about 5.4 million farms with an average acreage of 216. The trend has dramatically accelerated in the second half of the century. By 1998, the number of farms had been cut by more than half to 2.19 million, while the average acreage doubled to 435.

"Consolidation can sometimes lead to some increased efficiency in an economic system. But now what we're seeing goes beyond just farm consolidation. Now, at every link along the food production chain, there are concentrated markets, clusters and alliances, relationships both formal and informal, that may present serious challenges to the small and medium-sized producer trying to move goods to market.

"This is especially true when it comes to livestock processing. In the beef industry, four meat-packing plants now control 80% of the steer and heifer slaughter market. We're also seeing a profound restructuring of the hog industry. I know people in Indiana are well aware of that. Since 1967 the number of hog operations has fallen by 90%. Large operators of more than 2,000 hogs represent just under 6% of producers, but account for almost two-thirds of inventory. As more farmers raise more hogs under contract with fewer processors, the very nature of the industry relationships are changing.

"And while contracting is often a good deal for the small farmer or rancher, concentration can force producers into accepting lopsided contractual terms, simply because there's no ability to shop around for the best deal. Most poultry production now operates under contract, and the farmers are now almost extensions of the processors in some ways employees of those firms.

"That is not the role we want farmers to play. I don't think we want to live under a system of agricultural Darwinism, with survival of the fittest becoming survival of the biggest. We don't want to get to the point where farmers lose control of their economic destiny and are reduced to serfs in a kind of feudal agricultural system.

"So how do we cope with these forces?

"One thing we're doing at USDA and the Justice Department is keeping a watchful eye on some of these major mergers and, within the framework of our authorities, vigilantly monitoring for anti-competitive behavior. Just a few weeks ago, USDA filed a complaint against Excel Corporation, alleging that the company violated the Packers and Stockyards Act by engaging in unfair pricing practices affecting about 1200 producers. That case is now in litigation, and it is my belief that more cases will be filed under the Packers and Stockyards Act in the months to come.

"On the grass roots level, there are things family farmers can do -- things USDA can help them do to stay competitive in a top-heavy farm economy.

"If the larger agricultural interests can form clusters and alliances, so too can smaller producers -- in the form of cooperatives. A single small producer, up against some of the mightiest players in the economy, may stand little chance of exercising meaningful bargaining clout. But by forming cooperatives, by banding together, they give themselves more leverage in the marketplace. In addition to using co-ops to bargain for better prices, many have used them as entrepreneurial tools, to help them build their own processing and manufacturing facilities and position themselves as strong competitors in their industry.

"To help co-ops, USDA offers a variety of tools, worth up to $200 million a year, including everything from an initial feasibility study to the implementation of a business plan.

"Let me give you just one example. Last year, we helped the Hermitage Tomato Cooperative Association in Arkansas with a $3 million guaranteed loan, which gave them some working capital and allowed them to purchase land and equipment. Before the loan, the members were barely staying afloat, marketing their tomatoes at auctions and through two other firms. But with some help from USDA, last year the co-op generated nearly $4 million in sales supplying tomatoes to the fast-food industry. They've gone from 75 to 116 employees, and they are making plans for a second processing facility that would add another 100 jobs.

"I would like to see even more opportunities for cooperatives in the future. In some countries, like Ireland for example, co-ops can become publicly traded entities; by issuing stock, they can increase their capital base and enhance their ability to compete. Our laws, however, don't make it easy to do this in the United States. And our tax laws do not encourage genuine innovation in farm cooperatives.

"There are also ways for producers to enhance their income in this era of rapid consolidation. Let me talk for a minute about direct marketing and farmers markets. We have been very aggressive at USDA in promoting farmers markets. They used to be just a quaint thing you'd stumble across on a country drive. Now they're everywhere. When we began collecting data on farmers markets in 1994, there were only about 1,700 of them in the country. Today, we estimate that there are nearly 3,000.

"Farmers markets are a win-win. Farmers increase their income through direct access to their consumers. And consumers get access to locally-grown, farm-fresh produce. There is the added benefit that it strengthens the relationship between grower and consumer. Too often, there is a measure of cultural estrangement in this country between the people who produce our food and the people who eat it. Farmers markets bring the two together. Farmers gain a better understanding of what their consumers like. And consumers gain an enhanced appreciation for the labor that puts food on their tables. And social benefits aside, farmers markets and other direct marketing schemes have proven to be very profitable as well.

"There are also niche markets to explore, for example the rapidly growing demand for organic products, a real opportunity for farmers of all sizes but particularly the mid-sized producer. Right now, we're in the process of coming up with uniform national standards on what, exactly, constitutes an organic product. We believe the standards will improve consumer confidence in organic products and open new opportunities, both domestic and international, for our producers. This is not some goofy fringe market. It is becoming very much a part of the agricultural mainstream, and it holds out the potential for enormous profit, as it grows to an estimated $6.6 billion market in the next year.

"So there are a lot of ways we can help producers become a part of the new agricultural era. But we can't just do the same things we've done in the past. We have to constantly come up with innovative, creative solutions.

Science/Biotechnology

"We can't talk about agricultural challenges for the 21st century without some discussion of science, and specifically biotechnology.

"Science and technical progress are certainly to be celebrated. For hundreds of years, the physical and life sciences have helped make agriculture safer, more efficient and more productive. It has increased yields and reduced production costs. Science is everywhere in our shopping carts -- from frozen dinners to low-fat cheeses to seedless grapes. Our new science-based food inspection system at USDA, to give just one example, is improving our ability to protect consumers from deadly pathogens.

"And now, nearly a half century after Watson and Crick discovered the double helix and unearthed the mystery of the structure of the DNA molecule, we are able not only to read the genetic code we can manipulate it and reprogram it as well.

"Biotechnology can be an indispensable tool as we try to serve global agricultural demand in a sustainable manner. The world is growing, and it's growing in developing nations, which have experienced the greatest food insecurity. We have more and more people to feed more and more fiber to produce...and a limited amount of arable land to put into production...at a time when water is becoming a more and more precious and scarce commodity. Biotechnology can help us generate higher yields, while lessening the strain on our natural resources. It can also help farmers produce a new generation of specialty products, which the market may demand in the future.

"I remember visiting the wheat research center in Mexico where some of the research was done on the wheat gene Norin 10, which helped developing countries like India and Pakistan increase their wheat harvests by 60 percent. At the center, there is an inscription on the wall that reads: "A single gene has saved 100 million lives."

"That's a powerful notion. Nevertheless, those of us in government, the private sector, the academic community and the farm community can't be afraid to ask the difficult questions. We cannot be science's blind servant. We have to understand its ethical, safety and environmental implications. Our testing has to be rigorous. We have to be as vigilant as ever. And we have to make sure that those involved in determining the safety of genetically-engineered products are staying at arm's length from the people who stand to profit from them. At USDA, for example, we took our food safety division out from under the umbrella of our marketing programs, an important step that has avoided even the appearance of impropriety in this area.

"We also can't force these new genetically engineered food products down consumers' throats. While people around the world have embraced biotechnology's twin, information technology, the fact is that they're still quite cautious about biotech. My belief is that farmers and consumers will eventually come to see the economic and health benefits of these products. But dismissing the skepticism that's out there is not only arrogant, it's also a bad business strategy. My confidence in biotech -- or industry's confidence in biotech -- is ultimately irrelevant. Only when consumers have confidence -- and when they express that confidence at the grocery-store checkout line -- will we be able to see the return on the enormous public and private investments we've made in biotechnology.

"This is an important challenge for those of you in the research community. Innovations may be born in the laboratory, but they find success in the marketplace. So it's not enough to celebrate science for science's sake. Technological progress must always be accompanied by public information and consumer education efforts that address concerns and allay fears. Scientists should always remember that there's another kind of research -- market research -- without which all the patents and all the ingenuity in the world add up to very little. When it's all said and done, the public opinion poll is just as powerful a research tool as the test tube.

"Just yesterday, two of the largest grocery chains in the United Kingdom said that they will work to eliminate GMO ingredients, just another sign that the biotech issue remains a highly explosive one. I think these grocery chains need a little bit of educating, but I don't think we can just sit here and berate them. We've got to work with them, so they understand -- and consumers understand -- what the benefits are.

"Also, we have to be careful about ratcheting up the expectations on some of these technologies. There is no one silver bullet that will allow us to meet all of tomorrow's agricultural and food security challenges. We have a way in this country of latching on to solutions, pursuing them to the exclusion of others, and then watching them sometimes backfire.

"We did it in the late 70s when we embraced nuclear power as the primary solution to our energy needs. Then, Three Mile Island happened. Now, nuclear power is till a part of our energy grid, but it's not the only part. Just in the past few years, we looked at the growth of emerging markets and decided that trade was the panacea. Before we knew it, Asian financial markets collapsed, setting off a chain reaction that has led to recession in just about half of the world.

"So, yes, let's be enthusiastic about these technologies and pursue them. But let's not put all of our eggs in the biotech basket. Just as the securities industry tells us to diversify our investment portfolios, so must our agricultural science portfolio be rich and diverse.

Vibrant Rural Communities

"Before I close, I want to talk for a second about the importance of rural America and its changing fabric and infrastructure.

"To preserve the family farming tradition in the 21st century, the truth is that, for many, there will have to be additional avenues of economic opportunity in rural America. It's unfortunate, for some producers, that they have to pursue off-farm income. But ironically enough, that may be the only way to keep many of them on the land. If people can supplement their livelihood doing something else, then farming will at least remain viable as a part-time vocation, even for those who can't make it producing crops or livestock alone. So we need a diversified rural economy that has all the tools, the infrastructure and the technology to give people various ways to make a living. "That's why USDA has a whole agency, led by Jill Long-Thompson, devoted exclusively to rural development. We extend loans and grants that invest in rural businesses, rural utilities and rural housing. Over 50 rural areas have been targeted for tax incentives and other economic development support as part of President Clinton's Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community initiative.

"Rural areas have a lot to offer, and we're beginning to see people move to the country in search of a different kind of lifestyle. Rural counties have actually grown by about 3 million in the 1990s. I was just reading an article the other day about a woman who was raised in the suburbs, had tried the city life, but now was settling in a community of 900 people in New Hampshire. She likes the more affordable real estate, the recreational opportunities, as well as the informality and familiarity of rural life. And information technology now makes it possible for people like her to live in the country and still connect with professional and social networks that they might be leaving behind.

"With apologies to the creators of Cheers, rural America really is the place where "everybody knows your name." Rural America may be a place of rugged individualism, but it's also a place of social cohesion. We don't see many barn-raisings anymore, but it is that spirit of volunteerism of pitching in on behalf of the entire community -- that still prevails in small towns around the country. People who live in rural areas are vested in their community. They know their neighbors; they watch each other's children; they treat each other as extended family. And by living these kinds of values, rural towns send a message to and set an example for communities around the country.

"Just watching the news over the last week, I can't help but think -- and I don't want to overgeneralize here -- that it's that sense of intimacy and cohesion that was missing at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. When you have a high school of some 1800 students, it's easy to see how kids who are maladjusted or socially outcast, who are having trouble coping with adolescent pressures, simply get lost and fall through the cracks of the system. But in the close-knit environment of a rural community or small town, where everybody knows everybody else, it's easier to identify social problems before they erupt into violence.

"If we're going to preserve and cultivate rural America's unique qualities, we have to keep it economically viable. First and foremost, that means keeping production agriculture as economically viable as possible. But beyond that, if we're going to attract new residents and new business investment to rural areas, the infrastructure and the economic base have to be there. No one is going to locate in a town where the sewer facilities are inadequate or the water isn't safe to drink. But still a quarter of a million rural households live without clean, safe drinking water. Another 2 million live in substandard housing.

"In addition to clean water and decent housing, rural communities have to have a trained workforce, good schools, first-rate medical care, child care options, adequate telephone and electricity service and Internet connectivity -- everything that would make someone want to bring their family or business to a community. And even as we develop and diversify rural America, we also have to preserve the open spaces and natural resources that make rural life unique and draw people there in the first place.

Conclusion

"Shakespeare wrote: "What's past is prologue." There is certainly some truth in that statement, but I would offer this caveat. When it comes to agriculture, our approach to the future should certainly be shaped by the experience of the past. But we cannot and should not approach the future by trying to recapture the past.

"We have to start with a recognition that America is no longer a predominately agrarian society. It's naive and just plain unconstructive to wax nostalgic about some kind of pre-industrial Jeffersonian model.

"In 1900, farmers represented 38% of the labor force. By 1950, the number of farms had decreased only by a few hundred thousand, but farmers dropped to only 12% of the labor force. By 1990, there were barely 2 million farms, and farmers made up 2.6 % of the workforce. Sixty years of aggressive farm programs have not been able to reverse this trend.

"But as we approach the new millennium, the family farm still remains a central building block of American society. And while it has changed in definition, size and structure, there are still enormous opportunities for family farm agriculture and farm prosperity in the year 2000 and beyond.

"But seizing those opportunities is going to require a different approach from all of us.

"Farmers will have to become more entrepreneurial, more market-oriented. They will have to recognize that this isn't their father's farm economy. They will have to be better educated and more technologically sophisticated than ever before.

"We in government have to adjust our programs. We can't wring our hands about the authorities we once had; we must work tirelessly to forge a new farm policy paradigm, one that puts government in the role of partner.

"And universities like Purdue have a critical role as well. You understand that you can't teach agriculture the way you did in 1950. The research you conduct, the courses you offer, and the skills you impart must conform to the needs of a farm economy in transition...and an American and global economy in transition.

"The challenges are enormous...but so are the opportunities. I'll close with a story about a former president of a major American corporation, who went to a high school to give a commencement speech. At the end of the speech, the chief executive looked at these kids and said: "I have one piece of advice for you. And that advice is, you've got to jump when opportunity knocks."

"And a kid in the front row said: "That's great for you. You're president of one of the biggest companies in the world. That's easy for you to say. But, tell me, how do you know when opportunity knocks?"

"And the man said: "You don't. And that's why you have to keep jumping all the time."

"If we work together -- if we all keep jumping -- we can seize those opportunities and preserve for our farmers and ranchers and our rural communities their share of the American Dream in the 21st century.

"Thank you very much."

#



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




Subject: GM giants 'will force the world into famine'/ BM items a threat to organic farming
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 20:20:37 -0400

Christian Aid demands a five-year freeze on technology and calls for block on 'suicide seeds'

By JOHN VIDAL

GUARDIAN (London) Monday May 10, 1999

Genetically modified food: recent reports, links and background The introduction of genetically modified crops to the world's poorest countries could lead to famine instead of feeding more than 800m hungry people worldwide, says Christian Aid.

In a major report today the charity argues that GM crops are 'irrelevant' to ending world hunger, will concentrate power in too few hands and will strip small farmers of their independence.

It also condemns 'suicide seeds' that contain a terminator gene which makes the next generation of seeds sterile, forcing farmers to buy new seed every year. Currently, 80% of crops in the developing world are from saved seed. Christian Aid says the consequences of such massive influence on the world food supply could be one of the most serious developments in history.

It says: 'GM crops are . . . creating classic preconditions for hunger and famine. A food supply based on too few varieties of patented crops are the worst option for food security. More dependence and marginalisation loom for the poorest.'

The report, which used research in Brazil, India and Ethiopia, is a major challenge to the life sciences industry, led by a handful of giant chemical and agri-business firms.

Companies like Monsanto, Novartis and the British corporation Zeneca argue that GM technology will play a major role in ending hunger. None was available for comment yesterday.

GM crops of soya, maize, tobacco and cotton are grown widely in the US, China, Argentina and Canada. But the report says the market will move south where more than 50 other crops are being tested in more than 30 developing countries.

Predictions by the Rural Advancement Foundation International, a Canadian agricultural research group, says GM crops will jump from less than 20m hectares (50m acres) today to more 800m hectares by 2002. More than 600m hectares will be in poor countries.

The report says the major corporations are moving swiftly into developing countries. In Brazil, Monsanto has spent more than $1bn in buying seed companies and plans a $550m factory to produce pesticide compatible with its GM soya crops.

In India it has big holdings in the country's largest seed company and invested more than $20m in the country's leading science institution. It has also paid more than $1bn for the international seed operations of Cargill, the world's largest private grain sales company.

The big five GM corporations have patents in more than 90 countries on different versions of terminator technology. The US department of agriculture has a 5% share in one version of the terminator gene, and predicts that 'it will be so widely adopted that farmers will only be able to buy seeds that cannot be re-germinated'. There have been riots and crop burnings in Brazil and India.

Christian Aid says that large farmers are the only ones to benefit from GM technology. Indian research showed that land reform and simple irrigation can boost crops by 50%, against 10% increases from GM crops. Christian Aid called for a five-year freeze on GM crops and for new resources to be put into sustainable and organic farming.



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

INDEPENDENT (London) 9 May 99

Stop GM Foods - Genetic threat to organic food

By MARIE WOOLF, Political Correspondent

GENETIC contamination of various kinds is inevitable if GM crops are grown here commercially, according to unpublished research commissioned by ministers.

And organic farmers could face ruin if GM crops are allowed to be grown on a commercial scale in Britain, says the report, now being studied in Whitehall. It warns that organic crops are certain to be contaminated by GM plants because their pollen can spread far beyond the boundaries of fields.

The conclusions of the report, written by biotechnology and agriculture experts at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, have severe implications for Britain's burgeoning organic food sector.

Organic food is defined as being "pesticide and additive free" in Britain and any kind of genetic engineering is banned by the Soil Association, which regulates organic farming.

The report says organic farmers should set standards for acceptable levels of pollution by GM plants and that a system for checking for contamination should be put in place.

"Neither source of contamination, either pollen or seed, can be entirely eliminated, so acceptable levels have to be decided on," says the report.

But organic farmers say that the report supports their view that GM crops pose a serious threat to their livelihoods. They argue that consumer confidence in organic food would inevitably be undermined if even limited contamination was tolerated.

The report, Organic Farming and Gene Transfer from Genetically Modified Crops, examined data from trials of GM crops to see whether the proposed "buffer zones" between fields of GM and organic crops would protect them from contamination.

It asserts that the proposed barriers around ordinary crops could result in up to one per cent of organic plants becoming GM hybrids.

The Soil Association has said that a six-mile barrier is the minimum guarantee that organic crops are not tainted.

"We are determined to maintain the purity of organic crops in the UK and this is why we have set ourselves against GM," said Richard Young of the Soil Association. "The boundaries between GM crops are totally inadequate to protect organic farmers from GM crops. We are about sustainable agriculture working in harmony with nature - not altering it for a quick-fix solution."

GM pollen can travel large distances on the wind, and is also carried by bees. GM seeds can also fall off trucks and farm machinery during transport or be left in the ground, leading to the growth of stray plants.

Ministers have promised to protect Britain's growing organic farming sector from the threat from GM crops. But environmentalists say that organic farmers are being betrayed.

"The Government seems to be about to renege on its promise to protect the organic farmer from genetic pollution," said Pete Riley of Friends of the Earth. "Non-organic farmers hoping to get into the expanding GM free market are also vulnerable to this type of contamination. with organic produce no level of GM contamination is acceptable."

=============================




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



Subject: NET/Monsanto
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 20:30:42 -0400

The following article appeared in the current issue of Corporate Crime
Reporter (Volume 13, Number 19, May 10, 1999, page one)

ANTI-BIOTECH ACTIVISTS, FUNDERS, DISCUSS POSSIBLE CAMPAIGN TO LABEL
BIOTECH FOODS. FORMER MONSANTO CHIEF LOBBYIST IN THE MIX


There they sat last week -- the nation's leading anti-biotech activists -- pulled together by the John Merck Fund and other foundations to discuss funding a campaign to push for consumer labeling of biotech foods.

Consumer and environmental activism against the biotech industry has exploded in Europe, but has yet to catch fire here in the United States. Activists around the table were looking for big dollars to trigger some action stateside.

Among the environmental groups at the meeting was the National Environmental Trust (NET), represented by its executive director, Phil Clapp, its executive vice president, Tom Wathen, and NET's chief lobbyist, Patricia Kenworthy. Clapp has been pushing for a number of months for NET to get involved in the issue of biotech foods.

The activists immediately focused their discussion on Monsanto -- a subject Kenworthy knew something about.

From 1983 until 1991, Kenworthy worked in Monsanto's law department in St. Louis. And from 1992 until 1997, she was director of regulatory affairs for Monsanto in Washington, D.C.

Kenworthy says that going into the meeting, she wasn't planning to disclose to those present her 14 years of work for Monsanto.

"Phil, Tom and I were at this meeting," Kenworthy said. "I don't think that any of us expected that there was going to be so much reference in the conversation to Monsanto. I guess we should have realized that it would, since Monsanto was such a big player in all of this. But we just didn't think about it."

"When it came around to Phil's turn to introduce us, he decided that since the company's name had been mentioned two or three times, it really was appropriate to make sure that everybody in the room knew about my background," Kenworthy said.

The hardcore anti-Monsanto activists in the room were stunned and felt uneasy for the rest of the meeting. But no one confronted the issue head on.

Kenworthy agreed to discuss with Corporate Crime Reporter her work with Monsanto and her views on biotech foods. But she wants it known that these views are her own, and not those of NET, which has yet to weigh in on the issue of biotech foods.

Why would she leave Monsanto after so many years and sign on with NET?

"I had known Phil Clapp, who is the president of NET," she said. "He had started this organization. He had a job opening. He called me on the phone out of the blue and he asked me -- would I be interested in talking with him about a job. We talked over a period of a couple of months. I finally decided it was a good opportunity for me at the time to make a career change. And so I left Monsanto and came over here."

It couldn't have been that NET offered you more money?

"No, not by a long shot," she said with a laugh.

Did you leave on good terms with Monsanto?

"Yes, very good terms," she said.

Kenworthy says that during her entire time as Monsanto's director of regulatory affairs in Washington, she never once dealt with biotech or bovine growth hormone issues.

"When I was in St. Louis working in the law department, I certainly worked on those issues," she admits. "But when I got to the Washington office, I was working on strictly traditional chemical issues -- Superfund, clean water, clean air -- those kinds of things."

So, when you moved from Monsanto to NET, did you undergo a political transformation, did your fundamental beliefs change?

"No," she said. "I feel exactly the same. The issue that we are going to potentially deal with in this campaign -- if NET gets involved in it -- is labelling and consumer right to know. I have always believed, and I continue to believe, in the right of the consumer to know that a food product contains genetically modified organisms or genetically modified crops."

Wait a second, you believed that while you were at Monsanto?

"Yes," she said.

But that wasn't Monsanto's position, was it?

"Monsanto didn't have a position as a corporation," Kenworthy said. "It was the position of a lot of people who worked there. But Monsanto did not have a position as a corporation because it didn't need to. Nobody was demanding it."

Do you believe that genetically modified organisms should be prohibited?

"No, I can't say that I do," she says. "I can't say that I believe that they should be prohibited from the market across the board. There probably are some beneficial uses."

But Kenworthy is not a fan of Monsanto's controversial bovine growth hormone.

Or as she put "it would be a lot better if that product were not on the market."

"I was never a fan of that product even when I was with Monsanto," she said.

Well, after working for Monsanto for 14 years, do you own stock in the company?

"That is none of your business," she snaps. "I'm not going to answer that question. If you heard the answer -- it would be much less shocking than you expect -- but I'm not going to answer it. It is none of anybody's business."

Do you think that the fact that you worked for Monsanto for so long poses a problem for NET if it works on the biotech issue?

"I wouldn't be even exploring the possibility if I thought it was going to be a problem," she said.




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



Subject: Biotech stories in Canada (rbGH + gene pollution)
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:39:08 -0400

Globe & Mail
Wednesday, May 12, 1999
ANNE McILROY
Parliamentary Bureau

Ottawa-The Prime Minister's Office stepped in with serious concerns about Health Canada's safety review of a hormone that boosts milk production in cows, according to a departmental memo obtained under the federal access-to-information legislation.

The memo, written in February, 1998, by Health Canada senior official Joel Weiner, informs fellow bureaucrats that officials in Prime Minister Jean Chretien's office were not sure if Health Canada had asked the right questions about the safety of the controversial hormone known as recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST.

"Has Health Canada conducted tests to assess the impact of rBST on infants, pregnant women and young children who consume milk in large quantities?" Mr. Weiner said the PMO wanted to know.

"If the answer is no, the consensus view holds that the supplementary question is: Why not-what has Health Canada actually been doing over the past nine years?" And the answer to the question was no, according to the Senate committee that investigated the controversy around bovine growth hormone.

But Lynn LeSage, a Health Canada spokeswoman, said yesterday that an outside expert advisory panel that was set up within months of the memo's being written looked at scientific literature from other countries about the impact the hormone might have on pregnant women and children. When Health Canada decided not to approve the drug in January, it was on the advice of a second expert panel, made up of veterinarians. That panel looked into the impact the drug would have on cows. The human-health panel concluded that milk produced by cows injected with the drug would not cause problems for people who drink it.

Monsanto Canada Inc., the company that makes the drug, is still pushing for its approval.

The memo, obtained for The Globe and Mail by Ottawa researcher Ken Rubin, is a sign of a political judgment within the government that important research on the hormone was lacking. It also indicates a lack of confidence within the Prime Minister's Office in a beleaguered branch of government that was at the heart of more than one controversy, including the tainted-blood tragedy of the 1980s.

Monsanto argues that it has done all the research necessary to prove milk made with the help of rBST is safe. But the Senate agriculture committee disagreed. In a report released in March, the committee echoed the concerns raised in the departmental memo. The report quotes the testimony of Health Canada scientists who said the manufacturer had not been asked to provide long-term toxicology studies to determine human safety "or investigate the potential that the drug might cause sterility, infertility, birth defects, cancer and immunological derangements."

It urges Health Canada not to reverse its decision on the hormone until the long-term health studies are carried out. The hormone was approved in 1993 in the United States, where on average it increases milk production by about 15 per cent.

It has been criticized by public-interest groups and some scientists who warn that it could result in more udder infections in cows and so lead to the increased use of antibiotics that could end up in milk.

Mr. Weiner was travelling yesterday and was not available to comment, a Health Canada spokesperson said. In its report, the Senate committee said the federal government should review Health Canada's drug-approval process to ensure that it fully safeguards human and animal health.

"The committee heard testimony about management problems in the department and suggestions of pressure, coercion, document theft and gag orders. Feeling the best decisions are made in an atmosphere of trust, the committee recommends Health Canada officials appear before the committee to provide information about steps they havetaken to resolve the problems."

Senior officials from the department, including deputy minister David Dodge, are to appear before the committee tomorrow.


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




PUBLICATION The Saskatoon StarPhoenix
DATE Wednesday May 12, 1999
BYLINE Paulson, Joanne

HEADLINE: NFU fights 'genetic pollution'; National farm group wants Ottawa
to make ag-biotech firms liable

The National Farmers Union (NFU) wants the federal government to make agricultural biotechnology companies financially responsible for what it calls the "genetic pollution" of organic and traditional crops.

Stewart Wells, the NFU's Saskatchewan co-ordinator and an organic farmer near Swift Current, said he could lose his organic certification for canola because it will be impossible to guarantee it does not contain genetically engineered properties.

"If this continues, once wheat, barley, lentils and other crops are genetically engineered, I won't have anything left to grow," said Wells.

At the NFU's conference last December, the group decided to lobby government to make companies liable for "genetic pollution that has infringed on the livelihoods of farmers or the general public."

"Provincial and federal taxpayers' money is being used to help these companies do their research . . . but the profits are always privatized," said Wells.

Agriculture seed and input companies are transferring genes from some plants into others to create new varieties that are drought, herbicide or pesticide resistant. They are frequently referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Ag-biotech issues have been heating up in recent months. In Saskatchewan, a court battle is proceeding between Monsanto and Bruno-area farmer Percy Schmeiser over Roundup Ready canola, which does not die when sprayed with Roundup herbicide. Schmeiser maintains the Monsanto canola found in his field was volunteer, but Monsanto alleges he did not pay the required fee when he planted the crop.

A growing number of North American farmers are pursuing court action against ag-biotech companies, claiming new crop varieties or agricultural inputs are causing weed and insect resistance and are failing in the field.

Ag-biotech is a "gigantic experiment" foisted on farmers and the public, based on the fallacy that there is nothing to worry about because farmers make their own planting decisions, said Wells.

"It's not my choice . . . because they can't control this once it's released into the wild."

Bill Anderson, a scientist and manager of regulatory affairs for the Saskatchewan Agbiotech Regulatory Affairs Service, said cross-pollination between GMOs and traditional varieties is possible, but non-GMO crops can also transfer their genes.

Herbicide tolerance is the most manageable modification and the most benign, he added. For non-organic farmers, "it's just something you would take care of with another herbicide."

Anderson agreed there is a problem for organic farmers at present, but said a threshold level for GMO content should be established for organic crops to help farmers maintain their certification, he said.

Ann Clark, an agronomist with the University of Guelph in Ontario, said canola crops must be at least eight kilometres apart to prevent cross-pollination. Corn and potato crops, by comparison, need only be one kilometre apart.

"This is a huge problem, and it's not simply a problem for organic farmers," she said.

Selling agricultural commodities into the European Union is already becoming more difficult, as the EU develops more sensitive testing to keep out most genetically modified crops.

"Exports are being vastly hurt right now," she said.

Clark said Canadian federal and provincial governments are spending $700 million annually to further ag-biotech research, but none is going to risk assessment as far as she can determine. People are often told genetically altered crops are safe because of the government's stringent regulations, but the government is not an independent third party, she said.




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



Subject: ADM & Biotech
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 22:18:34 -0400

Posted: ST. Louis Post Dispatch
Thursday, May 13, 1999 | 6:06 a.m.

ADM pays more to non-biotech bean growers
By Robert Steyer
Of The Post-Dispatch

Illustrating that overseas protests are having some impact here, big grain processor Archer Daniels Midland Co. is paying some farmers to grow soybeans that are not genetically engineered.

The company, based in Decatur, Ill., is offering a premium of 18 cents a bushel to farmers who grow Synchrony Treated Soybeans created by DuPont Co. The beans, developed through conventional breeding, tolerate DuPont's herbicide Synchrony.

The payment represents a premium of about 4 percent over what farmers get for standard soybeans. Most of the farmers growing the Synchrony Treated beans under special contract are in Illinois.

"Obviously, there is a great concern in the marketplace about genetically modified beans," said Martin Andreas, senior vice president at Archer Daniels Midland. "The farmer will have a definite home for his crop, and he will have lifted himself out of the difficulties surrounding genetically modified organisms."

His company will accept up to 1 million acres worth of Synchrony Treated beans. DuPont expects the beans to be grown on 9.5 million acres this year in the United States.

Monsanto Co.'s competing soybeans, genetically engineered to tolerate the company's Roundup herbicides, could be planted on 33 million acres this year, the company says. That would represent about 44 percent of the U.S. soybean crop.

Monsanto, which licenses its technology to seed companies, is the only producer of genetically engineered soybeans. One competitor, AgrEvo, has decided for the second consecutive year to refrain from selling bioengineered beans for commercial use.

These Liberty Link beans tolerate AgrEvo's Liberty herbicide. AgrEvo is waiting until it receives clearance from the European Union to export the Liberty Link beans to the 15 EU nations.

The EU must approve each biotechnology "event" -- Roundup tolerance, for example, is one event -- and the process is lengthy and cumbersome. Roundup Ready beans are approved for export to the EU as a commodity. But some European food companies and grocery chains say they don't want foods containing genetically engineered elements.

That forces grain processors to segregate their crops, which adds to the products' cost. It also means that if European inspectors find traces of bioengineered beans in food shipments labeled as biotech-free, the shipments will be rejected.

"European politicians have not come up with a threshold figure for genetically modified organisms, so until the threshold is set, the figure is zero," said Kim Nill, director of international marketing for the American Soybean Association. By contrast, shipments to the EU labeled "organic" can have up to 5 percent non-organic material, Nill said.

The labeling issue is why DuPont, for the second consecutive year, and now Archer Daniels Midland, are paying a premium to farmers. Last year, DuPont paid farmers premium prices for 150,000 acres of Synchrony Treated beans. The beans were sold to Protein Technologies International, the DuPont subsidiary in St. Louis that develops soy-based products.

"We were worried about European resistance, and, as a result, we started to get more inquiries from growers," said Mike Ricciuto, a DuPont spokesman. "This year, we felt more people would be interested, considering the attitudes in Europe. We are trying to meet a market demand."DM AND





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



Subject: labeling of gmos
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:04:55 -0400

St. Louis Post Dispatch
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Front Page

Food labeling is seen as a way to win support for genetically altered foods
By Robert Steyer
Of The Post-Dispatch

A federal task force is expected to report by the end of July on whether the nation's food labeling laws should be revised to reflect generally engineered crops, top U.S. agriculture officials said Monday in St. Louis.

The task force's deliberations come at a time when opposition to genetically altered foods - among consumers, food companies and politicians - is accelerating overseas, especially in Europe. Monsanto Co. has been a leader in genetically engineered crops.

The food label task force, which was activated six weeks ago, includes representatives from the Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration, State Department, Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Trade Representative's office, said Isi A. Siddiqui, special assistant for trade to Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman.

Siddiqui and Glickman told the Post-Dispatch on Monday that there has been no change in the government's position that food should be labeled only if ingredients change the nutritional content or could cause allergies.

Domestic critics say biotech foods should be labeled to give consumers a choice. The food and biotechnology industries criticize that proposal as expensive and unnecessary.

But several European and Asian nations are implementing or proposing labeling laws that would distinguish modified ingredients. Some food companies overseas, especially in Great Britain say they won't sell food with bioengineered ingredients.

"It's clear that labeling can be a sensible way of providing information, but we have to make sure that the labeling is responsible," Glickman said.

Labeling is only one of the disputes between the United States and a growing number of countries, especially the 15-nation European Union, that threaten to erupt into an agricultural trade war.

Glickman repeated his willingness to impose tariffs on European Union goods worth $202 million, replying to the EU's refusal to accept imports of U.S. hormone-treated beef. Glickman said he is moving to seek World Trade Organization approval for the tariffs, which could be in place by July.

But as nasty as this fight has become, Glickman warned that disputes over bioengineered crops "could make beef hormones look like the minor leagues."

In a related development, Glickman said that next month he will select a 25-member committee to counsel his department on how biotechnology affects issues ranging from trade to small farms. This permanent committee, whose formation was announced in March, will include consumer advocates, environmentalists, scientists, corporate executives and farmers.

Glickman was the keynote speaker Monday at the first World Congress, organized by the World Agricultural Forum, a St. Louis-based organization created by scientists, educators and executives. He told the audience that companies must temper the wonders of science with the concerns of consumers.

"My confidence in biotechnology and the industry's confidence in biotechnology are ultimately irrelevant if the consumers aren't buying," Glickman said. "We can't force-feed GMOs [genetically modified organisms] to reluctant consumers. We have to bring them along. The public opinion poll is as important as the test tube."

He added that a greater embrace of consumers doesn't weaken the federal government's demand for strict scientific standards in evaluating food for domestic and foreign use. "Nations can't mask protectionism with unevaluated, secret studies," he said. "We have to have rules-based trade."

Glickman said U.S. food and biotech companies must recognize that American consumers "are more willing to accept science as a force for progress" than are other consumers - a theme echoed by several speakers. "European consumers are more interested in traditional foods," said W. Guy Walker, a British food consultant and former executive at Unilever. He recommended that food companies agree to labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.

Walker cited the example of a British company that offers a tomato paste, labeled as containing bioengineered tomatoes, next to a traditional tomato paste. "There has been virtually no dispute," he said.

Displaying a list of European nations where opposition far exceeded support for food biotechnology, Walker said consumers rebel because they lack a choice.

Labeling and separating genetically modified food from traditional food is the best way to offer a choice and to neutralize opposition and suspicion. "Once consumers are scared, especially on safety grounds, it takes a long time to win their confidence to try new things," he said.





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



Subject: biotech industry gathering
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 01:19:35 -0400

Dissecting Biotech Industry's Bleak Prospects
5,000 gathering to ponder their woes at Seattle convention
TOM ABATE
Monday, May 17, 1999
(c)1999 San Francisco Chronicle

URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/05/17/BU91863.DTL



Some 5,000 biotech leaders head to their annual trade show this week in Seattle amid one of the toughest times in the industry's history.

Despite record highs on Wall Street, most small and midsized biotech stocks have tanked as money managers shun long-term risks in biotech for instant riches on the Internet.

``It takes seven to 10 years on average to approve a new drug, and most institutional investors don't want their capital tied up that long,'' said Curtis Hogue, analyst with Volpe Brown Whelan in San Francisco.

And though the industry wants the Food and Drug Administration to speed up its approval process, the public is pressuring the agency not to let up its scrutiny because some newly approved remedies have turned out to have deadly side effects for a few patients.

Even agricultural biotech, where companies have been able to bring products to market quickly because they escape most FDA scrutiny, could be stalled by European regulators. The Europeans are demanding that American food producers label crops grown from genetically modified seeds. Remember the Boston Tea Party? This time, it could be the British or Germans in war paint, dumping cargoes of genetically produced corn or soybeans exported from the United States to their side of the pond.

``I'm afraid we could be headed for a trade war with Europe over food,'' said David Flores, publisher of the BioCentury newsletter in San Carlos.

Surveying the industry's current woes, even optimistic Mark Edwards, managing director of Recombinant Capital in San Francisco, voiced this lament: ``Things do seem to have fallen to wrack and ruin at the moment.''

But as tough as times are right now, Edwards and other observers insist that better times lie ahead.

``The irony is that the industry has many more drugs in late-stage clinical trials than ever before,'' said Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

As the sponsor of this week's trade show in Seattle, Feldbaum expects a record 5,000-plus attendees to peruse the show's 370 exhibits of everything from test tubes to video-conferencing systems for travel-weary execs.

Feldbaum is not alone in believing that the industry's strong product pipeline means Wall Street is missing a bet. Scott Morrison, a biotech consultant with Ernst & Young in Palo Alto, has counted 305 drugs from U.S. biotech firms in late-stage trials. Even if only 20 percent pass FDA review, as has historically been the case, that would mean 60 new drugs on the market within two years.

``There are a tremendous number of undervalued companies out there,'' Morrison insists.

The industry has roared back from down cycles before. After the lean years of 1993 and 1994, biotech stocks and IPOs took off in mid-1995. The current crop of small firms was fertilized by capital from venture firms and Wall Street during the latest boom cycle.

But the good times in biotech ended last summer when the broader market went into a decline. Other sectors quickly rebounded. So did large biotech issues like Genentech and Amgen. But the vast number of small to midsized biotech firms have never recovered, causing cash-flow emergencies at dozens of firms, according to Jon Duane, biotech consultant with McKinsey & Co. in Palo Alto.

``It now takes $300 million to $400 million to develop a drug, and if a young company can't raise money on Wall Street, it doesn't have a prayer,'' he said.

Duane says the latest biotech IPO occurred last August. In a bid to break the dry spell, two Bay Area firms filed public offerings earlier this month. VaxGen is a Brisbane firm working on an AIDS vaccine. BioMarin Pharmaceutical in Novato is testing a drug to treat a rare disease deadly to children.

Both firms are in quiet periods, but what happens to their IPOs over the next few months will speak volumes about Wall Street's willingness to bankroll early stage biotech.

Meanwhile, cash-starved firms are striking Faustian bargains with large pharmaceutical companies. Big drug firms have pockets deep enough to fund biotech experiments. But if the biotech firm strikes gold with a hit drug, its Big Pharma backer will lay claim to most of the profits.

Even so, local biotech firms are fortunate that Big Pharma has filled the funding gap caused by Wall Street squeamishness. Edwards, at Recombinant Capital, says Pfizer is indicative of this trend. Flush with profits from Viagra, the New York drugmaker recently opened a Bay Area office to plow at least $150 million a year back into deals with Bay Area biotech firms, he said.

The brewing trade war with Europe over genetically modified foods has far less effect on the local industry than the funding crisis because ag biotech is largely a Midwest phenomena.

But food labeling is an issue that could rear up in the United States as it has in Europe. Industry says genetic modifications to crops -- generally meant to increase their resistance to insects -- are an environmental plus because they lessen the need for insecticide sprays.

Americans have been swallowing enhanced corn and soybeans for years with no ill effects, says BIO President Feldbaum, who calls European insistence on labeling ``irrational.''

But Doreen Stabinsky, environmental studies professor at California State University in Sacramento, calls labeling a consumer protection.

``Irradiated food is labelled,'' she said. ``If people want to know how their food is produced, they should have that right.''

Stay tuned for more on the food fight.

Look for BioScope every Monday in the Business section. Send your bio-feedback to Tom Abate by e-mail, abate@sfgate.com; fax, (415) 543-2482; or phone, (415) 777-6213.



(c)1999 San Francisco Chronicle Page B1





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





Subject: Lancet: Health risks of GM foods
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:51:21 -0400

The Lancet

Volume 353, Number 9167, 29 May 1999

Health risks of genetically modified foods


Crops genetically modified to have reduced susceptibility to pests are promoted as a solution to low food yields in developing countries. The motive of these promoters is profit, not altruism. Monsanto, one of the largest developers of genetically modified crops, has developed a grain that gives an improved crop and is sterile, so instead of keeping back some seeds for the next year's sowing, farmers must return to the supplier for more.

In view of this unbridled commercial approach to genetic modification, it is perhaps not surprising that companies have paid little evident attention to the potential hazards to health of genetically modified foods. But it is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992 (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr92529b.html ). They announced in January this year, "FDA has not found it necessary to conduct comprehensive scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered plants . . . consistent with its 1992 policy". The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist.

For instance, antibiotic-resistance genes are used in some genetically modified plants as a marker of genetic transformation. Despite repeated assurances that the resistance genes cannot spread from the plant, many commentators believe this could happen. Of greater concern is the effect of the genetic modification itself on the food. Potatoes have been engineered with a gene from the snowdrop to produce an agglutinin which may reduce susceptibility to insects. In April last year, a scientist, Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely announced on television that experiments had shown intestinal changes in rats caused by eating genetically engineered potatoes. He said he would not eat such modified foods himself and that it was "very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guineapigs".

A storm of publicity overtook Pusztai. He was removed from his job, a sacrifice that did not quell public alarm in the UK or in Europe. Last week (May 22, p1769 ) we reported that the Royal Society had reviewed what it could of Pusztai and colleagues' evidence and found it flawed, a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work. The British Medical Association called for a moratorium on planting genetically modified crops. The UK Government, in accordance with national tradition, vacillated. Finally, on May 21 the Government came out with proposals for research into possible health risks of genetically modified foods.

Shoppers across Europe had already voted with their feet. By the end of the first week in May, seven European supermarket chains had announced they would not sell genetically modified foods. Three large food multinationals, Unilever, Nestle, and Cadburys-Schweppes followed suit. The Supreme Court in India has upheld a ban on testing genetically modified crops. Activists in India have set fire to fields of crops suspected of being used for testing. The population of the USA, where up to 60% of processed foods have genetically modified ingredients, seem, as yet, unconcerned.

The issue of genetically modified foods has been badly mishandled by everyone involved. Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health. The companies should have paid greater attention to the possible risks to health and of the public's perception of this risk; they are now paying the price of this neglect. And scientists involved in research into the risks of genetically modified foods should have published the results in the scientific press, not through the popular media; their colleagues, meanwhile, should also have avoided passing judgments on the issue without the full facts before them.

The Lancet





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



Subject: Interview With USDA Chief Glickman on the GE Controversy
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:51:56 -0400

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Sunday, June 6, 1999


A biotech warrior stresses subtlety
By Bill Lambrecht
By Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau


* U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman is a strong voice for global use of genetically engineered crops. Lately, he has adopted a new approach: Don't force-feed the new technology to wary consumers.

In the global debate over genetically modified food, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has been a warrior on behalf of biotechnology and U.S. interests.

Glickman trumpets the potential of genetic engineering to help feed the world. He says the United States will be aggressive in pleading to the World Trade Organization to force European nations to accept the American-bred technology.

In his global travels, Glickman has carried the United States' unyielding position that other countries must accept the new genetically modified crops being developed by St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. and its rivals.

But as foreign concerns mount, Glickman's tone is shifting. In a speech April 29 at Purdue University that stunned the farm industry and biotechnology critics alike, Glickman, a former congressman from Kansas, asserted that the United States cannot force these new genetically engineered food products down consumers' throats.

This summer, he will convene a biotechnology advisory committee to hear different views. It is part of a widening debate that may be reaching the United States after raging in Europe for two years.

In the following interview with the Post-Dispatch, conducted May 28 at his Washington office, Glickman talked about concerns abroad, his messages to others in the administration to pay attention to the global debate and his views about what it will take for genetically modified food to win acceptance.

Q: Your Purdue speech a few weeks back was viewed as a watershed in your thinking on biotechnology. Did you intend to send a message?

A: I probably did want to send a message. . . . I wasn't pulling back from my own belief that biotechnology is very important to the future of human health and world agriculture both. But I think I was saying: This shouldn't be a steamroller. You can't force-feed GMOs [genetically modified organisms] down people's throats. There's a growing concern about what people eat, what goes into their mouths. We have to address those concerns and we have to allay fears. We have to build confidence.

Q: You just returned from Europe. Are you concerned about the barriers those countries are placing in the path of genetically modified food?

A: What I am seeing is that people are asking questions. Just because a product is out there, a certain technology, doesn't mean that people willingly accept it. There are certainly more and more questions being asked about biotechnology, and those questions must be answered. They can not be brushed off. They must be dealt with. Otherwise, what will happen is that the consuming public, both here and abroad, will begin to believe that there are problems with it. Or that people are afraid to answer the questions. Or that perhaps there's arrogance that won't let the questions be answered. All through human history, progress has been made. You can't stop progress. But you have to recognize that concerns have been raised and those concerns have to be dealt with.

Q: Have we arrived at the point where the turmoil in Europe over biotechnology is having an impact on Midwestern farmers?

A: There's no question that there is some impact. ADM [Archer Daniels Midland] and Staley have made decisions on segregation [of modified crops]. There are biotech approval processes that have slowed down. . . . As of today, it's not having a monumental effect yet because we're not a genetically engineered-based production agriculture yet. If trends continue to move toward new varieties . . . it will have a greater effect in the future.

To be honest, I was hit with this at the World Food Summit [in Rome] three years ago [when naked anti-biotech protesters splattered Glickman with grain]. I came back and I asked what the hell is going on? Because at that point in time, the word was that this was the technology of the future. This was the moral thing to do. This was going to be the only way we're going to be able to feed the world. I thought, what is wrong with these people?

I still believe that the technology will produce an agriculture that will be able to feed the world in a more sustainable way. But it doesn't mean that it's written on Mount Sinai that there aren't questions that have to be answered. That's the era we are entering into now.

Q: You also received a great deal of public response about proposed Department of Agriculture rules that could have allowed genetically engineered food to be labeled as organic.

A: There was an absolute firestorm. We received 270,000 responses. It was the most this department has ever received on any rule and maybe one of the most the government has received in modern history.

Q: What, beyond forcing the issues at the World Trade Organization, can the government and the Department of Agriculture do to persuade Europe to accept genetically modified food?

A: We need to make sure that our research establishment deals with all the components of the problems in terms of making sure that adequate research is being done. We need to make sure we are in the forefront of dealing with issues of ownership, proprietary rights, patent rights. . . . We need to, of course, make sure that we, along with other agencies, the EPA and the FDA, [are] making sure that health and safety concerns are being met. . . .

I have made the comment that there are many kinds of science. There's physical science. There's political science. There's also social science. There are all sorts of ways you have to deal with people, and sometimes the physical scientists only see their area. And sometimes the social scientists only see their area. We have to blend all of these. Because, ultimately, if the consumer doesn't buy, the technology isn't worth a damn.

Q: I've heard that you have questioned Monsanto's chief executive officer, Robert Shapiro, about the company's public relations failures in Europe.

A: He's come in here before on a few occasions, but I haven't been specifically aware of what they're doing in Europe. We've talked generically about consumer support and supermarket involvement and building confidence.

Q: Did it trouble you being portrayed as an unwavering booster of a technology when you're the head of a regulatory agency?

A: First, if that portrayal was accurate -- I'm not sure it was -- it's much less accurate now. Second of all, that may have had a little bit to do with where I wanted to turn this train just slightly. I didn't want us to appear that we were a booster for any technology. It's not just biotech. There are a lot of other things out there. We should be a department that helps production agriculture and helps farmers survive and not necessarily be wedded to any technology. I think that it's easier for us to ask questions in some respects than other agencies.

Look, we had this problem before. The food safety part of this department used to be in the same agency as the export promotion part. And then in 1994 reorganization, it was pulled out. Now food safety is its own missionary. They don't promote anything -- except food safety. In order for this technology to succeed, or any technology, people have to perceive us as [being] on the level, objective and not in anybody's hip pocket. . . .

You do things for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons I made this [Purdue] speech is to let people within the Agriculture Department know that we are not an advocate, as if we were, an adjunct of any one corporation or any one enterprise. I did not want us to be perceived as if we were part of the agro-industrial complex, moving with any particular product or ideological objective. I thought we needed to be more of an independent force, helping farmers with production agriculture.

Q: In your recent speeches, you also have been talking about consolidation of agriculture industries. Are you suggesting here that there are downsides that American farmers ought to be aware of?

A: I'm suggesting that there are some potential implications from an ownership perspective that can be dealt with. We face that in terms of the "Terminator" gene [that prevents farmers from saving seeds from year-to-year]. How do you properly compensate [companies] who spend a fortune developing a product? . . . These are public policy questions that ultimately Congress is going to have to address, and maybe state legislatures. I don't want to prejudge the issue any more than that. But farmers themselves understand that people who invest a lot of money in these technologies have to be compensated for them. But they [farmers] don't want to give up all their rights and all their power to someone else.

Q: There seems to be an emerging debate in the U.S. on biotechnology, with various study panels, like yours, and foundations talking about financing public awareness campaigns. Is a debate like this healthy for the technology?

A: There's no way to stop it. You're going to have discussions about these issues. We have an advantage in this country because by and large, people believe that the FDA, the Department of Agriculture and the EPA are on the level. That we are not in anybody's hip pocket. That we try to represent the public interest. As long as we keep that focus, I think people in this country will have confidence that there will not be products unless they are safe. It doesn't mean there won't be genuine public debate about the implications of the technology.

About a month ago, I went to the University of Michigan and spoke at the graduation. There were a few protesters out there, protesting this. I thought to myself, there hasn't been a lot of protesting in America the last several years. One sign said, "Buy your food in Europe; it's safer there." One of the student speakers spoke about this issue in what I call a classically student, idealistic way. It amused me because I went to the University of Michigan in the Sixties, where the Students for a Democratic Society began. It kind of brought me home to this kind of a thing. The truth is, a healthy skepticism produces a better product. A safer product. And one that consumers will be much more accepting of.

Q: You seem to be ahead of others in the administration on some of these issues.

A: I may have stepped out a little bit in the [Purdue] speech to the extent that we have taken a pretty clear and decisive position in the international arena on biotech and GMOs. I don't argue with that; I don't think there are any products out there that aren't safe. But I probably did step out by saying we need to ask more questions as this technology develops. And I think our trade negotiators and others may have not gotten to that point yet. . . .

I worry a little bit about a know-nothing mentality that is developing in the world, an irrational, anti-science-based thinking. . . . That's another reason that it's important for us to do our jobs appropriately on good science so we don't give people a reason to believe that we're in lock-step with industry.

Q: I also hear you saying that you remain a strong supporter of biotechnology.

A: I do believe that progress will continue, that work on biotechnology will continue, that there will be pitfalls and problems along the way, but ultimately a great deal of progress in American agriculture will be based on these technologies. I do also think that consumers will begin to come along more once they see that they benefit.

Right now, you see that in medicine -- they see that they benefit. You get genetically engineered insulin or you get cancer drugs. To date, I'm not sure that they see that they're benefiting from [biotechnology]. But they think the companies are benefiting from it. They'll [consumers] benefit from it once they see there are positive things to the environment that are happening; using less water, less intensive use of the natural resources. They may benefit from products that are better for them, tastier for them . . . do all sorts of things that will actually help their lives. To date, the technology has not actually reached that point where they see it's actually benefiting them.

Glickman on losses suffered by farmers in Missouri and Ilinois: Farmers in Missouri, Illinois and throughout the Midwest are suffering severe losses as commodity prices sink to record lows. Farm income in Missouri fell 18 percent last year, and experts have predicted further losses this year.

In his interview with the Post-Dispatch, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman addressed this problem:

Q: What can you tell farmers in Missouri and the Midwest who are worried about these unremittingly depressed prices they get for their crops? Is their any relief on the way?

A. I would say that for the next year, prices will continue to be rather weak; a little stronger in cattle, but row-crop prices are not looking great. This is the highest year on record in terms of direct payments to farmers by the government - $15.3 billion we expect to pay out ....

I don't think the 1996 Farm Bill is adequate in dealing with periods of big surpluses and low demand. I think Congress is probably going to have to respond with some additional assistance package this year. Each of the last three years was world record grain production. You take that coupled with fairly weak demand and ....it's just a prescription for low prices....There is certainly going to be no miracle in the short term.





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



Subject: Dangers of GE Foods: Interview With Dr Puzstai, June 3, 1999
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:46:50 -0400

WSWS : News & Analysis : Medicine & Health : Food Safety Issues

Safety of genetically modified food questioned

Interview with gene scientist, Dr Arpad Pusztai

By Paul Mitchell
3 June 1999


The British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC) has been investigating the nature of scientific advice to government. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the subject of its first report, published this month.

The STC took evidence from scientists, business, consumer organisations, government ministers and non-governmental organisations. Its report concludes that there was no evidence to suggest that a moratorium on the use of GMOs was necessary. Instead, it makes several recommendations about "structural weaknesses in the advisory system". It suggests the two existing advisory bodies should be merged into one. The new body should make more use of non-scientific experts, be more open and commission more research on the environmental impact of GMOs. It must continue to deal with the scientific issues and ministers should look elsewhere to address the ethical and political implications of genetic modification.

The report says "we condemn the unjust attacks that have been made directly or indirectly against public-spirited scientists who have served the community well" on the two advisory bodies. However, the report complains that "Dr Pusztai's appearance before us attracted far more press interest than did some of our more credible witnesses. The press continues to give credibility to Dr Pusztai's claim despite it being contradicted by his own evidence." It suggests that scientists should be trained to respond to the media. Both must be more responsible, accurately reporting the facts. "GM technology and its potential benefits may be permanently lost to the UK unless there is rational debate."

Dr Arpad Pusztai is a world authority on plant proteins called lectins. He was employed at the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland until he took part in the TV programme World In Action last year and provoked a controversy about the safety of GMOs. On the programme, Dr Pusztai explained his tests with modified potatoes. He had become concerned about what happened when he fed them to rats. He believes there were statistically significant changes to the rats' weight and immune response.

Pustzai appeared with the agreement of the Rowett Institute to explain that better methods were needed to test the new technology. The programme was broadcast on August 10 last year, but there was media interest in the days before because of a press release by the TV company. On the morning of August 10, before the programme was shown, the Rowett Institute issued its own press release saying the gene, known as ConA, from the jackbean plant, produced toxic effects that were well known. Therefore the results were to be expected.

In the press, Dr Pusztai was described as "an old man who had muddled the results". The possibility of deliberate fraud was also raised.

The World Socialist Web Site spoke to Dr Pusztai about the controversy.

Q. The STC Report says the Rowett Institute's press release "had misreported the scientific findings of the experiments and, that indeed the experiments referred to had not been carried out." Can you explain this?

A. I talked to three people on the Sunday night before the World In Action programme. What was curious was they were all talking about ConA. This never came from me. I never spoke about any of the genes used, not even GNA [the actual gene used which comes from the snowdrop]. I was told not to mention them. The TV press release says nothing about ConA either. How did the Monsanto [a major GM food producer] people on breakfast TV on August 11 know they could talk about ConA? I was taken aback because I thought we had an agreement that we would not mention which genes we used. There must have been some misinformation going on. The whole thing is a mystery. Professor James, director of the Institute, should have listened to what people were saying. I don't know if you have ever come across directors of large institutes. They are extremely busy people and tend to have their own ideas. Listening is a great art and they just sometimes haven't the time to do it. To have only a bit of information is dangerous and he took it upon himself to issue the press release.

Q. The Rowett Institute issued a press release saying the gene used in your experiments was ConA, and no one checked it with you?

A. Yes. If you look at that press release-remember this is on August 10 before the programme went out that night-it says further details can be obtained from Professor James. I was not allowed to give out any information. It was incorrect information and when he realised it, he said it was because I was confused. A lot of people have known me a long time and "muddled" is not the way I'm usually described.

Q. You commissioned an independent statistical analysis of your data. The STC report says it questions the validity of your results.

A. This is definitely something we have to rebut. Dr Jones [1] was quite unfair in her questioning and very aggressive. Two of the things that are in the final [STC] report I very strongly contest. I am just putting something together to put out on the Internet. You see, there is a favourite ploy used by people in court. You are only supposed to reply to the question asked. Dr Jones quoted only a half sentence from the statistical report, leaving out the other half, which puts it in context. She asked me if there was any difference between the modified potatoes and normal ones. I said no. I then tried to explain that the modified potatoes had 20 percent less protein, so we had to add more protein. If you do a stupid experiment you get a stupid answer. You will get an answer that is known to every schoolboy-that if you start off with less protein you will get less growth. I was not able to go into the science. The final report does not reflect the evidence and we will be tackling that. On the second point, this was about the lack of consistency in the statistical report. When I tried to explain, the chairman, Dr Clark [2] waded in saying I must apologise, I understand you are replying to Dr Jones, but this is not a scientific business. I was not able to explain. We had four lines of potatoes and you cannot compare those which are not "substantially equivalent" [3].

Q. What did you think of the STC's final report?

A. I was very disappointed with the STC. If you look at the report and the evidence I gave, they are a world apart. This is only my personal opinion, but I think they were nobbled and you know who by. I take great exception to me being described as a "less credible witness". I don't think I gave any cause or reason for them to come to that conclusion. Some of the other witnesses got into real trouble when they were being questioned. I did not because I was telling the truth.

Q. The STC recommends that only published evidence should be used. Why did you go public before your evidence was peer-reviewed?

A. One of the most important points I made to the STC has been ignored by them. If the Novel Foods Committee, or any other regulatory body, had to rely on published evidence, they will always be two years out of date. Most of the evidence comes from the companies, who provide it unpublished. Fortunately, because Professor James was on the Novel Food Committee until 1998, I was able to see the reports. Nevertheless, I am not the British public. There are another 55 million of them. Even if I know about it, they don't. I cannot criticise it because it is unpublished. Anyway, why all this great secrecy? There is nothing particularly commercially sensitive. They just give analytical data and methodology. The real reason is they don't want the public to find out what is actually done. I could tear them to bits in 10 seconds. In fact, I have done so but not in this country because everything is confidential. If everything is so rigorously tested why can't they disclose this information?

Q. Is it true, as you say in your evidence to the STC, that there is "only one peer-reviewed paper on record (and) that this technology has been introduced on the back of a single paper in Journal of Nutrition in 1996"?

A. Yes. Even that people didn't know until I told them. In 1995 when we started our programme of research there wasn't a single one.

Q. In February this year, 20 international scientists issued a memorandum supporting you. Two weeks later a group of Fellows from the Royal Society [4] criticised those who release "alleged scientific results". The Royal Society issued a report last September which the STC used for its questions and provided six scientists to peer-review your work. They said your work was flawed. What is your opinion?

A. This will be answered when I put my papers on the Internet. Don't forget I'm a pensioner and I'm having to do all this myself. Even so, the wires on my computer are getting hot. The Royal Society only had an internal report from the Rowett to go on. How can my critics say the design of the experiment was flawed? The design is not in the Rowett report.

There were six reports from six different, anonymous scientists. I received the first on May 6 and had to reply to all of them by the 13th. The sixth report I received on May 11. It was not so favourable but it was quite a reasonable report-it advised caution in interpreting our results. Two days later, I got another version, but instead of caution our results were now declared unsafe. I think they told him to put a bit more "oomph" into it. This arrived half an hour before I had to reply because of the deadline.

The Royal Society should come clean. Why is it that their unnamed experts are any better than the 20 who supported my research? Those who supported me were full professors, six of them British. You can look up their credentials and publication records.

I shall put what the Royal Society said on the Internet with my comments. Transparency is the most important issue and I have nothing to hide from the public and the other scientists. On the contrary, the more people know about the way the Royal Society and the STC came to their "conclusions", the better for us all.

Q. Some of your data is already on the Internet. How come?

A. The documents were released by the Rowett Institute, not by me. This is what is normally called highway robbery. There were eight of us working for three years. Now the Rowett has published most of the data or at least some internal reports of the data on the Internet, we cannot publish them as a proper scientific paper. We will try and publish the remaining data as proper papers. But if I cannot do it, then I shall try and put the papers-not internal reports as the Rowett and the Royal Society did-on the Internet. They will be peer-reviewed by other relevant scientists and the reviews will be published.

Q. The STC criticised you for saying people were being used as guinea pigs and therefore worrying them.

A. I felt concerned we are being used as guinea pigs in an experiment, a botched experiment. There are no controls. You don't know if you are eating it. I don't know. How can you trace it back? Linda McCartney's vegetarian sausages were guaranteed to be GM-free, but a laboratory found they contained a foreign gene. I think their report is just window dressing. There is no scientific content.

Q. How do you feel about the controversy you have generated?

A. We are not talking about a delicate sort of issue where two scientists are disagreeing. We are talking about our food. I hope for all our sakes that they are right when they say there is nothing wrong with GM food. Otherwise we will be in real trouble. You remember Jack Cunningham-the "Enforcer" [5]. He came on the TV last week and said there is no credible evidence to suggest there are problems with GM. Sir Robert May, the Chief Scientist, said my work was garbage. They have tried to destroy any opposition. I am old enough to remember the Nazi occupation of Hungary and under the Soviets. This reminds me of that. I think they must have learnt some of their methods. I never expected this. I think I am the fall guy.

But let's look at the positive side. I certainly did agree to talk to World in Action. The reason was that, as we started looking at our results and knowing that the companies are the ones submitting the data, there is a huge gap, a chasm between the usefulness of our testing technology and what they were doing.

Notes:

1. Dr Lynne Jones, a member of the STC and Labour MP

2. Dr Michael Clark, chairman of the STC and Conservative MP

3. The "Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology" web site defines "substantial equivalence" as follows: "If there is no apparent difference between the G[M] food and its natural counterpart, it is assumed to be safe according to present regulations. Only a limited set of characteristics need to be compared. If this testing reveals no difference, the G[M] food is considered to be 'substantially equivalent'. Then no testing is required to exclude unexpected presence of harmful toxic, carcinogenic (cancer-generating), mutagenic (mutation-generating) or allergenic substances." (emphasis in original at http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-18472/subeqow.htm)

4. Royal Society, the pre-eminent independent scientific society founded in 1660

5. Dr Jack Cunningham, Minister for the Cabinet Office

See Also: International scientists raise concerns over genetically modified food
British Labour government rushes to defend biotech industry
[17 February 1999]
BSE / CJD & Food Safety Issues






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



Subject: Blair softens stance on GM foods
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:51:47 -0400

The Guardian 7th June 99.

Front page
Blair softens stance on GM foods

Nicholas Watt, Political Correspondent Monday June 7,

Tony Blair yesterday signalled a significant softening of his support for genetically modified foods when he declared that "the jury is out" on whether they are safe to eat.

After months of intensive campaigning by ministers on the benefits of GM foods, the prime minister indicated that he has heeded growing public opposition when he admitted that he was horrified when he first heard the term.

"The first time I heard about genetic modification the term [was] so terrible," Mr Blair told BBC1's Breakfast with Frost. "You think, my goodness,what on earth is going on here. You think of Dr Strangelove."

The Prince of Wales, who spoke out against the genetic modification of crops last week, reportedly told friends that Cherie Booth spoke of her worries about the health and environmental impact of GM crops over lunch at his Highgrove estate last September.

In the interview yesterday the prime minister refused to comment on his wife's thoughts, joking that he would "get into a lot of trouble" if he spoke about their private discussions.

But Mr Blair said that he understood such fears,as he attempted to recast himself in the role of neutral observer on the issue of GM foods.

Mr Blair said: "We're in the position, as the government, where it is almost as if people say you're the greatest advocates of GM food. I'm not the advocate of anything other than keeping an open mind."

His comments appeared to be a carefully orchestrated attempt by Downing Street to shift the government's stance after the Prince of Wales's intervention. Downing Street was deeply concerned in private about the impact on public opinion after the prince described genetic modification as potentially dangerous.

However, Mr Blair remains committed to pressing ahead with research into genetic modification because of its potential benefits and because he did not want Britain to lose its lead in the field to countries which are pouring millions of pounds into research.

"At the moment I think the jury's out, which is why we've got to have these trials and have scientific [research] done very, very carefully indeed... But I do say to people, to ban the whole thing on the basis of what are often pretty sensational reports would be a mistake," he said.

A senior Downing Street source insisted last night that the government's policy on GM foods had not changed: "The prime minister is attempting to frustrate any attempt to put him at war with the Prince of Wales. He made clear that he does not think it is sensible to ban something that could be one of the most important scientific developments of the next century."

But Michael Meacher, the environment minister, fuelled speculation that the government is changing tack when he admitted that there we "very great uncertainties" about the new technology. Speaking on GMTV, Mr Meacher said there would have to be more research into GM foods. "I'd be the first to recognise that the existing level of research does need to be supplemented," he said.




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



Headline: PRINCE FEARS FOR SAFETY OF GM FOODS
Wire Service: PA (PA News)
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999

By Alex Richardson, PA News

The Prince of Wales today used a hard-hitting newspaper article to voice his fears about the safety of genetically-modified foods.

Writing in the Daily Mail, the Prince questions claims that GM foods are safe, and attacks the lack of independent scientific research on GM crops..

Accusing supporters of GM foods of using "emotional blackmail" to argue their case, he expresses concerns about the toughness of regulations governing the cultivation of GM crops.

His dramatic intervention in the GM food argument comes four days after the Prime Minister accused the media of whipping up "hysteria" the issue. In his article, the Prince asks 10 questions to highlight his concerns about GM foods.

"It is very hard for people to know who is right. Few of us are able to interpret all the scientific information which is available - and even the experts don't always agree.

"But what I believe the public's reaction shows is that instinctively we are nervous about tampering with Nature when we can't be sure that we know enough about all the consequences," he writes.

Asking whether we need GM foods, the Prince says the only people who seem set to benefit are those who own the technology and who farm on an industrial scale.

Questioning the safety of GM foods, he argues that while there is no evidence so far that they are unsafe, only independent scientific research over a long period will provide a definitive answer. He highlights in the article the fear of cross-pollination between GM and other crops.

The Prince says: "Since bees and the wind don't obey any sort of rules - voluntary or statutory - we shall soon have an unprecedented and unethical situation in which one farmer's crop will contaminate another's against his will."

Questioning who will be held responsible if something goes wrong with a GM crop, the Prince draws a parallel with the BSE outbreak.

He says: "Who is going to be legally liable ... Will it be the company who sells the seed or the farmer who grows it? Or will it, as was the case with BSE, be all of us?"

Attacking the argument that GM crops represent a solution to the problem of feeding the world's growing population, the Prince writes: "This argument sound suspiciously like emotional blackmail to me.

"Is there any serious academic research to substantiate such a sweeping statement?"

Concluding the article the Prince asks what sort of a world we want to live in, saying: "Are we going to allow the industrialisation of life itself, redesigning the natural world for the sake of convenience and embarking on an Orwellian future?

"Or should we be adopting a gentler, more considered approach, seeking always to work with the grain of Nature in making better, more sustainable use of what we have, for the long-term benefit of mankind as a whole?" Last November the Prince set up a discussion forum on his Internet site on the question of GM foods, and today says the site has received 10,000 "hits".

The Daily Mail also reports that Charles is planning to meet Dr Arpad Pusztai, the scientist whose research first ignited fears over the safety of GM foods.

Dr Pusztai alleged that rats fed genetically modified potatoes in one of his experiments suffered damage to their immune systems.

A Downing Street spokesman said tonight: "As a courtesy, the Prince of Wales gave us his article in advance.

"His interest in this area is well known, as are his views. The Government has been in the forefront of calls for a sensible, national debate on GM foods rather than the scaremongering we have seen in some parts of the media.

"Prince Charles's article should be seen in that context.

"This is a complex area and the Government is proceeding according to the best science available. GM foods currently on the market in this country are safe."

Monsanto, the biotechnology giant at the forefront of the development of GM crops, rejected the Prince's claims that there was a lack of research and absence of regulation in the field.

The firm said recently published scientific reports contradicted the Prince's arguments.

Corporate affairs director Tony Combes said: "Dozens of worldwide regulatory agencies have decided that biotechnology crops are safe for the environment and for people to eat.

"These decisions are backed up by over 20 years of scientific and environmental research and more than 20,000 field trials.

"The Royal Society and the Nuffield Foundation reports begged to differ with the Prince."

Commenting on the article, Greenpeace executive director Peter Melchett said: "The Prince of Wales is right to say we will be denied the freedom to choose organic and non-GM food grown in this country if GM plantings go ahead.

"The fact is, our right to choose is being jeopardised by the GM crop trials which are already under way. This will contaminate both organic and non-GM crops.

"Prince Charles says that we `don't appear to need' GM food at all. This is also clearly right.

"All the major British supermarkets are removing GM ingredients from their own products and the major food manufacturers are doing the same.

"People don't want to buy GM food. Supermarkets won't be selling it.

"Food manufacturers don't want GM ingredients - so who on earth are the Government carrying out the GM field trials for?"




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



Subject: USDA's Rominger says GMOs may lead trade disputes
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:05:35 -0400

Headline: USDA's Rominger says GMOs may lead trade disputes
Wire Service: RTw (Reuters World Report)
Date: Thu, Jun 10, 1999

Copyright 1999 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved.

LONDON, June 10 (Reuters) - Disputes between countries over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the future could well eclipse the current trade spats between the European Union and the United States over bananas and hormone-treated beef, the Deputy U.S. Agriculture Secretary said on Thursday.

"I think worldwide the issue of GMOs will be a bigger issue than bananas and beef hormones," Richard Rominger told reporters at a news conference during the International Grains Council's annual conference here.

Rominger also complained that the EU had stalled the process of approving imports of new varieties of geneticaly modified U.S. corn and soy.

"We've continued to push the EU to ... approve (GMO) products but things seem to have bogged down," Rominger said.






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



Subject: BLAIR WRONG ON GM FOOD, SAYS SIR PAUL
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:09:58 -0400

Headline: BLAIR WRONG ON GM FOOD, SAYS SIR PAUL
Wire Service: PA (PA News)
Date: Thu, Jun 10, 1999

Copyright 1999 PA News.


By Jackie Brown, PA News

Tony Blair is wrong to support genetically modified food, Sir Paul McCartney said today, as he announced he is spending 3 million ensuring the vegetarian meal range created by his late wife was completely GM-free..

Sir Paul said people were right to be worried about GM food following food scares such as BSE.

He also revealed that sales of Linda McCartney Foods dropped after BBC Newsnight revealed in February this year that they contained a small trace - 0.5% - of GM contamination in soya.

The company has now removed soya from its products and has replaced it with wheat - for which there is no GM alternative currently grown.

The brand will also spearhead a campaign against GM food with every pack of the 38 varieties in the range bearing the stamp "Say No To GMO".

Sir Paul, dressed in a dark suit, white shirt and dark tie, spoke of his concerns about the issue at a press conference in Central London.

He expressed some sympathy for the Prime Minister: "I can understand what he is doing. He does not want people to panic."

But Sir Paul added: "I think he is wrong. I don't think there is enough evidence about the problems which might arise through GM food.

"I don't think people are worrying unnecessarily. The last time they got into something like this was BSE when people did swallow it quite literally. This time we have to take time to find out exactly what the implications of GM food are."

But he did not feel there was a need to follow the example of the Swiss in holding an extensive referendum on the issue.

He said the public should be in the position of making their own choice by being able to buy products which they knew were guaranteed to be GM-free.

In particular he highlighted the problem of labelling food, expressing concern that fish genes could be added to tomatoes to extend shelf life without having to be labelled.

Sir Paul said the company could have continued to produce food with small levels of GM contamination but the fact that sales fell after the Newsnight programme resulted in them taking a stance on the issue.

"There has been a drop in sales since Newsnight. There has been a drop in sales generally in the whole business.

"That was the kind of proof really that people were so worried."

He added: "This whole business was built on trust. People could look at Linda and see she was trustworthy because she did not need to do this (the meal business). She was doing it for a moral reason."

Sir Paul made it clear after his wife's death from breast cancer last year that he would be taking up her mantle of promoting vegetarianism in her memory.

The Linda McCartney factory at Fakenham, Norfolk, has been temporarily closed and steam-cleaned to ensure it is a GM-free zone. A new range has been strictly tested for any contamination and no trace of GM has been found. This has cost some 3 million.

The new range of foods will be appearing in the shops over the next few weeks.

The decision to replace soya with wheat will not affect people with wheat allergies because the recipes already contained quite a lot of the ingredient.

Linda McCartney Foods sell primarily in the UK.

The switch from soya will also affect products which were recently launched into catering markets for pubs, restaurants and schools.

Today's move has been welcomed by the Vegetarian Society who said in a statement: "The company is clearly committed to providing vegetarians with food they want to eat and that means 100% vegetarian, using only free-range eggs and GM-free."





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



Subject: DJ INTERVIEW:Bio-Crop Education To Ease Fears -US ... Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:13:51 -0400

Headline: =DJ INTERVIEW:Bio-Crop Education To Ease Fears -US ... Wire Service: DJ (Dow Jones) Date: Thu, Jun 10, 1999

=DJ INTERVIEW:Bio-Crop Education To Ease Fears -US Ag Sec



LONDON (Dow Jones)--European Union fears over genetically modified crops will be eased once consumers are educated and can see evidence of their benefits, Richard Rominger, U.S. deputy secretary of agriculture told Dow Jones Newswires Thursday.

In an exclusive interview on the sidelines of the International Grains Council Grains Conference 1999, Rominger said genetically modified crops would be a major topic at forthcoming world trade negotiations.

While the U.S. has widely embraced GM crops, the E.U. has delayed approval of GM varieties due to consumer fears over the effects of crops on human and environmental health.

When asked whether he saw the differences in GM trade policy between the E.U. and U.S. blowing up into a trade spat as serious as the E.U.-U.S. dispute over U.S. hormone treated beef, he said "It already has."

Rominger said he would like to see the E.U. develop a "more transparent, predictable," system for evaluating GM crops including education of the public for greater understanding of the benefits of GM crops.

When asked whether he thought education would work to ease E.U. consumer fears over GM crops, Rominger said: "I think education can work everywhere. It is one of the stumbling blocks to acceptance of GM crops," he said.

"The public appreciates GM technology in applications such as pharmaceuticals because it can see the benefits. It hasn't seen those benefits in the area of food," he added.

To Review Dioxin Meat Ban When EU, Belgium Provide Data

Rominger said the U.S. won't use its recently imposed ban on E.U. poultry, pork, beef and dairy products in response to the Belgian dioxin contamination scare as a trade weapon in its spat with the E.U. over U.S. hormone treated beef.

German Agriculture Minister Karl-Heinz Funke warned the U.S. Wednesday that it must not consider the Belgian dioxin contamination scare in the same light as E.U. concerns over U.S. hormone treated beef.

"No it's not," Rominger said, adding that the U.S. would lift its ban on E.U. meat imports as soon as it had gathered relevant information on the extent of the contamination from E.U. and Belgian authorities.

"We are asking both the E.U. and Belgian authorities to provide us with information," he said. "As soon as we have this information then we will review the ban."

In his speech to the IGC conference, Rominger said the U.S. "strongly supports" the measures the E.U. has taken to control the dioxin contamination.

The E.U. has not yet lifted a ban on imports of U.S. hormone treated beef even though ordered to do so by the World Trade Organization. It placed the ban due to fears that the hormones used in beef may be harmful to humans.

When asked whether the U.S. is happy with E.U. proposals to compensate U.S. farmers for the hormone-treated beef ban, Rominger said "We are looking at compensation as a short term measure."

"It is difficult to see how our beef producers will benefit from compensation in the long term," he said. "There has to be some long term benefit in any agreement," he added.

U.S. Isn't Using Food Aid To Increase Mkt Share

When asked whether he felt that U.S. beef producers should be reacting to E.U. market demand and not producing beef treated with hormones Rominger turned to U.S. proposals to label beef.

"What we have offered to the E.U. is to talk about labeling, but the E.U. has failed to come forward with any concrete proposals on this," Rominger said.

Rominger also defended the U.S. from accusations, notably from Australian grain trade officials, that the U.S. was using food aid as a way of increasing market share at a time of stagnating demand.

"We have increased our food aid," he said. This is a result of people not being able to buy products commercially."

"These are targeted products for humanitarian purposes won't substitute for commercial sales," he added. "We'd rather be selling commercially."

Rominger concluded by saying that the large number of trade disagreements currently ongoing shouldn't interfere or slow down the process of trade reform to be discussed at the World Trade Organization negotiations to begin at the end of 1999. -By Steve McGrath; 44-171-842-9358;

steve.mcgrath@dowjones.com
(END) DOW JONES NEWS 06-10-99 08:23 AM

Copyright 1999 Dow Jones & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.





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



Subject: UK: Producers turn backs on GM food
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:57:34 -0400

The Independent, 10 June 1999 Producers turn backs on GM food

By Charles Arthur and Jonathan Glennie

Britain's food producers are in headlong retreat from the use of genetically modified (GM) soya in their products after a consumer backlash against the technology, The Independent has found.

Almost all the major producers have taken steps to eliminate GM soya and maize, or derivatives of them, from their products. The development will push up the producers' costs by as much as 10 per cent, and may mean that foods specifically incorporating GM elements will not appear on retailers' shelves in Britain for at least two years.

But Lord Haskins, chairman of Northern Foods, which is one of the biggest food companies, said yesterday that the reintroduction would not happen until consumers, and then retailers, seem eager for it. He added that in time there would be GM products available that offered a price or other advantage to shoppers and retailers.

Only a handful of companies are now using soya that is not specifically from non-GM sources. This marks an almost complete reversal of the position a year ago.

Yesterday Northern Foods announced formally that it was stopping using GM ingredients, a move revealed by The Independent last month. The decision is a blow to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who has repeated backed GM technology, since Lord Haskins is considered to be among his favourite businessmen.

Lord Haskins said he was unimpressed by the pressure that producers have experienced from retailers. "I'm ashamed at the way the retailers have wobbled," he said. "They should have given their customers choice [through labelling]." But he told the BBC's Today programme that the company was bowing to buyer pressure. "I think it's clear that consumers don't want to buy GM food," he commented.

He added that there was no incentive to use GM materials at present: "There's no price attraction, there's no product attraction at the present time and in that sense one is forced to renounce genetically engineered produce."

A similar ambivalence has been expressed by the huge food group Nestle. The company announced in April that it was removing GM ingredients from its products, including its baby milk. Yet its chairman, Peter Brabeck, said last month that GM food is "the technology of the future" and added: "Building a wall against it is not a sensible strategy."

But in the face of consumer and retailer pressure, food producers have had to examine the source of products such as soya and maize.

In the United States, GM varieties are mixed with conventional ones after harvesting. About 30 per cent of soya grown there is genetically modified.

European labelling requirements mean that such mixed harvests should be labelled as GM - even if they only contain tiny amounts of the GM product. This has caused huge problems for retailers and producers, as shoppers have shunned GM-labelled products.

The reaction has been swift. In the past week both Walker's, the crisp maker, and the cereal manufacturer, Kelloggs, have shifted so that they now declare that their products come from "non-GM sources". Walker's said last night that it "is confident in our suppliers' control of the origin and variety of soya", while Kelloggs said that the maize used in its cereals comes from non-GM growers in Argentina.

A week ago a survey by Friends of the Earth found that 24 of the biggest 30 food producers in the UK were moving completely to non-GM sources. Kelloggs and Walker's were among those whose positions were unclear. Last night only Associated British Foods, which owns brands such as Kingsmill bread, had not publicly clarified its position.

Meanwhile only a couple of the foods remaining on supermarket shelves - notably a Sharwood's Chinese recipe with stir-in soya sauce - contain soya requiring labelling as GM. Yesterday Rank Hovis McDougall, its manufacturer, said: "Although we are confident that the GM soya used in this product is safe, we plan to move away from it as soon as we are able to find a suitable alternative."

Lord Haskins said that the door would not be closed on GM produce forever, and criticised the Prince of Wales, who has recently spoken out against GM technology, as having "power without responsibility".

<http://www.independent.co.uk/>http://www.independent.co.uk





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



Subject: Getting it wrong about food
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:02:57 -0400

GUARDIAN (London) Thursday June 3, 1999

GEORGE MONBIOT

Getting it wrong about food

The most asinine biotechnology report ever written

Monsanto's advertising agency warned the company not to argue that genetic engineering would feed the world. But the temptation proved too great.

"Worrying about starving future generations," its adverts informed us last year, "won't feed them. Food biotechnology will."

It's hard to see how even a body with Monsanto's self-belief could have imagined that this claim would stand up.

For the corporation had already made its position quite clear.

"What you are seeing," one of its executives explained in 1997, as his company purchased scores of seed merchants and biotech firms, "is a consolidation of the entire food chain."

The vertical integration it was engineering would grant it a control over food consumption that would have made Stalin writhe in envy. Monsanto's argument was swiftly and comprehensively dismissed. Development agencies pointed out that people starve not because there is an absolute shortage of food (the world currently produces a surplus) but because food and the means to produce it are concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. Corporations seeking to consolidate the food chain threatened to make this situation far worse. Monsanto, sadder and perhaps a little wiser, slunk away.

But seven days ago it acquired a new and unlikely champion.

The Nuffield Council for Bioethics is a highly respected independent body, whose recommendations frequently influence government policy. Last week, its panel on the ethics of genetic engineering published its long-awaited report. Research into GM crops, the panel acknowledged, has tended to favour producers in Europe and the US. Patenting of the new technologies, it pointed out, presents "potentially serious difficulties for developing countries". But, the report maintained, if the research effort could only be directed a little more evenly, GM crops would "produce more food, or more employment or income for those who need it most urgently". "The moral imperative," it reasoned, "for making GM crops readily and economically available to developing countries who want them is compelling." This is perhaps the most asinine report on biotechnology ever written. The stain it leaves on the Nuffield Council's excellent reputation will last for years.

The panel made three fundamental mistakes.

The first was to assume that the technology is neutral and could, given the right conditions, be evenly deployed and distributed.

In truth, genetic engineering is inseparable from its ownership. No genetically engineered crop reaches the market without a patent. Most of these forbid the farmer from saving seed for future plantings: control of the foodchain remains with the corporation at every stage of production.

The second was its crude, even childish, supposition that any technology which produces more will feed the starving.

The world is littered with the wreckage of such assumptions. Ethiopia's modern agro-industrialists were exporting animal feed to Europe throughout its devastating famine. Latin America's green revolution, Christian Aid points out, raised food production by 8% per head, but malnutrition increased in the same period by 19%. The Kalahandi region in India suffers repeated famines, but produces surpluses every year. Starvation occurs because of the distorted ownership of the foodchain.

The panel's third mistake was its inexplicable premise that biotechnology will somehow boost employment.

Monsanto's leading biotech products - herbicide resistant crops - are sold with the promise that they reduce the need for labour: farmers give their money not to local labourers but to one of the biggest corporations on earth.

So why did such a distinguished panel make such evident mistakes? You don't have to look very far for an answer. While people of every kind sat on the committee, all its biotechnology experts were drawn from the same ideological pool. It is not hard to see how Prue Leith, for example, well meaning as she doubtless was, would have felt obliged to defer to the superior wisdom of the former chairman of the advisory committee for novel foods and processes, or the Unilever research professor of biological sciences.

So how do we feed the world?

When I suggest that the answer lies in a combination of land reform and organic or semi-organic farming, you'll think I've gone soft in the head. But Jules Pretty of Essex University has documented a quiet revolution across the developing world, in which peasant farmers have doubled or tripled their yields by modern organic techniques. They require lots of labour, no debt, and no help from predatory corporations. Only by such means can the world's poor maintain control over their food supply, and protect themselves from the technologies that the Nuffield panel celebrates.






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







Subject: Biotechnology experts urged to consider societal implications
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:38:43 -0400

Monday, June 14, 1999
By Kevin Bonham, Agweek Magazine

People racing to develop genetically modified plant seeds should devote more time considering the implications of biotechnology on society.

Some day soon, the American public will discover that they already are eating food that has been genetically altered.

That's the message more than 200 people attending the 11th annual meeting of the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council in Lincoln, Neb., received last week from Paul Raeburn, senior editor for science and technology for Business Week magazine.

"A lot of people don't know that biotechnology is already here," he says, because of a huge disconnect between the biotechnology industry and the public. "It would be wise to plan for the day when they find out."

Raeburn is author of "The Last Harvest: The Genetic Gamble that Threatens to Destroy American Agriculture." The book was published in 1996 by Bison Books, University of Nebraska Press.

While the American public has been placid over the biotechnology industry, a stormy debate has erupted over the issue in Europe.

Raeburn suggests the atmosphere could change in the United States, in part because of a widely distributed report last month that indicated that Monarch butterflies might be dying from eating milkweed growing near fields of Bt corn.

"It's at least possible that the Monarch butterfly will be the bald eagle of biotechnology," he says, referring to public uproar created by environmentalist Rachel Carlson, whose book, Silent Spring, claimed that pesticides, and DDT in particular, were responsible for bringing the nation's bald eagle to the brink of extinction. That movement eventually led to the banning of DDT and to legislation that put limits on pesticide use in the nation.

"The bald eagle was a powerful symbol and so is the Monarch butterfly," Raeburn says, adding that more research must be done and the biotechnology industry must improve its education and communication with the public.

His message, delivered at the end of a three-day conference in Lincoln, Neb., last week, was not lost on the 200 representatives, including scientists, biologists and educators.

They shared a broad spectrum of views, from representatives of Monsanto and other agricultural and food conglomerates with huge investments in biotechnology, to environmentalists delivering warnings about possible consequences.

The biotechnology council, which represents 27 research and teaching institutions in the United States and Canada, including the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, used the meeting to begin drafting an annual policy report, which will be distributed to researchers, policy makers and government officials.

This year's conference was titled Food Security, Sustainability and Industrial Consolidation.

Here are the topics of the 10 previous reports:

1989 -- Sustainable agriculture.

1990 -- Food safety and nutritional quality.

1991 -- Social issues.

1992 -- Animal biotechnology.

1993 -- Risk.

1994 -- Public good.

1995 -- Discovery, access and ownership of genes.

1996 -- Novel products and new partnerships.

1997 -- Challenged environments.

1998 -- Environmental quality.

The conference brought together people with diverse backgrounds and a wide variety of opinions about biotechnology and its role in the future of society.

James Tobin, co-president of Global Seed Group, a division of Monsanto, notes that 2.5 million acres of corn -- Bt corn -- in the United States will be grown this year from seeds that have been genetically modified to make the corn resistant to herbicides.

He notes studies that show the global population will grow 45 percent between 1990 and 2020, and that income during that period is likely to grow more than 100 percent in North America and about 450 percent in places such as China.

"Meeting the demand for higher-quality food -- meat and dairy products -- will be as challenging as increasing productivity," he says.

Tobin notes that Roundup Ready rice will be on the market by 2002, and Roundup Ready wheat, which will provide protection from scab, in 2003.

"Our ability to produce better-quality food will be impacted dramatically by biotechnology," he says.

He insists that biotechnology offers farmers more choices than ever in the past.

However, while Tobin wants to move as fast as possible in the development of genetically altered plants, a North Dakota organic farmer wants the industry to slow down, perhaps even stop.

"Consumers are increasingly indicating to us that they're not as happy with farmers -- and what we produce -- as many believe," says Fred Kirschenmann, manager of Kirschenmann Family Farms, an organic farm operation near Windsor, N.D.

Kirschenmann, who earned a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Chicago in 1964, took over his family farm operation in 1976, when he began converting it to an organic operation.

He says increasing quantity of food production will not feed the growing population in developing countries.

As an example, he cites poor prices for soybeans in the United States while soybean production in Brazil has increased dramatically. He says much of the Brazil soybean product is being sold as livestock feed in Europe and Japan rather than feeding malnourished people in developing countries.

"This is not a formula that feeds the world or brings benefits to most American farmers," he says. He advocates farm producers banding together to increase their collective bargaining power to increase their share of the profits from farm products.

He also believes that much more study is needed in the biotechnology industry.

"We need to be more critical," he says. "Increasing production is only a part of the solution. ... We need to think about what we're doing with the whole ecological system."

Dennis Avery, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues, believes food production efficiency must be improved, to slow the destruction of forests. In many parts of the world, including South America, vast portions of the rain forest are being cleared to increase agricultural production.

"Land has become our scarcest resource," he says.

"Biotechnology is not the only technology responsible for ensuring the sustainability and safety of the world's food supply," says Ellen Paparozzi, a plant pathologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and facilitator of one of the commission's workshop groups.

"There's more of a systems approach, with biotechnology as one tool needed," she says. "This will include efforts to affect the impacts on society, environment and food as a system."

The workshop group identified 25 areas for study, with five immediately rising to the top of the list. Here is Paparozzi's summary of those issues:

Ecological or systems approach. Biotech can have an impact both positive, such as environmental benefits ... as well as unintended problems, such as decreased biocomplexity.

Public vs. private. "The responsibility of disbursement of information, ownership of research and intellectual property rights. There's a public versus private issue in developing products."

Education and information. "For some reason, there's a great gap, a polarization, ... a fear, vs. an understanding, by the public of what biotechnology is, what it changes and what it cannot do. The answer there is access to knowledge by all sectors, provided by all sectors," Paparozzi says.

Societal issues. Issues on structure, issues on monitoring, surveillance, including impact statements and risk assessments involved need to be addressed.

Research. "There's a research focus, a research focus that biotechnology holds the promise for understanding plants, ecosystems and the environment in ways we are not even anticipating yet. But at the same time, there has to be some sort of counterbalance ... (so that if) biotechnology is a partner in this process, we have scarce public research and development funds. Other areas should be participating, areas such as sustainable agriculture, alternative crops and markets, research advancements."

Richard Perrin, an agricultural economics professor at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, summarized trends in business strategies identified by a second group of workshop participants. "There a trend in increasing ownership of intellectual property rights," he says. "One suggested there should be a prohibition, or restrictions placed on the abilities to obtain property rights -- patent rights -- on naturally occurring gene sequences, and the discovery of what the sequence is, what the sequence's function is. That should not be a patentable discovery. There's concern about monitoring of how the patents are awarded.

The group agrees that policymakers need to be aware of the implications of changes being made in biotechnology on global public research.

"Most would agree that it would be wasteful to have public research duplicate that research being done by private industry. We need to address how much research is being done. (The public role) should be to work on nonproprietary or research efforts that are not appropriable to nonbiotechnology. These areas are less attractive to private industry.

The group also agrees that public research efforts should be increased and one particular area of public research should be risk assessment.

The group also expresses concern over farm producers' share of the consumer's food dollar.

"It is important to have this discussion," Perrin says. "It was clear that there is room for educational programs and research efforts and perhaps policies that will prepare farm producers who participate in acquiring a portion of the value added by new technology programs and products and processes. On occasion, farmers could be exploring institutional opportunities for alliances, contracting information and so on. A secondary area is to continue to improve the educational efforts for farm producers in nonbiotech opportunities in farming.

"The returns to farmers will be proportionate to the levels of their skill and knowledge. There is a role for the universities to discover what knowledge could be helpful to those people and to develop education programs that provide those opportunities.

The second workshop group also agreed to include in the report a statement on consumer information.

"It seems important for universities and public agencies to provide useful institutions for consumer information," Perrin says. The group identified specific areas of information as labeling, point-of-purchase data, information offices and Web-based sources.

Finally, Perrin says, workshop participants recognize, "The importance of engaging all levels of stakeholders in the discussion and development of the biotechnology industry."

Raeburn says he only recently came to the conclusion that it's quite likely he has eaten meat, either in a restaurant or at home in New York City, that was produced with genetically modified feed.

He believes that the meter of public concern in the United States over genetically modified food was fairly low as late as last fall, and that it has risen a bit higher in recent months, because of the controversy in Europe and news of the Monarch butterfly.

"There are fewer people in New York City who have any clue that they're already eating genetically modified food," he says. "Maybe they won't care when they find out. Eventually, they'll find out.

"If they find out that ... not only are they eating genetically modified food, and they never had a chance to decide whether to eat it or not, it really brings home the labeling issue," he says. "People don't like to be fooled."





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


Subject: Kraft & Other US Food Giants Launch Propaganda Campaign to Promote GE Foods
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:59:41 -0400
Tue, Jun 15, 1999, 11:44 AM

RE: Front Group for Food Giants Launches Public Relations Propaganda Campaign on GE Foods

GMA kicks off $1M job to laud biotech foods

By Phil Rabin

WASHINGTON, DC: Global food and pharmaceutical giants are planning a major PR campaign to champion the merits of biotechnology, in a bid to preempt the kind of anti-genetic modification backlash seen in Europe.

Biotech produced foods have come in for scathing criticism in Europe in recent months, with consumer activists and environmentalists claiming they may pose health threats or threats to nature.

To prevent a repeat on this side of the Atlantic, the Grocery Manufacturers of America - representing 132 firms, including global giants such as Heinz, Kraft and Procter & Gamble - is planning an educational campaign on the merits of foods developed from biotechnology, including corn, tomatoes, potatoes and canola.

PRWeek has learned that three firms are in the finals for the GMA project -

BSMG, Fleishman-Hillard and Porter Novelli. The year-long effort is thought to be worth $1 million.

GMA's preemptive effort may begin later this month or next month, and will be designed to educate a number of audiences about food biotechnology, including retailers, policy makers, farmers and consumers. He said the goal will be to provide "balanced information" to consumers.

GMA plans to "act before a potential crisis" hits, said Gene Grabowski, the organization's VP for communications. He added that concerns overseas stem from people's lack of faith in technology, which results in activists fighting to block the biotech-developed foods.

"In the US, approximately 60 million acres of biotechnologyderived crops already have been planted, and that number is growing," Grabowski added.

*********
Reprinted from PR WeekJune 14, 1999







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



Subject: Genetically modified crops face trade test
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:37:54 -0400

Headline: Genetically modified crops face trade test
Wire Service: UPn (UPI US & World)
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 1999

Copyright 1999 United Press International. All rights reserved. The following news report may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of United Press International.
By ELLEN BECK, UPI Science News
WASHINGTON, June 16 (UPI) -- A trade war is brewing between the United States and Britain over the health risks of eating genetically modified crops.

Experts in Britain want a moratorium on such foods until the United States regulates the companies producing the altered foods and requires product labeling. Sir William Asscher, of the British Medical Association, which represents more than 80 percent of that country's physicians, says today the moratorium on commercial planting should be in place until safety concerns are resolved.

This week the issue got the attention of the U.S. Senate, which Tuesday passed a resolution urging President Clinton to address the issue of biotechnology exports during the upcoming G-8 Summit in Germany.

Researchers have been genetically altering crops for generations but Dr. Paul Billings, a medical geneticist with the Heart of Texas Health Care System, said the purpose has changed in the past five years, creating new, unknown health risks.

He said while researchers used to genetically change a plant to make it look or taste better, now gene alterations are "artificially grafted" onto plants to make it bug resistant, for example. "You introduce a big change and then look for the fallout. There's really inadequate safety monitoring," Billings tells UPI today. "There is substantial evidence that it is truly harmful."

The worry has led farmers, researchers and health officials in Britain, including Prince Charles, to call for a ban on genetically altered crops until the safety issues are settled and that is having an impact on U.S. imports.

Asscher said: "In the United States, it has gone farther and faster than it should have without governance. We do recognize that there are enormous trade implications, but you've got to separate trade from science and science has to take precedence here."

Billings said there has been little research done on the health implications of what he called "a change going on in the food supply." Some known examples include genetic altering that strips recombinant soybeans of their heart protecting mechanism and genes that when added to foods develop proteins that cause new allergies for unsuspecting consumers.

"When it comes to foodstuffs, the exposure is involuntary," Asscher said. In 1998, genetically altered seed varieties accounted for 38 percent of the U.S. soybean acreage. Much of the corn grown in the United States contains genetically added Bt, a natural pesticide, which in one recent study was shown to have killed or made sick all of the monarch butterflies that ate it.

It's estimated that 60 percent of all foods on U.S. grocery store shelves includes some genetically engineered organism.

Monsanto, an industry leader in genetically modified crops, declined to comment but recently contracted with ConAgra Inc. for it to separate genetically altered corn from regularly grown corn and find markets for both.

"Monsanto has been doing it (altering crops) for about five years," Billings said. "They've clearly taken a hit in Europe and they were looking for a big market in Europe. They may be rethinking their model."

In a publication Monsanto called its "Biotech Primer" it acknowledged the argument that not enough is known about the impact of genetically engineered food but added, "There is...in spite of widespread research, still no evidence to support this view."

Asscher said U.K. consumers are "very sensitized" to the issue and will not accept genetically altered foods until the U.S. government takes action. Industry sources said they expect U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman within the next month to make a statement regarding product labeling of genetically altered foods.

"What he'll probably do is say that they're going to allow voluntary labeling of genetically modified-free products," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the International Center for Technology. "That significantly shifts the burden to those selling non-engineered foods."

With the next few weeks the ICT expects a summary judgment decision on its 1998 lawsuit against the government over genetically altered products. The case contends the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, under which the Food and Drug Administration operates, requires goods that are materially changed in any way be labeled and food additives be proved safe before marketed.

Mendelson said genetic altering materially changes crops, and genetic material is an additive so the government should require labeling and safety testing of such products. The FDA's position has been that it treats genetically altered goods the same as other commercially produced products and does not believe the statute requires labeling.

After the BMA issued a recent report calling for segregating genetically altered products and calling for a ban on such products in Britain if the United States refuses to comply, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) led the charge in the industry's defense.

"Countries are manufacturing trade barriers that hurt American farmers," Harkin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said. "These baseless accusations are blocking American farmers from selling their products in the global market."

The Senate's resolution urges the president to seek a consensus with major trading partners on the benefits of agricultural biotechnology, to ask for the adoption of rational, scientific systems for regulating such products, and to find ways to eliminate international trade barriers.

On Thursday in Washington, scientists, physicians, farmers and financial experts are expected for the first "National Summit on the Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods."
---
Copyright 1999 by United Press International
All rights reserved
---






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



Subject: UK government's GM policy in disarray
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:05:17 -0400

INDEPENDENT (London) June 17

Government's GM policy in disarray

By Paul Waugh and Michael McCarthy

THE GOVERNMENT'S policy on genetically modified foods was left in disarray yesterday after its own research found that GM crops could pollute other plants.

A report commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concluded it was impossible to guarantee that foods now sold as GM-free could remain completely uncontaminated. As revealed in The Independent yesterday, the research by the John Innes Centre in Norwich, Europe's leading GM research institute, states that contamination by either GM pollen or seed cannot be "entirely eliminated".

Both bees and the wind can carry pollen several miles, while seeds from modified oilseed rape could be accidentally dispersed during harvesting or transferred from machinery to non-GM fields, the report found. Crucially, its states that current "safe" planting distances, set at 200m for oilseed rape, should be increased if the organic farming industry is to maintain its "GM-free" certification.

It presents the Government with a simple but devastating implication: GM agriculture and organic food and farming cannot co-exist in Britain, and a choice will have to be made between them.

The former is one of the Government's pet projects; the latter is increasingly favoured by consumers. Environmentalists and organic farmers seized on the report as the first heavyweight proof of their claims that current voluntary guidelines for biotech giants are inadequate.

As they show that contamination can pollute any neighbouring crops, the findings also undermine recent attempts by supermarket chains and food manufacturers to declare themselves GM-free. Research by Friends of the Earth released yesterday also found that more than 90 of the UK's 1,000 organic farms are within a six-mile radius of the GM test sites set up by the Government.

Jeff Rooker, Minister of Sate for Agriculture, welcomed the "very valuable" report. He said that he wanted biotech firms and organic farmers to meet in the light of the report make sure adequate safeguards were put in place.

"There's no doubt about it, there is a case be be answered here for the future," he told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme. "We have to look at the results of this study to see what we can do with these trials to ensure that we get the best possible practical approach."

Mr Rooker stressed that the trials were needed to assess the impact of GMOs on the environment, but conceded that he was prepared to look again the guidelines in the light of the research.

But Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, said that the research proved that no crops grown in the UK could be described as GM-free.

"The Government has always said that they will only act on scientific evidence. Now their own research has provided irrefutable proof of the likelihood of contamination," he said.

"Tony Blair and his ministers are operating on a 'pollute now, pay later' policy. Farm-scale trial plots are rather like letting a rat with bubonic plague out into the environment and then seeing what happens."

Nick Brown, Agriculture Minister, promised earlier this year that the Government was "absolutely committed" to protecting the rights of shoppers who didn't want to eat crops that had been cross-contaminated.

Ministers came under further pressure on the issue yesterday when Greenpeace unveiled a new MORI poll showing that 74 per cent of the public were worried about contamination by GM crops. Most worrying for ministers, it shows that 81 per cent of Labour voters are concerned.

Doug Parr, director of Greenpeace, said that by allowing the trials, the Government was consigning the organic farming sector to its "death-bed".

"This research indicates that all crops, both conventional and organic, can be contaminated by GM crops. It proves that GM trials could be a complete nightmare for food producers who are desperately trying to sell GM-free foods," he said.

A BBC Newsnight survey published last night showed that two-thirds of Britain's largest farmers would not play host to a GM trial. More than half were worried about contamination on their land.

The report, "Organic Farming and Gene Transfer from Genetically Modified Crops", written by John Innes scientists Catherine Moyes and Philip Dale, was published yesterday by MAFF.

It makes clear it will be impossible to guarantee that organic fruit, vegetables and cereals, now sold as GM-free, remain completely uncontaminated.

The study examines in detail the risks of contamination from GM plantings, by pollen, which is carried by wind and by insects such as bees; and by seeds, which can be transferred to other crops by farm machinery, for example.

It reviews comprehensively the last 50 years' worth of scientific literature on how far pollen can travel and states: "Pollen concentration decreases rapidly close to the source but low levels can be detected at much longer distances. This is true for wind and insect-pollinated species."

Pollen from clover has been detected more than 1,600m from its source, from plants in the cabbage family 1,500m away, and from from beets and grasses at more than 1,000m.

Bees visiting onion flowers have been found to forage for distances of more than 4,000m, although the study that gave this data drew no conclusions on pollen dispersal, the report says.

Contamination by seeds is less frequent, as seeds are produced by the crop in much smaller numbers than pollen grains, but it can still occur at long range. "The agricultural environment does provide alternative mechanisms for long-distance seed dispersal," the report says, instancing transportation by sowing, cultivation or harvesting equipment which is not thoroughly cleaned between uses.

Even longer distances can be covered when spillages occur from harvested seed; this has happened with oilseed rape, which now grows wild in many places.






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



Subject: Petition to Congress seeks labels on transgenic foods
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 14:45:41 -0400

Headline: Petition to Congress seeks labels on transgenic foods
Wire Service: RTf (Reuters Financial Report)
Date: Thu, Jun 17, 1999

Copyright 1999 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved.

By Julie Vorman
WASHINGTON, June 17 (Reuters) - Nearly a half-million Americans urged Congress on Thursday to require labels on foods containing genetically-modified soybeans, corn and other ingredients, reflecting growing consumer unease around the world about transgenic crops.

A petition drive, coordinated by a little-known political party, is one of the first signs that U.S. consumer support for bioengineered crops may be wavering.

While activists in the European Union have lashed out for months against what they call "Frankenstein foods," American shoppers have been relatively complacent about the swelling numbers of farm fields planted with genetically-modified (GM) corn, soybeans, tomatoes, potatoes and other crops.

U.S. farmers, agribusiness and the U.S. Agriculture Department have embraced biotechnology to reduce the amount of pesticides and chemicals used on fields, and to increase the size and quality of crops. This year, more than 60 million acres of the nation's fields will be planted with GM seeds.

A petition, signed by nearly 500,000 consumers, was delivered Thursday to House Minority Whip David Boniors, a Michigan Democrat, by leaders of the Natural Law Party. The small party, linked to a group of transcendental meditation advocates in Iowa, said the sheer number of signatures shows that the issue is important to mainstream America."

"We are not calling for a boycott of genetically-engineered foods. We simply want labels on them so consumers can make a choice about what they buy," said Adam Dobritsky, a spokesman for the party. "We also want the government to conduct an investigation into the long-term safety of this food."

The petition comes at a time when more uncertainties are coming to light about transgenic crops.

Last month, Cornell University researchers found that while the crop "Bt corn" was safe for humans, its pollen could kill monarch butterfly larvae. Scientists in the study cautioned their lab tests did not duplicate real-world conditions.

Bt is shorthand for Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacteria found in the soil that is toxic to the European corn borer. U.S. farmers routinely sprayed corn and cotton crops with Bt to kill the pest until three years ago, when scientists added the Bt gene to seeds as a built-in pesticide.

"We're one incident away from having GM foods become a very big issue here in the United States," said the head of one large consumer advocacy group, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Unlike foodborne disease, where the government has rules in place to handle any outbreak, there is no real regulatory review process in place right now to keep up with all the biotechnology changes that are happening."

Currently, the U.S. Agriculture Department regulates field trials of new crops, the Food and Drug Administration handles food product labels, and the Environmental Protection Agency oversees anything related to pesticides.

U.S. food companies, worried about the EU concerns spilling into the American market, will soon launch a $1 million public education campaign on GM foods.

"We want to deliver all the information that consumers may want, through 800-numbers, pamphlets, Web sites and other materials," said Lisa Katic of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "We want them to know there is no significant difference between GM crops and conventional crops."

In contrast to growing concerns about transgenic food in the U.S. and widespread worry in Europe, Brazil last month ended its ban on the commercial planting of genetically modified crops. On May 17, Brazil approved the sale of Roundup Ready soybean seeds produced by the local arm of U.S. life sciences giant Monsanto Co.<MTC.N>

Per Pinstrup-Anderson, director of the non-profit International Food Policy Research Institute, said GM food labels may be a good idea in principle but are impossible to carry out. Oil squeezed from GM soybeans and corn is commonly used in cooking oil, salad dressings, margarines, chips, snacks and countless other processed foods.

"The government should promote a national debate with facts, not emotions," Pinstrup-Anderson said. "There is a good reason to believe that something similar to the public reaction in Europe will happen in this country over the next couple of years."

The U.S. government also should launch more research into potential risks created by inserting genes from known allergens such as peanuts into other crops, and the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes to test new plants, he said.

"I would not hesitate to feed GM food to my children and grandchildren," Pinstrup-Anderson said. "But as long as there are so many concerns about this, more research must be done." REUTERS





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



Subject: [G8] Leaders reject GM policing
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:56:09 -0400

GUARDIAN (London) Monday June 21, 1999

Leaders reject GM policing

Ian Black in Cologne

Leaders of the G7 industrial nations and Russia in Cologne failed to agree a French plan for a body to police world food standards, but compromised by setting up global scientific working groups to review genetic modification questions.

Tony Blair said at the end of yesterday's summit that he welcomed a decision to "evaluate evidence properly", saying people needed to know genetic modification issues were being carefully scrutinised.

"Given the controversy and debate over GM foods I think this is a worthwhile thing to do," he said. "The more people see what's happening around the world the better."

France's proposal for a world regulator did not win the support of the United States, where agrochemical conglomerates such as Monstanto and Novartis are based. But the summit directed the Organisation on Economic Cooperation and Development to "undertake a study of the implications of biotechnology and other aspects of food safety."

Lobbyists warn that the latest scientific developments are creating a future of dependency on GM crops before effective international safety measures can be put in place.

The French president, Jacques Chirac, initially called for the creation of an "international scientific high council", apparently supported by Britain, Germany, Italy and the European Commission.

On Radio France International on Saturday, Mr Chirac said it was important for "everyone to be able to feed themselves in complete confidence - which underlines the importance of a problem which has become a vital one today, that of food safety."

"It is a concern which requires serious attention at national level, which without doubt requires an organisational effort at European level, but which also requires an organisational effort at world level," he added.

France was recently hit by two food safety scares, and it now has a partial ban on imports of Belgian animal products following concerns over dioxin contamination.

French officials said that Mr Blair quickly backed Mr Chirac's proposal, but during the course of the weekend the idea was watered down.

The less ambitious result - OECD study groups - are expected to report by next year's conference in Japan.







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



Subject: U.S. RULING AIDS OPPONENT OF PATENTS FOR LIFE FORMS
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:22:44 -0400

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
17 June 1999

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has turned down a scientist's controversial request for a patent on creatures that would be part animal and part human -- bizarre life forms that no one has made before, but that might prove useful in medical experiments.

But unlike most patent office rejectees, the scientist, Stuart Newman, is celebrating. The New York Medical College biology professor never intended to make the animal-human hybrids. He applied for the patent to gain the legal standing to challenge U.S. patent policy, which allows patents on living entities.

The patent office ruled in part that Newman's invention is too human to be patentable. By doing so, it opened the door to a series of legal challenges available to all patent applicants -- a path that could lead to the Supreme Court.

Newman hopes his appeals will force a judicial and congressional reassessment of the nation's 19-year-old policy of granting patents on life forms. That policy, based on a single court decision, has provided the foundation for today's $13 billion biotechnology industry.

Some patent experts this week criticized Newman for "abusing" the federal patent review system to bypass the legal avenues by which patent law is normally made and changed. But even some critics confirmed that the strategy appeared to be working.

In particular, said John Barton, a patent specialist at the Stanford University School of Law, the ploy has forced the patent office to acknowledge the relatively thin legal ice upon which its policies on life patents rest. The ruling also reveals the agency's apparent uncertainty about just how human a creature must be before it is no longer patentable, Barton and others said.

The Patent Office has argued that to grant patents on people would violate the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery. But neither the patent office nor Congress has ever defined "human."

That question is of more than philosophical import today. Already, several patents have been allowed on animals containing human genes or organs. And just this week, scientists in Massachusetts said they were creating live embryos by combining cow and human cells.

"When we applied for this patent a year and half ago, people reacted to it as if it was some kind of science fiction scenario," Newman said. "Developments in the past year have shown that similar things are already on the table and being considered seriously."

In its rejection letter, the patent office says Newman's invention "embraces" a human being, but it does not say why other creatures with human components do not "embrace" a human being, said Washington patent attorney Patrick Coyne, who filed Newman's application.

"This puts a big question mark on all commercial interests involving human embryos and embryonic . . . cells," said biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin, a co-applicant on Newman's claim, who has rallied religious leaders against patents on life forms.

The agency concedes in its letter that in the Supreme Court's single foray into the topic -- a 5 to 4 decision in 1980 allowing a patent on a microbe -- the justices did not include humans on their list of nonpatentable life forms. But Stephen Kunin, the patent office's deputy assistant commissioner for patent policy, said the agency "believes" that Congress did not intend to allow patents on humans or on creatures that are essentially human when it passed the National Patent Act in 1956. The agency, however, offers no basis for that belief, Coyne said.

Biotechnology executives have said that without access to patents on gene-altered animals and other living entities, they would not make the investments needed to develop new drugs and other products. Yesterday, some criticized Newman's legal attack.

"The net outcome of this attempt may hurt valuable medical research and ultimately deny therapies for patients who need them," said Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Undaunted, Newman yesterday filed an appeal to the patent office.

"Private ownership of inventions is not the only way progress has been made in the history of science and the history of medicine," Newman said.

Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company






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



Subject: Brazilian Courts Suspend Release of Biotech Soy
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:28:53 -0400

Here's the press release from IDEC in Brazil about their court victory against RRS.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Brazilian Courts Suspend Release of Biotech Soy

In a major victory for consumer groups and ecologists who seek caution in the introduction of genetically modified plants and foods, Judge Antonio Souza Prudente of the 6th Circuit Court of the Federal Justice system in Brazil's capital city, Brasilia handed down a ruling on Friday June 18 in response to a suit by the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense. The ruling prohibits the planting and/or marketing of genetically modified Roundup-Ready soy. The judge required the Monsanto and Monsay corporations to submit an environmental impact study prior to any commercial-scale release of the product into the environment.

In a strongly worded opinion defending the principle of precaution, Judge Prudente states

"The questions raised by genetic engineering will not be resolved by the laws of market alone, rather they will resolved by the rigorous respect to the legislation which protect life, as established by our laws and Constitution.

The court order determines that:

1 - The sued companies, Monsanto do Brasil Ltda. And Monsay Ltda. Must submit an Environmental Impact Sudy prior to any approval of the product, in the form determined by Art. 225 of the Federal Constitution, as a pre-requisite for commercial scale planting of Roundup-Ready soy;

2 - The above-mentioned companies are prohibited from marketing genetically modified soybean seeds until such time as the competent public authorities issue technical regulations for biosafety and for labelling of genetically modified organisms;

3 - All commercial-scale cultivation of this product is suspended, until such time as the technical concerns expressed by renowned scientists with regard the possible deficiencies in the analysis by the National Comission on Biosafety (CTNBio) of the administrative petition for deregulation of the product, are duly clarified ;

4 - The sued companies must submit, within ten days, a certificate of of Quality in Biosafety - CQB, of Brazils laws on Biosafety (law 8974 of 1995 and Decree 1752 of 1995).;

5 - The CTNBio must submit copies of the Curriculum Vitae of all of its members for judicial verification of the qualifications required in the Biosafety laws, as well as copies of all of the documentation in the relevant administative files;

6- Requires that the Ministers of Agriculture, Science and Technology, Environment, and of Health by personally served with court orders that they may not authorize the sued companies to to engage in the planting or marketing of these products until such time as these judicial requirement are fully met, and suspending any such authorizations which may have been issued to date;

7 -Establishes a fine of 10 minimum wages per day (US$80) if these requirments are not met , to be paid by the infractors, be they public or private;

More information is available from (55) (11) 881-6073 or 3063-3717 from Alfredo Caseiro






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



Subject: Anti-WTO Forum: Bioengineering part of US / European Talks
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:48:03 -0400

Financial Times, Tuesday 22 June

US and EU promise to make a new start
By Guy de Jonquieres in Bonn

US and European Union leaders yesterday launched a series of initiatives intended to help relieve trade tensions between them, notably over food safety rules, and to prevent future economic and political disagreements damaging their broader relationship.

The plans, which also include a drive to liberalise bilateral trade in services, were announced after talks between US President Bill Clinton, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder of Germany and Jacques Santer, caretaker president of the European Commission.

A senior EU official said the meeting's harmonious tone reflected a decision by both sides to try to lower the temperature of their trade disagreements, because they feared imperilling co-operation on the planned launch this year of a new world trade round.

Although no breakthroughs were made at yesterday's bi-annual US/EU summit in trade disputes over issues such as hormone-treated beef, bananas and data protection rules, the US expressed particular satisfaction at the discussions on food safety.

Charlene Barshefsky, US trade representative, said the talks were the most constructive yet on the subject with the EU, which had reacted "very positively" to US demands that it makes its regulatory system more open and science-based.

In an apparent goodwill gesture, Ms Barshefsky said the US hoped to narrow substantially its ban on EU pork and poultry imports, imposed after the recent discovery of cancer-causing dioxin in Belgian livestock. A decision would depend on information that US food safety authorities were seeking from the European Commission and the Belgian government.

The US and EU plan to take a first step towards narrowing their differences about genetically-modified foods by conducting a pilot programme in which their regulatory authorities would evaluate in parallel new biotechnology products. Washington hopes the experiment will pave the way for regular exchanges about biotechnology and food safety between scientists on either side of the Atlantic. The US says it hopes the process will strengthen consumer confidence and force the EU to start reforming its food regulations.

The US and the EU agreed to try to head off future conflicts by setting up an "early warning system" to identify and trigger rapid consultations on policy, legislative proposals and regulatory proposals by one side which threatened to create problems for the other.

They also endorsed an outline framework for negotiating reciprocal liberalisation of trade in services through mutual recognition of each other's systems of licensing, certification and accreditation. Initial negotiations will focus on insurance and engineering and will involve US regulators responsible for these sectors.

The US and EU leaders also agreed there should be "one last attempt" to end the deadlock over the choice of a new head of the World Trade Organisation, but said unspecified alternatives would have to be considered if it failed. Ms Barshefsky said the leaders had not discussed whether to seek a compromise candidate for the job.






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



Subject: Rockefeller Foundation Asks Monsanto To Drop Gene
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:10:09 -0400

Wire Service: DJ (Dow Jones)

Rockefeller Foundation Asks Monsanto To Drop Gene


By Scott Kilman

CHICAGO (Dow Jones)--The Rockefeller Foundation, which funds research to help poor farmers in developing countries, is lobbying Monsanto Co. (MTC) to swear off use of the so-called terminator gene, which would make seed sterile.

Gordon Conway, president of the New York City foundation, is slated to address Monsanto's directors Thursday evening at a board meeting in Washington D.C. Conway was invited by Monsanto Chief Executive Robert B. Shapiro, who often has speakers address board gatherings.

Conway's speech is the first time the Rockefeller Foundation has taken a public stand on the terminator gene, and it is now the most prestigious organization to turn against it. Work on the terminator gene is controversial among rural development groups because it would prevent farmers from keeping some of their harvest for seed, a common practice in poor regions.

Many in the biotechnology industry say the terminator gene is necessary to prevent a black market in their patented seeds. But Conway told Dow Jones Newswires he is worried that the backlash over the terminator gene, which is years from reaching the commercial stage, is damaging public support for crop biotechnology in general, which might slow research that could benefit poor farmers overseas.

Monsanto would get access to terminator gene research through its proposed acquisition of Delta & Pine Land Co. (DLP), a Mississippi cottonseed company that developed it in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Monsanto said in April that it is consulting with several rural development and environmental groups about the ethics of the terminator gene. A company spokeswoman said Monsanto wouldn't put the gene into commercial seed until it had considered all viewpoints.

The Rockefeller Foundation is spending more than $100 million on crop biotechnology projects, many of which involve rice. One researcher, for example, is trying to modify rice so that it produces beta-carotene in the kernel, making it a cheap source of Vitamin A for people who don't get enough in their diets. Scientists funded by the foundation are also trying to modify rice so that it produces more dietary iron.

"We have a lot of people to feed and biotechnology is one of the answers," said Conway, who is a professor of ecology.

Conway said he's concerned that the controversy over biotechnology will prompt several nations to clamp down on research. The European Union, for example, has nearly stopped approving the commercialization of genetically-modified seeds.

"I'm very worried we'll see a movement to ban field trials," said Conway. "If we don't have field trials, we can't figure out the benefits and risks."

Conway said putting labels on foods that contain ingredients from genetically-modified crops would help ease consumer fears about the technology. Although the European Union is requiring such labels, U.S. regulators have determined that they aren't necessary because the technology is safe.

-By Scott Kilman; 201-938-5099

Copyright 1999 Dow Jones & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.





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



Subject: Independent g-e soy study
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 18:30:20 -0400

Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, authors of Against the Grain, have researched the changes to genetically engineered soybeans. This is an independent (noncorporate), peer reviewed study. It will be in print within the week's end. MONSANTO AND THE SOY INDUSTRY ARE ALREADY PUTTING A SPIN ON IT.

Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans

(Copyright (c) Journal of Medicinal Food, (Vol 1., no. 4) in press, Maryanne Liebert Publishers)

Marc A. Lappe, Ph.D., Center for Ethics and Toxics, Gualala CA
E. Britt Bailey, M.A., Center for Ethics and Toxics, Gualala, CA
Chandra Childress, M.S., Children s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH
Kenneth D.R. Setchell, Ph.D., Children s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH

Abstract
The growing clinical interest and use of soybean-based food products or extracts to increase dietary phytoestrogen intake makes the precise composition of the key biologically active ingredients of soybeans, notably genistin and daidzin of substantial medical interest. Conventional soybeans are increasingly being replaced by genetically modified varieties. We analyzed the phytoestrogen concentrations in two varieties of genetically modified herbicide tolerant soybeans and their isogenic conventional counterparts grown under similar conditions. An overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14 percent was observed in the genetically altered soybean strains. Most of this reduction was attributable to reductions in genistin and to a lesser extent daidzin levels, which were significantly lower in modified compared to conventional soybeans in both strains. Significant sample to sample variability in these two phytoestrogens, but not glycitin, was evident in different batches of genetically altered soybeans. Given the high biological potency of isoflavones and their metabolic conversion products, these data suggest genetically modified soybeans may be less potent sources of clinically relevant phytoestrogens than their conventional precursors. These observations, if confirmed in other soybean varieties, heighten the importance of establishing baselines of expected isoflavone levels in transgenic and conventional soy products to ensure uniformity of clinical results. Disclosure of the origins and isoflavone composition of soy food products would be a valuable adjunct to clinical decision-making.

AMERICAN SOY INDUSTRY'S RESPONSE

June 23, 1999

ASA Confirms the Natural Variability of Isoflavones in Soybeans

The American Soybean Association (ASA) is providing this information to journalists and broadcasters as background material in advance of a study to be published in the Journal of Medicinal Foods. A recently posted abstract of a study (Lappe, et. al.) to be published in the Journal of Medicinal Foods (Vol. 1, No. 4) claims that Roundup Ready(r) soybeans may have reduced levels of isoflavones. The authors further claim the implications are meaningful since isoflavones are potentially beneficial nutritional components in soybeans.

As a soybean organization responsible for the collection and dissemination of accurate information about soybeans and their uses, ASA believes it is important to inform you that the isoflavone content of soybeans between and within varieties does vary, so that people don't over interpret the results of this study.

ASA believes the Lappe study confirms what soybean experts already know well-that isoflavone components in soybeans are highly variable and well characterized in scientific literature. This natural variability is similar to the variability of micro-nutrients in any crop, and is greatly influenced by environmental factors. ASA has confidence in the regulatory reviews of Roundup Ready soybeans conducted by U.S. and global regulatory agencies and the underlying scientific studies that found equivalence in isoflavone content between Roundup Ready soybeans and conventional soybeans.

EQUIVALENCY

A study published in 1996 in the respected Journal of Nutrition (Padgette, et. al.) found that the isoflavone content of conventional soybeans versus Roundup Ready soybeans is comparable.

Roundup Ready soybeans are widely characterized as the most studied soybean ever grown by farmers, and were reviewed for equivalency by the U. S. Food & Drug Administration and other global agencies around the world. Over 400 individual components were analyzed in all - including isoflavone values - and the values all were well within a predictable range of variability for soybeans.

VARIABILITY

According to Dr. Stephen Barnes, professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Alabama-Birmingham, "The data analyzed by authors Lappe, et al. are well within the range of variability of isoflavones exhibited in any soybean variety."

Such variability of isoflavone content is common in soybeans due to individual varietal influences and environmental factors such as weather, soil, etc. Dr. Clare Hasler, Executive Director of the Functional Foods Health Program at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and a member of the Journal of Medicinal Foods' editorial review board, also expressed concern about the Lappe paper.

"Concluding that the results of the Lappe paper are biologically relevant would be inappropriate and misleading since the scientific literature clearly suggests that isoflavone amounts in soybeans can vary as much as 300 percent or more," Dr. Hasler stated.

Global experts in soy production and nutrition technology such as Dr. Stephen Barnes and Dr. Clare Hasler also have confirmed that variability of isoflavones in soybeans, whether conventional or Roundup Ready, are well established and within the typical range one would expect to see.

ENVIRONMENTAL

Recent research being prepared for publication by the University of Illinois shows that numerous environmental factors, such as weather during the growing season, and even the slope of the field where the soybeans are grown, can lead to variability in the isoflavone content of soybeans. "Variability is due to the varietal component and the environmental component," said Dr. Don Bullock, Associate Professor of Biometry, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "Right now, the environmental effect is far greater than the varietal effect."

BENEFITS

According to Dr. Hasler, the hundreds of studies conducted on soy and soyfoods have pointed to significant health benefits.

"This is a truly exciting time to be in the field of functional foods," said Dr. Hasler. "We've known for a long time that soy is a good source of nutrition, and now we're seeing promising results in the use of soy to prevent or treat a variety of diseases."

Seed technologies, such as Roundup Ready, have been embraced by farmers because these products offer the potential to reduce input costs, and provide increased production flexibility in conservation tillage practices. Work also is under way to produce soybeans with output traits that will directly benefit consumers.

ASA is a national, not-for-profit, grassroots membership organization with 31,500 members, affiliate offices in 26 states, and overseas marketing offices in 13 countries. The Association develops and implements policies to increase the profitability of its members and the entire soybean industry.

For more information contact these soybean experts: Stephen Censky, Chief Executive Officer
The American Soybean Association, (800) 688-7692,
<mailto:scensky@soy.org>scensky@soy.org
Dr. Clare Hasler, Executive Director, Functional Foods for Health Program
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (217) 333-6364,
c-hasler@uiuc.edu
Dr. Stephen Barnes, Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
The University of Alabama at Birmingham, (205) 934-7117,
Stephen.Barnes@pharmtox.uab.edu
Dr. Don Bullock, Associate Professor of Biometry
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (217) 244-8221,
dbullock@uiuc.edu
Dr. Patricia Murphy, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department
Iowa State University, (515) 294-1970,
<mailto:pmurphy@iastate.edu>pmurphy@iastate.edu
Dr. Pamela White, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department
Iowa State University, (515) 294-9688,
<mailto:pjwhite@iastate.edu>pjwhite@iastate.edu
KEY SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

Research data demonstrates that Roundup Ready soybeans and conventional soybeans are substantially equivalent in composition, safety and nutritional value.

RESOURCES

Composition studies show that isoflavone (also called phytoestrogen) levels are equivalent in Roundup Ready and conventional soybeans. Both Roundup Ready and conventional soybeans show a very wide range of phytoestrogen levels (5-6 fold) when grown under different environmental conditions.

Padgette, S.R. et al. (1996). The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. Journal of Nutrition 126:702-716 Data from 1992 and 1993 unsprayed Roundup Ready soybean and parental line (A5403) -9 locations, isoflavone analysis of whole grain and toasted meal showed wide variability (5-6 fold) but no significant difference between Roundup Ready soy and the parental line. The levels of isoflavones in Roundup Ready soybeans and conventional soybeans are the same, even when Roundup is applied.

Taylor N.B., R.L. Fuchs, J. McDonald, A.R. Shariff and S.R. Padgette. (1999). Compositional analysis of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans treated with glyphosate. Submitted Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry Data from the 1993 sprayed glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) soybean and unsprayed parental control (A5403) - 4 locations, isoflavone (6 components) analysis of whole grain. Study confirms that the application of glyphosate on Roundup Ready soybeans does not effect the levels of isoflavones or other nutritional factors. Site to site variability in isoflavone levels was high with data varying 4-7 fold, with no significant differences between Roundup Ready soybean and the parental line.

2. Isoflavone levels vary widely between soybean varieties and in soybeans grown under different environmental conditions.

RESOURCES

A single soybean variety contained isoflavone (phytoestrogen) levels that varied 3-fold from year to year. A 2-5 fold variation was observed between 11 US and Japanese varieties.

Wang, H. and P.A. Murphy. (1994). Isoflavone composition of American and Japanese soybeans in Iowa: Effects of variety, crop year, and location. J. Agric. Food Chem. 42:1674-1677. Isoflavone (12 components) levels measured in whole seed. Using a single variety over three years, total isoflavones were significantly different (varied 3-fold) from year to year. Analysis on 8 conventional US varieties and 3 Japanese varieties found wide variation (2-5 fold) in isoflavone levels that were significantly different between varieties. Brazilian conventional soybean varieties showed wide variability between varieties and differed significantly between years. The variability observed was 3-8 fold.

Carrao-Panizzi, M. and Kitamura, K. (1995). Isoflavone content in Brazilian soybean cultivars. Breeding Science 45:295-300. 22 conventional Brazilian soybean cultivars were analyzed for isoflavone content (2 components) over 2 years. Isoflavone content was significantly different among cultivars and between years and varied widely (3-8 fold). Total isoflavone levels varied 2-3 fold between 4 soybean varieties. This variability was attributed to climatic and environmental factors.

Eldridge, A. C. and Kwolek, W. F. (1983). Soybean isoflavones: Effect of environment and variety on composition. Journal of Agriculture Food Chem. 31:394-396. Total isoflavone (6 components) in whole beans was analyzed across 4 varieties and across two years. Values varied widely from variety to variety (2-3 fold) and there were also significant differences (3-5 fold) when the same variety is grown in different locations. "Significant variation among years suggests that unknown climatic and environmental factors contribute to variation in isoflavones". Additional supporting literature.

Fukutake, M., Takahashi, M., Ishida, K., Kawamura, H., Sugimura, T. and Wakabayashi, K. (1996). Quantification of genistein and genistin in soybeans and soybean products. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34:457-461.

Choi, J-S., C., Kwon,T-W. and Kim, J-S. (1996). Isoflavone contents in some varieties of soybean. Foods and Biotechnology 5:167-169.

Naim, M., Gestetner, B., Zilkah, S., Birk, Y. and Bondi, A. (1976). Soybean isoflavones, characterization, determination, and antifungal activity. Agric. Food Chem. 22:806-810.

3. Isoflavone variability is also observed in processed soy food products. A database is available that reports the isoflavone levels in food and food products. Isoflavones vary significantly in foods and food products. USDA-Iowa State University Database on the Isoflavone Content of Foods - 1999

Web address: <http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/isoflav/isoflav.html> A comprehensive database and analysis of isoflavone levels in the major food sources (legumes species and processed products) of phytoestrogens in human diet. Includes data reported from references with means, ranges, and statistics. Isoflavone variation of US commodity soybean showed ranges of 3.5 fold for genistein, 3.8 fold for diadzein and 3.3 fold for total isoflavone.

Murphy, P.A., Barua, K. and Song, T. Soy isoflavones in foods: Database development. In: American Chemical Society Symposium Series: Functional Foods: Overview and Diseases Prevention, ed. T.Shibamoto. In press.

Describes justification for, data compilation, variability, utility, interpretation and quality control of the database. Isoflavone levels vary by food product, sometimes as high as in whole bean and sometimes below limit of detection due to losses during processing.

Fukutake, M., Takahashi, M., Ishida, K., Kawamura, H., Sugimura, T. and Wakabayashi, K. (1996). Quantification of genistein and genistin in soybeans and soybean products. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34:457-461.

Describes levels of the phytoestrogens genistein and genistin in soybean, soy nuts, soy powder, soy mil, and tofu. Levels of genistein and genistin ranged from 4.6-18.2 and 200.6-968.1 ug/g food weight in soybean, soy nuts, soy powder and from 1.9-13.9, 94.8-137.7 ug/g food weight in soy milk and tofu. Studies show that significant isoflavone losses occur during processing of soybeans.

Wang, C., Ma, Q., Pagadala, S., Sherrad, MS. and Krishnan, PG. (1998). Changes of isoflavones during processing of soy protein isolates. Am. Oil Chemists Society 75:337-341. Mass balance changes during processing. Describes losses of isoflavone during different steps of processing of soybeans into soy protein isolates. Study revealed that only 26% of total isoflavone remained in final processing step.

Wang, H-J. and Murphy, P. A. (1996). Mass balance study of isoflavones during soybean processing. Agric. Food Chem. 44:2377-2383. Mass balance changes during processing. Describes losses of isoflavone during different steps of processing of soybeans tempe, soy milk, tofu and protein isolate.

Wang, H-J. and Murphy, P. A. (1994). Isoflavone content in commercial soybean foods. Agric. Food Chem. 42:1666-1673. Concentration of isoflavone was analyzed in 29 commercial soy foods. High protein soy ingredients had isoflavone levels similar to that to unprocessed beans.

EXPERTS

Dr. Clare Hasler* Executive Director
Functional Foods for Health Program
University of Illinois at Urbana-Chaqmpaign
103 Agricultural Bioprocess Lab. (M/C 640)
1302 West Pennsylvania Ave.
Urbana, IL 61801
217-333-6363
217-333-7386 fax
Dr. Clare Hasler is the Executive Director of Functional Foods for Health (FFH), a joint program of the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, dedicated to the improvement of human health through multi-disciplinary research, education and communication focused on the identification of safe and efficacious foods and other physiologically active natural products which may reduce chronic disease risk or promote optimal health. Her research has dealt with the health benefits obtained from consumption of soy protein products. Dr. Hasler was a recipient of the 1997 Illinois Soybean Association's Friend of Agriculture Award.

Dr. Patricia Murphy*
Professor, Food Science and Human Nutrition
Iowa State University, 2312 Food Science Building, Ames, Iowa 50011-1061
Phone 515-294-1970
Fax 515-294-8181
Dr. Patricia Murphy has been studying and testing isoflavones for nearly 20 years and has been in the forefront of understanding the role isoflavones have in human health. She is the developer of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Iowa State University Isoflavone Database, an authoritative database of the isoflavone content of human foods which will help scientists pinpoint which estrogen-like compounds -- isoflavones -- in soy foods may be responsible for a lower risk of cancer, especially breast cancer. A recipient of the Iowa State Board of Regents Faculty Excellence Award.

Dr. Stephen Barnes*
Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Pharmacology
Department of Pharmacology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Volker
Hall, Rm G010 UAB Station, Birmingham, Alabama 35294
Phone 205-934-7117
Fax 205-934-8240
Dr. Barnes is a recognized expert in the field of isoflavone analyticals and the role these compounds play in preventing cancer. Trained in London, England, he joined the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota in 1975. He has been at the University of Alabama-Birmingham since 1977 and is a Professor in the Departments of Pharmacology & Toxicology and Biochemistry & Molecular Genetics. He is also the Director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Mass Spectrometry Shared Facility.

Dr. Pam White* Department of Food Science
Human Nutrition Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa Phone 515-294-9688 Fax 515-294-8181
Dr. Pam White is a leading researcher in the area of the functional properties of foods, including soybean, corn and oats. Dr. White is former chair of the Department of Food Science at Iowa State University. http://www.oilseeds.org/asa/documents/isobkgndr.htm





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



Subject: Japan tightens rules on GM crops to protect the environment
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:37:43 -0400

Nature 24 June 1999

Japan tightens rules on GM crops to protect the environment

[TOKYO] Japan is to tighten its safety regulations on genetically modified crops following the publication last month of research suggesting that pollen from Bt corn could harm the larvae of monarch butterflies (see Nature 399, 214; 1999).

The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) announced last week that it will suspend approval of Bt crops for agricultural purposes until its committee on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has established criteria for evaluating the safety of such crops.

Japan has already approved the importation of six types of Bt corn for use as foodstuffs, but the commercial planting of seed produced by US companies, such as Monsanto, has not yet been approved.

Yutaka Tabei of the ministry's safety evaluation division says the harmful effect of Bt toxins on non-target insects was not entirely unexpected. "The results were not surprising, given that the butterfly larvae were fed leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn," he says. "But we must carry out further studies -- including those on the spread of pollen -- to assess any potential impact such crops may have in the natural environment."

There is a strong emphasis on the concept of 'substantial equivalence', under which GM foods are compared with analogous conventional foods in terms of characteristics such as toxicity and nutritional qualities. At present, the GMO committee predicts the potential ecological impact of Bt crops to be "negligible" in the natural environment. But it is emphasizing the importance of carrying out safety tests by simulating various environmental conditions.

The committee plans to release revised safety evaluation protocols by the end of this year, basing its final decision on safety studies carried out by Japanese institutions.

The move represents the first major step by the government to review the potential ecological risks of GM crops. Until the launch of a research project in April to examine the long-term effects of herbicide- and insect-tolerant crops on ecology and agricultural practices (see Nature 398, 655; 1999), the main safety concern about GM foods had focused on the risk to health.

Debates about GMOs had therefore centred on the labelling of products that contain genetically modified ingredients. Such foods are currently not labelled in Japan, and MAFF is expected to decide by the end of the year whether to require products containing GMOs to be labelled as such (see Nature 395, 628; 1998).

Japan's regulations on GMOs, which are overseen by the Ministry of Health and Welfare for food safety and by MAFF for field use, are based on guidelines set out by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Although MAFF requires farm-scale trials of GM crops, critics say these are inadequate, as its safety evaluation protocols overlook proper assessments for long-term and 'unexpected' risks to genetic diversity.

"Although MAFF's safety evaluation of Bt corn requires tests on its impact on non-target species such as mice and ladybirds, it excludes tests on butterflies by ruling out the possibility of pollen depositing on other plant species," says Setsuko Yasuda, director-general of Japan's Consumers' Association.

Many see MAFF's decision to review its safety protocols as a step towards gaining public support for developments of GM technology in Japan. Japan Tobacco are planning to develop GM rice, and other companies are embarking on research into GM trees for high pulp yield and insect-tolerant GM flowers.

ASAKO SAEGUSA





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



Subject: US Press Release - FDA Ignored Own Scientists
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:56:56 -0400

Alliance for Bio-Integrity
P.O. Box 110, Iowa City, IA 52244-0110
Tel: 515-472-5554; Fax:515-472-6431
<http://www.bio-integrity.org/>www.bio-integrity.org
Contact: Steven Druker, ph. 515-472-5554,
or Bob Roth, ph. 515-469-5081

For Immediate Release:

June 24, 1999

Lawsuit in U.S.A. Uncovers Disagreement Within FDA Over Safety of Biotech Foods

Agency Contradicted Own Experts in Approving Genetically Engineered Foods -- Misrepresented Facts in Order to Promote U.S. Biotech Industry

Statement by Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of gene-spliced foods, and an attorney on the case (in collaboration with the Legal Department of the Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C.).

In May 1998, a coalition of public interest groups, scientists, and religious leaders filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of all genetically engineered foods (Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et. al. v. Shalala). Nine eminent life scientists joined the coalition in order to emphasize the degree to which they think FDA policy is scientifically unsound and morally irresponsible. Now, the FDA's own files confirm how well-founded are their concerns. The FDA was required to deliver copies of these files--totalling over 44,000 pages--to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

False Claims and a Policy at Odds with the Law

The FDA's records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and (2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the same as natural ones.

Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based, this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed without testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by qualified experts.

FDA Scientists Protest Attempt to Equate Genetic Engineering with Conventional Breeding

The FDA admits it is operating under a directive "to foster" the U.S. biotech industry; and this directive advocates the premise that bioengineered foods are essentially the same as others. However, the agency's attempts to bend its policy to conform with this premise met strong resistance from its own scientists, who repeatedly warned that genetic engineering differs from conventional practices and entails a unique set of risks. Numerous agency experts protested that drafts of the Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential for bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in a different manner and to a different degree than do conventional methods.

According to Dr. Louis Priybl of the FDA Microbiology Group, "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document." He added that several aspects of gene splicing "...may be more hazardous."

Dr. Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, objected that the agency was "...trying to fit a square peg into a round hole ... [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices." She said: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."

Moreover, Dr. Jim Maryanski, the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, acknowledged there is no consensus about the safety of genetically engineered foods in the scientific community at large, and FDA scientists advised they should undergo special testing, including toxicological tests.

Misrepresenting the Facts in Order to Approve the Foods

Nonetheless, so strong was the FDA's motivation to promote the biotech industry that it not only disregarded the warnings of its own scientists about the unique risks of gene-spliced foods, it dismissed them and took a public position that was the opposite. Its official policy asserts: "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way...." Thus, although agency experts advised that genetically engineered foods should be subjected to special testing, the bureaucrats in charge of the policy proclaimed these foods require no testing at all.

Violating Federal Law

Besides violating basic canons of ethics, the FDA's behavior flagrantly violates the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which mandates that new food additives be established safe through testing prior to marketing. While the FDA admits that bioengineered organisms fall under this provision, it claims they are exempt from testing because they are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), even though it knows they are not recognized as safe even by its own scientists let alone by a consensus in the scientific community.

Further, the statute prescribes that additives like those in bioengineered foods can only be recognized as safe on the basis of tests that have established their harmlessness. But no such tests exist for gene-spliced foods. So, although the GRAS exemption was intended to permit marketing of substances whose safety has already been demonstrated through testing, the FDA is using it to circumvent testing and to approve substances based largely on conjecture--conjecture that is dubious in the eyes of its own and many other experts.

Consequently, every genetically engineered food in the U.S. is on the market illegally and should be recalled for rigorous safety testing. The FDA has deliberately unleashed a host of potentially harmful foods onto American dinner tables in blatant violation of U.S. law.

--END--





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



Subject: RRS: author response to soy industry spin
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:11:53 -0400

SOY INDUSTRY PUTS SPIN ON STUDY BY CETOS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Article

http://www.postnet.com/postnet/stories.nsf/ByDocId/1D5E6DE63325768C8625679 B003A08B6

American Soybean Association Articles
http://www.oilseeds.org/asa/documents/isoaddl.htm
http://www.oilseeds.org/asa/documents/isobkgndr.htm

Cetos Abstract: http://www.cetos.org/toxalts/abstract.html

Response from the CETOS staff
June 25, 1999

We are writing in regard to the article, "Experts take Biotech Critic to Task over Soybean Study," by Robert Steyer. The American Soybean Association (ASA) is going to lengths to make sure the soybean continues to achieve its status of miracle food. The soybean has been making headlines because it contains estrogen-like substances (phytoestrogens) thought to protect against breast cancer, osteoporosis, and heart disease. Of particular concern to our organization is that the soybean is being genetically altered to contain genes it otherwise would never contain, allowing the bean to withstand the overspray of Roundup herbicide. The beans we researched were Monsanto isogenically matched Roundup Ready varieties.

We thought it important for an independent organization to test Monsanto genetically altered soybeans for a few reasons. First of all, the studies submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for demonstrating the safety of genetically altered, Roundup Ready soybeans were conducted by Monsanto scientists and by direct association could lead to a conflict of interest. Secondly, we discovered that the tests they conducted on phytoestrogen levels were on unsprayed soybeans. In other words, the genetically engineered beans were not those typically found on supermarket shelves. The point of engineering soybeans to resist Roundup is that they are typically sprayed at least twice in a season with high doses of Roundup. As an organization critiquing the conversion and introduction of bioengineered byproducts into our food system, we found it ethically important to independently study and test the sprayed Roundup Ready varieties.

The results of our peer-reviewed research, "Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans", to be published in the Journal of Medicinal Foods (Vol. 1, No. 4 in press), found a significant reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14% in the genetically altered soybean strains. Significant sample to sample variability in two key biologically active components, genistin and daidzin, was evident in the two genetically altered Roundup Ready soybeans while the conventional varieties did not display as wide a variation.

While we shared our data months ago with Monsanto, its scientists prepared a paper for a potential simultaneous publication date. Monsanto's study to be published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (in press) claims the levels of isoflavones treated with glyphosate are "comparable to the parental soybean cultivar, and other conventional soybeans." We understand Monsanto found widely varying levels of isoflavones. We are also cognizant of the possibility that Monsanto's scientists used methods of extraction which are outdated. We understand the older methods of extraction have been replaced by newer methods which militate against the vast variations found in previous studies. The soybean's phytoestrogens used in our research were extracted using the new methods.

The American Soybean Association's website quotes many leading experts including Dr. Clare Hasler and Dr. Don Bullock. They state the levels of variation are well within the limits expected between soybean varieties. Dr. Hasler says, "isoflavone amounts in soybeans can vary as much as 300 percent or more." Dr. Bullock adds that soybeans vary in levels of phytoestrogens because of environmental factors, "such as weather during the growing season and even the slope of the field where the soybeans are grown". But the soybeans we tested were marketed as identical with the exception of an additional gene making it resist Roundup. The soybeans used in our research were grown in similar soil temperatures and climates.

While our independent tests found varying levels of phytoestrogens Monsanto scientists and other experts have been finding for years, we also discovered the ASA and others have been touting a product which according to them contains significantly unstable levels of plant estrogens. This point in and of itself warrants intensive investigation and research to assure that consumers do not receive products with widely varying levels of phytoestrogens. We are further concerned that the ASA and others find it perfectly suitable to push the Food and Drug Administration to allow the addition of health claims on soy products asserting protections against life threatening diseases while having full knowledge of the varying phytoestrogen levels present in soy and its products.

We have always believed in transparency of our work and were disappointed Monsanto scientists did not share their results with us. We believe the work we have conducted is an "initial" study and we would like to do more testing. Unfortunately, we are no longer privy to obtaining Monsanto's seeds. We were directly told by Hartz seed company (a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto) representative who graciously supplied us with seed for our initial study, that he was told he could no longer provide us with seed samples. Even if we were to obtain seeds the chances of finding isogenically matched varieties is becoming increasingly more difficult. When we contacted Hartz a few months ago, we were told there were 23 varieties of Roundup Ready soybeans and only 8 varieties of conventional. Even if we wanted to move beyond our 2 variety- triplicate testing, we would not be able to expand our research beyond the levels of seed available.

The FDA has allowed for the commercialization of Roundup Ready soybeans under the assumption that genetically altered soybeans were not significantly different than conventional counterparts. We found significant differences. At a minimum there should be disclosures of the origins and isoflavone composition of soy products, as well as further independent research to establish expected baselines of phytoestrogens in transgenic and conventional soy products and byproducts.

Instead of recognizing the critical importance of uncovering the basis of this extraordinary variability in the soybean, the ASA has apparently gone to extreme lengths to challenge our findings.

Sincerely,
Dr. Marc Lappe &
Britt Bailey

For More Information Contact:
The Center for Ethics and Toxics
PO Box 673
Gualala, CA 95445
707-884-1846 (phone and fax)
email: cetos@cetos.org






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



Subject: EU agrees on tougher food controls
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:23:51 -0400

INDEPENDENT (London ) June 26

By Stephen Castle in Brussels

TOUGHER controls on genetically-modified organisms were agreed by Europe's environment ministers yesterday as several countries threatened to block new applications from bio-tech companies until the regulations are in place.

In a marathon negotiating session which ended after 20 hours at 5.30am, ministers rejected calls from France for a formal moratorium on new GM applications, after British objections that such as move would be illegal.

However France, Italy, Greece, Denmark and Luxembourg made clear that they will form a blocking minority if further licences are sought between now and the date at which the new regime comes into force. With the measures requiring approval from the European Parliament, that will probably not be until 2002.

A spokesman for the European Commission, which has not granted an approval for more than a year, conceded that none are likely in the near future, although 11 applications from seven member states are in the pipeline. "For the last year it has not been possible to reach a qualified majority of member states," he said, "after the council meeting yesterday the chances of having a new release approved have not improved."

Diplomats argue that the current, de facto, moratorium will continue, even if there has been no formal declaration. One argued: "There will be a moratorium but, clearly, member states cannot say: 'we are not going to apply the law.'"

The declaration of war on GM applications from a range of countries is likely to strain transatlantic trade relations, and anger bio-tech companies such as Monsanto, which has been in the forefront of gene manipulation.

The ministers agreed to update the existing directive 90/220, including a new regime to continue monitoring GM foods once they come onto the market. They will have to have new "risk assessment" rules will be introduced to monitor scientific evidence.

Products containing more than a certain percentage of genetically altered ingredients will have to bear a label that reads: "This product contains genetically modified organisms.''

All new GM plants and seeds approved for sale will have to apply for re-approval after 10 years, scrapping permanent consent currently available.

Environment minister Michael Meacher said: "No-one can now and in the future seriously argue that the regulatory procedures are not tight, comprehensive and balanced and in my opinion very effective."

===============





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



Subject: Grocery makers enter debate on biotech
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:23:31 -0400

Washington Dispatch

D.C. CONNECTION : D.C. Connection
Bill Lambrecht And Deirdre Shesgreen

Grocery makers enter the debate on biotechnology

Some of your grocery money soon will sponsor voices in the emerging debate in the United States on genetically modified foods.

The Grocery Manufacturers of America, which represents more than 130 food producers, confirmed last week that it will spearhead a multimillion-dollar campaign to reassure people of the safety of genetically altered food.

Starting next month, the Washington-based trade association intends to assemble scientists, physicians and experts to convince Americans that food produced through biotechnology not only is safe, but may hold benefits.

The goal: forestalling the debate raging in Europe in which many consumers have demanded that modified foods be removed from the shelves. In the United Kingdom, several food distributors have complied.

Gene Grabowski, a spokesman for the grocers group, called the refusal by supermarkets to carry genetically modified foods "the outcome of a one-sided debate and the kind of shrill statements that are being made and accepted in some European countries."

Grabowski said that his organization wants to establish a forum for people to speak out, something that has become difficult in Europe. The grocers group will help experts work with news organizations and may sponsor conferences, Grabowski said.

"We want to create an environment where people are encouraged to come forward," he said. "It's very difficult in Europe right now to speak out about biotechnology without being jeered. We hope that situation won't arise in the United States."

WASHINGTON DISPATCH






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



Subject: France-US-Altered Foods
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:52:53 -0400

Headline: France-US-Altered Foods
Wire Service: APn (AP US & World)
Date: Tue, Jun 29, 1999

Copyright 1999 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

By SUSANNAH PATTON, Associated Press Writer

PARIS (AP) -- U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman met with French officials Tuesday to head off a potential trade dispute over the issue of genetically modified crops.

"(We're here) to deal with what looks like an impending train wreck between the United States and Europe on biotechnology," he told reporters.

After meeting with French Agriculture Minister Jean Glavany, Glickman said French and American agriculture officials will work together over the next 30 to 60 days to iron out U.S.-European differences over the marketing of genetically modified crops.

"The blood pressure is high on both sides of the Atlantic," Glickman said, noting that the United States has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in exports due to the biotechnology debate. "Unless there is some resolution, this will create more serious trade tensions."

Later Tuesday, Glavany said he had accepted Glickman's invitation to visit the United States later this year.

On Friday, European Union environment ministers agreed to tighten rules on trading and selling new genetically modified seeds in the 15-nation EU, but rejected a French moratorium on sales.

France had asked its EU partners to ban any new marketing of the crops, and has called for better labeling and uniform EU rules on production and marketing.

Glickman said the United States wants to work with France to help resolve the Europe-wide conflict because the country is known for its "leading role in European agriculture."

If the U.S.-French talks don't lead to a resolution, the U.S. "will have to consider what trade action would be appropriate," said Peter Scher, America's trade negotiator on agriculture. "But the reason we're here is to avoid that."

The U.S. administration believes genetically modified seeds pose no risk to the health of consumers. Almost 40 percent of some American crops are genetically modified.

There are currently 18 genetically modified crops approved for marketing in the EU. Four more are awaiting approval, but fears about genetically modified foods are rising across the EU, which has been hit by a series of food scares in recent months.

"Consumers have concerns and they have to be dealt with," Glickman said.

The United States is the largest producer of bioengineered crops. By breeding genes in crops, U.S. scientists say they have managed to improve taste and make plants more resistant to disease and insects.

Several European and Asian nations are implementing or proposing labeling laws that would distinguish foods containing genetically modified ingredients.





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





Subject: NEW USDA data on GE crops
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:59:37 -0400

Enclosed is a message from Jane Rissler (Union of Concerned Scientists) about a new USDA Economic Research Service report, "Genetically engineered crops for pest management," which was released yesterday. She does an alternative analysis of the data than the positive spin that USDA/ERS puts on it. You can find the full report at:
<http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/biotech/

The tables are quite interesting. You immediately notice that the GE crops don't do as well as the industry propaganda leads one to believe.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) has just released new data on the benefits of genetically engineered (GE) Bt and herbicide-tolerant crops. The new report, "Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management," contains data on pesticide use on GE crops in 1997 and yield of GE crops in 1997 and 1998. The report is available at www.econ.ag.gov/new-at-ers. Below I have summarized what I learned from the report. My summary is somewhat different from the ERS summary--which emphasized only the results supporting the view that biotechnology is good for the environment and good for farmers.

The data reveal a mixed picture of benefits from crops engineered to control pests. In some engineered crops in some regions, pesticide use may be reduced and/or yields may be increased. But in the majority of crops and regions surveyed, there are no statistically significant differences in pesticide use or yield between engineered and nonengineered varieties. In one case, pesticide use increased on the engineered crop and in another case, yield declined in the engineered varieties.

PESTICIDE USE

The ERS collected data on pesticide use in the 1997 growing season in several growing regions on the five most widely planted engineered crops: Bt corn and cotton, herbicide tolerant corn, and herbicide(glyphosate)-tolerant cotton and soybeans. All together data were collected on 12 region and crop combinations, i.e., Bt corn and HT corn in the Heartland, Bt cotton in three regions, HT soybeans in 5 regions, and HT cotton in 2 regions, and their nonengineered counterparts in all the regions.

In the 12 region/crop combinations, 7 showed no statistically significant differences in pesticide use on engineered versus nonengineered crops. Four showed significant reductions in pesticide use on the engineered versus nonengineered crops. In one region/crop combination, Bt corn in the Heartland, significantly more pesticides were used on Bt versus nonBt corn. Bt corn--data only from Heartland (IL, IN, IA, parts of SD, NE, MN, MO, OH, KY). The data on insecticide acre-treatments* for all insect pests, including Bt-corn pests, showed no statistically significant difference in insecticide use on Bt versus nonBt corn.

Bt cotton

--In the Mississippi Delta area, insecticide acre-treatment* for all insect pests on Bt and nonBt cotton were significantly different statistically--53% higher on Bt than on nonBt cotton.

--In much of the southeastern cotton-growing area, insecticide acre-treatments* for all insect pests on Bt and nonBt cotton were not significantly different.

--In the region encompassing the southwestern cotton-growing area, Florida, and parts of Texas, insecticide acre-treatments* for all insect pests on Bt and nonBt cotton were not significantly different statistically.

Herbicide-tolerant corn In the Heartland, there was no significant difference statistically between herbicide use on HT versus nonHT corn.

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans

Data from five growing regions showed a statistically significant decrease in three regions (51%, 23%, 20%) in herbicide acre-treatments for HT soybeans versus nonHT soybeans. For two other regions, herbicide use was essentially the same for HT and nonHT soybeans.

Herbicide-tolerant cotton

--In the Mississippi Delta, there was no significant difference statistically in herbicide use between HT and nonHT cotton.

--In much of the southeastern growing region, herbicide use was significantly decreased on HT versus nonHT cotton (a 22% decrease).

*An acre-treatment is the number of different pesticides applied per acre times the number of repeat applications.

YIELD

The ERS collected yield data in 1997 and 1998 for 12 and 18 region/crop combinations, respectively. The crops surveyed were Bt corn and cotton and HT corn, cotton, and soybean and their nonengineered counterparts.

In 1997, yields were not significantly different in engineered versus nonengineered crops in 7 of 12 crop/region combinations. Four of 12 showed significant increases (13-21%) in yields of engineered versus nonengineered crops (HT soybeans in 3 regions and Bt cotton in 1 region). One--HT cotton in 1 region--showed a significant reduction in yield (12%) compared with its nonengineered counterparts.

In 1998, yields were not signifciantly different in engineered versus nonengineered crops in 12 of 18 crop/region combinations. Six crop/region combinations (Bt corn in 2 regions, HT corn in 1 region, HT soybean in 1 region, Bt cotton in 2 regions) showed significant increases in yield (5-30%) of engineered over nonengineered crops. HT cotton (glyphosate-tolerant) was the only engineered crop which showed no significant increase in yield in either region where it was surveyed.
Jane Rissler, Ph.D.
Senior Staff Scientist
Union of Concerned Scientists
1616 P St., NW, Suite 310
Washington, DC 20036
202-332-0900 phone
202-332-0905 fax
jrissler@ucsusa.org






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





Subject: Biotech Goes Wild
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 20:31:50 -0400

<http://www.techreview.com/articles/july99/mann.htm>

Technology Review
July/August 1999

Biotech Goes Wild
Genetic engineering will be essential to feed the world's billions. But could it unleash a race of "superweeds"? No one seems to know. And nobody's in charge of finding out.

By Charles C. Mann

A few miles outside Sacramento, several large greenhouses sit behind a fence. In the summer the familiar heads of sunflowers are visible through the glass and in the fields surrounding the greenhouses. The plants are tall, straight and healthy, with thick leaves that reach for the California sunlight. They look exactly like sunflower plants grown throughout the United Statesoexcept for the plastic cages around each flower.

The flowers are covered by biologists at Pioneer Hi-Bred's research facility in Woodland, Calif., which owns the greenhouses, the fields around them, and the sunflowers in both. The plants are transgenicothat is, genes from other organisms have been inserted into their chromosomes. Caging the sunflower heads helps prevent the breeze from wafting genetically engineered pollen around the area, which would violate federal laws banning release of unapproved transgenic organisms. To protect Pioneer's trade secrets, the researchers are chary of discussing their work, but government permits suggest that the sunflowers in Woodland have been subjected to the full armamentarium of contemporary biotechnology. Pumped up by genes from as many as a half a dozen other species, the plants repel moths and viruses, fight off fungus diseases, and produce seed with a shelf life beyond that of their nonengineered cousins. To Pioneer, these super-sunflowers, as they are sometimes called, will be a small but significant step forward in the struggle to feed the world's exploding population, which is projected to level off at 10 billion or so. But to critics, theyoand the agricultural biotechnology that created themoare an ecological menace that will wreck the natural systems on which human life depends.

The battle between these entrenched views is fierce. In the last year, farmers and activists ruined five metric tons of transgenic seed in France, trashed fields of genetically altered crops in Germany, and convinced seven European supermarket chains to stop selling store-brand goods containing bioengineered products. This February, a coalition of 70 groups and individuals sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to block the use of a dozen transgenic crops as an "imminent" threat to the environment.

Even as the U.S. government promotes agricultural biotechnology, European countries are backing away from what activists call "Frankenfoods." Austria and Luxembourg have banned genetically modified corn; Norway has also outlawed the corn as well as five other biotech crops; France has prohibited all transgenic plants. To push the British government to enact a moratorium, Greenpeace dumped four tons of genetically modified soybeans outside 10 Downing Street in February.

Biotech's supporters, on the other hand, argue that it will create nothing less than a second Green Revolution. In the first, agricultural scientists used conventional breeding techniques to create the high-yielding strains of wheat and rice that have doubled world grain harvests since the 1950s. During that time the number of hungry people fell by three-quarters, according to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, despite a huge population increase. But global population numbers continue to rise, and researchers now must do it all over again. According to a projection released last August by the International Food Policy Research Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., world demand for rice, wheat and maize will increase 40 percent by 2020oand the only way to feed those mouths is through biotechnology. If activists succeed in banning transgenic crops, argues Robert L. Evenson, an agricultural economist at Yale University, they will end up "hurting the poor of three continents."

Caught between these extremes is a group of agricultural ecologists and plant geneticists who are trying to understand the implications of the new technology. Although some activists claim genetically altered crops are a direct threat to human health, researchers generally dismiss such fears: There is little evidence that transgenic genes, in and of themselves, are likely to be toxic or promote disease. However, biologists do believe that in some cases foreign genes in crops can pass into other, nonagricultural species, with potentially dangerous effects. "It's inevitable that they will get out," says ecologist Joy Bergelson of the University of Chicago. "That doesn't necessarily mean that there will be negative repercussions. But there could be some. And right now we don't know enough about what they could be and when they could occur."

"The technology is brilliant," says Paul Arriola, a plant geneticist at Elmhurst College, in Elmhurst, Ill. "In many respects, it's a godsend." Nonetheless, Arriola believes biotech is outpacing both the scientific understanding of its risks and the development of a regulatory apparatus to supervise its use. Because, in Arriola's view, "we don't really know what to regulate, or how to do it," the world is in the middle of "a huge, ongoing experiment. We could create a real environmental mess. And that could stop this technology from doing some real good."

Superweeds

The fight over transgenic farming is anything but academic. In 1996, the first year transgenic seed was widely available, farmers planted 1.74 million hectares (4.3 million acres) of the new varieties. This year, according to Clive James, head of the nonprofit International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications, as many as 50 million hectares worldwideoan area bigger than Germanyoare planted with genetically modified crops. "It's one of the fastest adoptions of technology I've ever seen," James says.

About three-quarters of that land is in the United States, most of it planted in bioengineered corn and soybeans. But the technology is growing even faster in Argentinaothe area the country devoted to transgenic soybeans tripled between 1997 and 1998. Although exact figures are not available, China, the world's biggest producer of cotton and tobacco, is, according to James, "aggressively increasing" the land planted with genetically altered versions of both crops.

By far the most important bioengineered trait today is herbicide tolerance, which accounts for two-thirds of all transgenic crops. A technology dominated by Monsanto, it lets plants withstand the use of selected weed-killing chemicals, so that farmers can apply them without fear of destroying their crops. Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soybeans, which resist the company's Roundup herbicide, were introduced in 1996; last year, they covered an estimated 10 million hectaresoa third of the U.S. farmland devoted to that crop. Next in importance is insect-resistant corn, including DekalBt corn, modified by Monsanto's recently acquired Dekalb subsidiary to produce a bacterial insecticide, and StarLink corn, produced by AgrEvo, a joint venture of German chemical giants Hoechst and Schering. Principally aimed at fighting off the European corn borer, transgenic corn last year occupied 6.5 million hectares in the United Statesoa fifth of the nation's total corn crop.

Moreomuch moreois on the way. As sales of bioengineered seeds rose from $75 million in 1995 to more than $1.5 billion last year, half a dozen huge companies in Europe and the United States positioned themselves to exploit a market that is widely believed to be on the verge of exploding. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture records, some 4,500 genetically altered plant varieties have been tested in this country, more than 1,000 in the last year alone. About 50 have already been approved for unlimited release, including 13 varieties of corn, 11 tomatoes, four soybeans, two squashes, and even a type of radicchio. Hundreds more are in the pipeline, among them plants that will produce industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals (see past issue "The Next Biotech Harvest").

This rush to market alarms some biologists, who believe transgenic crops are being released before the environmental implications are understood. The most immediate worry is whether genetically engineered crops will spontaneously breed with their wild relatives, creating hybrid "superweeds." Just as a single Brazilian bee researcher created a continent-wide nuisance by accidentally letting aggressive African bees hybridize with gentle domestic bees, the release of alien genes could, in theory, produce noxious "killer-bee" plants.

Surprisingly little is known about such natural hybridization, explains plant geneticist Norman C. Ellstrand of the University of California at Riverside. Until recently, agricultural scientists focused on protecting farmers; the small amount of hybridization research done in the past primarily concerned the introgression of genes from the wild into cultivated species, rather than the other way around. "People had the idea that [crop-weed hybridization] wasn't a very common or interesting phenomenon," Ellstrand says. "But when they finally got around to looking at it, they basically spent a lot of time being surprised at what could happen."

Initially, scientists thought genes were unlikely to flow from transgenic crops to weeds, because known crop-weed hybrids are often sterile. But last September, Bergelson and two Chicago colleagues startled researchers with a study of Arabidopsis thaliana, a mustard species often used as a test organism by plant geneticists. Usually, the plant pollinates itself, implying to scientists that foreign genes in transgenic A. thaliana would not escape by hybridization. But after the researchers planted ordinary A. thaliana, transgenic herbicide-resistant A. thaliana, and a naturally occurring, herbicide-resistant mutant variety, they learned that the transgenic plants were 20 times more likely to outcross than the mutantsothey were "promiscuous," as a headline in the journal Nature put it. "Nobody knows why," Bergelson says. "We're still trying to find the mechanism that drives the pattern we saw. There's a lot we don't understand, including how common it is."

The implications are ominous. A decade ago, for instance, European sugar beets spontaneously mixed with a wild relative, creating a hybrid species that is now a continent-wide problem. Whereas the sugar beet is biannualothe root is harvested at the end of the second year othe new weed is an annual. At the end of the year, Ellstrand says, "the root turns into a chunk of wood that damages farm equipment or gets into the sugar-beet processing plant and screws up the machinery. You can't kill it with an herbicide because any herbicide that gets the weed hits its relative. It's not until the thing blooms and flowers that you see it, and by that time it has set seed that gets into the beet field forever."

Transgenic crops have already shown the potential to create similar problems. The prospect of herbicide- or insect-resistant superweeds is particularly dismaying. In 1995, Monsanto and AgrEvo introduced herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus), the plant that is the source of canola oil. One year later, an 11-member team from the Scottish Crop Research Institute reported, to scientists' surprise, that pollen from oilseed rape fields can travel as much as two kilometers. At almost the same time, three Danish geneticists discovered that transgenic Brassica napus readily breeds with a weedy relative, Brassica campestris. The resulting plants look much like B. campestrisobut are unaffected by herbicides. Taken together, says Dean Chamberlain of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, the two reports "showed that hybridization is a real concern and that you need a very large buffer area around your plot to control it."

When Ellstrand reviewed the literature on the 30 most agriculturally important plant species, most scientists he consulted believed few hybridize easily. In fact, he found evidence that more than 25 of the crops can break the species barrier, sometimes with unrelated species. Included in that list is wheat, which Robert S. Zemetra and his colleagues at the University of Idaho reported in April can outcross with bearded goatgrass, a problem weed in the western United States.

"What really shocks me as a biologist is that you have two species with different numbers of chromosomes hybridizing," says Allison Snow, a botanist at Ohio State. "Goatgrass has 28 chromosomes and wheat has 42, but they can cross." Biologists have regarded viable offspring from such mismatches as almost impossible. As a result, they thought the range of species that could hybridize was limited. The goatgrass-wheat hybridization suggests that the range is bigger than had been thought.

"You get very low rates of reproduction," Snow says. "But when you're talking about acres and acres of wheat with goatgrass all around them, even a very low probability event can occur." If hybridization created insect-resistant goatgrass in areas where the weed's spread is naturally controlled by insects, she says, "that could end up being the only kind of goatgrass you have, and then you might end up with even larger infestations of it than we already have." Such fears are one reason that insect-resistant Bt cropsowhich contain genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensisohave been targeted by activists.

In the United States, transgenic corn is unlikely to pose much risk of hybridization because it has no close relatives. But Mexico has teocinte, the wild plant that may be the ancestor of modern corn. What would happen if Mexican farmers planted bioengineered corn? Could the new genes affect the fitness of teocinte, which some agricultural ecologists view as a potential storehouse of valuable genes for future corn breeders? "With the information we have now," Snow says, "it's hard to tell when the long-term risks are serious enough to ban certain crops."

Looming behind the ecologists' fears is the belief that molecular biologists who work with DNA on the laboratory bench don't understand fully how it behaves in the field. According to Rosemary S. Hails of the British National Environmental Research Council's Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology, "The risk assessment of transgenic organisms is a multidisciplinary subject, which should include ecologists, molecular biologists, agronomists and sociologists." Instead, companies tend to delegate decisions about the release of transgenic crops to molecular biologistsowho are not trained to appreciate the full complexity of how the genetic code interacts with environmental factors.

"How fast would a new weed get around?" Snow asks. "Nobody really knows. I'm sort of assuming that most of these crops will be approved eventually and people like me will study what the consequences are. Then, after the cat is out of the bag, we may figure out how to regulate this technology."

A Hungry World

Given these risks, why do so many of these scientists support the continued development of agricultural biotechnology? One answer is witchweed. Witchweed, the common name for three species in the genus Striga, is a parasitic plant that feeds on the roots of cereals and legumes in much of Africa. Attacking maize, sorghum and milletothe continent's three most important cereal cropsoStriga, in the view of Gebisa Ejeta, an agronomist at Purdue University, is a "scourge" of African agriculture. It has been estimated that the weed destroys 40 percent of the continent's total cereals harvestoa staggering loss in the world's hungriest places. >From a biological perspective, Striga is fascinating. Its seeds, smaller than grains of sand, lie dormant for as long as 20 years, waking only when aroused by a chemical emitted by the roots of the host plant. While still underground, the parasite plants develop root-like organs called haustoriums, which penetrate the host roots and siphon nutrients. Scores or hundreds of Striga plants can attack the same host. Witchweed eventually grows into fields of five-foot-tall plants with pretty pink flowers, but by that time it has long destroyed the crops it feeds on. Because each plant produces as much as 100,000 seeds, witchweed is almost impossible to eradicateothe United States spent four decades wiping out a single small outbreak in the Carolinas.

Because witchweed rapidly adapts to new hosts, losses in Africa keep growing. When the parasite made it impossible to grow sorghum in eastern Sudan, desperate farmers tried to grow pearl millet. At first millet was immune. But within a few years witchweed was wreaking havoc on the new crop, too. "People are literally starving because of Striga," says Ejeta.

Ejeta and several other Purdue scientists have spent years trying to breed varieties of sorghum that produce low levels of the chemicals needed to germinate Striga. But parasite-infested cropland has such dense concentrations of fallow seeds that even the improved varieties can be "overwhelmed," according to Fred Kanampiu, an agricultural researcher in Kenya for the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, a Mexico-based laboratory that is usually known by its Spanish acronym of CIMMYT. "The solution is obvious," Kanampiu says. "Herbicides kill witchweed. But unless we can engineer herbicide-resistant sorghum, the herbicides also kill the crop."

Another "obvious" example of the need for biotech in poor countries is broomrape, according to Jonathan Gressel of the Weizmann Institute's Department of Plant Genetics in Israel. The common name for several parasitic species in the genus Orobanche, broomrapeothe name, Gressel says, comes from its effects on a legume called broomoplagues vegetables, sunflowers and grain legumes throughout the Middle East. Like its cousin Striga, Orobanche produces tens of thousands of tiny seeds that lie dormant, ruining all attempts at planting the land. "The seeds are the size of talcum powder, maybe 50 cells per seed," Gressel says. "How they can live for 20 years is beyond me." Methyl bromide, the only available treatment, is expensive, not terribly effective and toxic. "The activists want to ban biotech and herbicides and have farmers pull out the weeds by hand," he says.

According to economists, witchweed and broomrape epitomize the most important potential targets of agricultural biotechnology: the problems of farmers in developing nations. "At first blush you look at this technology and you say this is the last thing that's appropriate for poor farmers," says James of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications. "It's proprietary, so farmers have to buy seed they now get for free, it's developed by industrial countries, so money flows from the poor to the richoit must all be ill-suited for developing countries. But when you look at it carefully, the specs of the technology allow you to fit almost exactly what the small farmer needs."

The original Green Revolution crops depended heavily on irrigation, artificial fertilizer and chemical pesticides. By contrast, James says, the fruits of bioengineering are encapsulated in "the simplest technology of allothe seed." Pest-resistant seed corn, for example, needs no costly spraying equipment, is not very complicated to grow, and releases little toxin into the environment. Because poor countries often owe their poverty to bad soils or lack of agricultural water, James believes they will disproportionately benefit from bioengineered crops that can grow in barren land or stand up to drought.

"People in developed countries spend a relatively small part of their budgets on food," says Evenson, the Yale economist. As a result, he argues, productivity increases from transgenic crops will not mean much to Europe or the United States. "We can afford to throw away the technologyoit's a luxury for people who already have enough to eat." The situation is different for the destitute. "In some places," Evenson says, "you can get food being more than 75 percent of people's budgets. In rice-based areas, you'd have half of that being on rice. So if rice prices are 20 percent higher than they would otherwise be, it's not a small thing." Last October, he presented a model that, among other things, projected an increase in global malnutrition from stopping biotechnology for 10 years. The exact tally of the starving, he says, "depends on the assumptions, but they are never something to ignore."

"What really bothers me is the increasing opposition, especially in Europe, to using biotechnology for agriculture," says Per Pinstrup-Anderson, director-general of the International Food Policy Research Institute. Although some activists believe that the potential side effects make transgenic research unethical, Pinstrup-Anderson argues that the ethical considerations cut both ways. "It's probably more unethical to withhold solutions to food problems that cause children to die," he says. "I don't want to be melodramatic but there are several hundred million hungry people in this world."

"Biotech will be a contributor in the future to increasing yields enough to make the world's food supply keep up with population growth," says Stephen Padgett, a chief agricultural researcher at Monsanto. "It won't do the job alone, but it's a crucial part of the effort." Even in the best of circumstances, though, making Padgett's predictions come true will not be easy.

India, for example, initially embraced the new techniques. With the active support of the state, half a dozen Western firms set up collaborative research projects with Indian institutions. In the most well-known of these efforts, Mahyco, the nation's biggest seed company, joined forces with Monsanto to develop insect-resistant cottonoIndia is one of the world's leading cotton producers. High-intensity cotton farming is notoriously risky to the environment; in India, according to C.S. Prakash of the Tuskegee Institute's Center for Plant Biotechnology, the crop covers just 5 percent of the agricultural land but accounts for 50 percent of the country's insecticide use. Yet the initial tests in India of cotton bioengineered to resist bollworm caused violent controversy. As a rule, farmers license, rather than own, the seeds for transgenic crops. For this reason, they are not allowed to save the seed from one year's harvest to plant in their fields the next year. Critics both inside and outside India argue that this removes one of the foundations of rural agriculture, forcing smallholders into colonial dependence on rapacious multinationals. The companies respond that the increased yield and decreased costs from biotech will more than make up for the price of the seed each year.

In some instances, however, the big companies think the benefits don't outweigh the costs. In the early 1990s, Pioneer Hi-Bredothen the world's biggest seed company, now a subsidiary of DuPontodeveloped exactly the kind of transgenic, herbicide-resistant sorghum that could fight off attacks of Striga. Then Arriola, the Elmhurst geneticist, demonstrated in 1996 that sorghum easily hybridizes with Johnson grass, a weedy relative that has become an ecological pest in the United States since its accidental introduction from Africa in the mid-1800s. The hybrids, fertile and vigorous, looked very much like Johnson grass.

Because herbicides are almost the only successful means of eradicating Johnson grass, an herbicide-resistant strain would have a major selective advantage. "It would spread," Arriola says flatly. "It could create huge losses." The findings, he says, surprised the molecular biologists; fearful of inflicting ecological damage in North America, Pioneer soon stopped working on transgenic sorghumopostponing the day, perhaps, when Africa can feed itself.

"We're talking about long-term ecological problems," Arriola says. "But how do you look somebody in the eye and say we are not going to develop this crop and feed these people today because we might create some long-term problems in the future? Maybe transgenic sorghum is so risky that everyone knows it just isn't worth it. But how do we make that decision in other cases?"

Who's Watching the Greenhouse?

The uncertainty is due, in part, to the lack of a rigorous regulatory framework to sort out the risks inherent in agricultural biotech. The plastic cages covering the heads of the sunflowers help keep the transgenic pollen out of the environment, a general requirement for obtaining a federal permit to grow a test crop of bioengineered plants. But other than monitoring the plots, the government imposes few conditions on biotech tests. The main reason is that Congress has not passed any specific environmental law for genetically engineered agriculture. Instead, transgenic crops are evaluated by three overlapping federal agencies: the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Agriculture.

Each government agency has a different statutory responsibility, which sometimes leads to anomaliesoand gaps in regulations. The FDA, for example, doesn't look at the safety of foods that have been engineered to express pesticides, because pesticides are by law exempt from the agency's purview. Nor does the EPA, which is required to treat such foods as pesticides. Because pesticides, of course, are toxic substances, the agency only establishes human "tolerances" for each compound. (Responding to critics' concerns, the agency announced this spring that it may rethink its approach.) For its part, the USDA simply tries to make sure that the crop grows in the way that the manufacturer says it will. The disjointed legal mandates, observes EPA biotechnology adviser Elizabeth Milewski, "make life interesting."

One worrying consequence of this patchwork of regulations is that no one has direct responsibility for looking at long-term effects on the environment. "We have a first-approximation understanding of the population biology of these plants and the insects, microbes and virus populations," says Neal Stewart, a biologist at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. "But we know very little about the community ecology and virtually nothing about the ecosystem ecology of what these genes will do. And we are not pursuing this knowledge actively." Stewart's concerns bore fruit in May, when Cornell scientists reported that pollen from Bt corn can kill the caterpillars of monarch butterflies.

According to Sally McCammon, science adviser to the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, biotech field trials can be of any size and last for any length of time, though one or two years is the standard. From the companies' point of view, the tests are efforts to learn whether new crop varieties will perform as intended. The government's main job, McCammon says, "is to certify that the test is biologically contained." Transgenic plants must be kept apart from plants they might cross-pollinate. "Afterwards you have to account for it," McCammon says. "We make sure that you bag what you take out and that the plant material is plowed under."

These measures are necessary, to Snow's way of thinking. But by ensuring that transgenic genes won't escape into the environment, they also make it impossible to learn what will happen if they do. "The ecological questions don't even get touched," she says. "In fact, it's illegal to touch them." She believes that the environment and industry would be better served by introducing a second level of testing devoted to ecological questions. Another step, in her view, would be to fund academic research into the ecological hazardsocurrently the sole source of federal funds, the biotechnology-risks panel of the USDA, has a budget of less than $2 million.

Technical controls may also be possible, says Gressel of the Weizmann Institute. Most transgenic crops today have a single foreign gene. But companies are already working on inserting several genes simultaneously into the plant's genome. In a May article in the journal Trends in Biotechnology, Gressel argues that if these multiple genes were inserted in close proximity to each other on the chromosome, potential hybrids would inherit all of them at once. And if the secondary genes coded for traits such as preventing dormancy, the hybrids would be less, not more, dangerous than their wild parents. For crops, the inability to lie dormant doesn't matter, because the seed is harvested and replanted each year. But a weed that is unable to produce seed that can remain dormant until an opportune time to germinate is at a significant disadvantage. "The hybrid weed will be weaker, not stronger," Gressel says.

"I'm more worried about the future than the present," Ellstrand says. "So far it's okayowe don't have killer tomatoes flying through the air. But we need to be thoughtful and careful about what we're doing, and there are some people and some portions of the industry where they have a better tradition of that than others. People who have worked with plants outside in real life seem to have a better handle on it than people who have worked with chemicals all their life. If we keep paying attention to what's happening in the field, we might be able to make this technology realize its promise."

Charles Mann is a contributing editor at The Atlantic Monthly and Science. He wrote about the free software movement in the January/February issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell Us What You Think Is the potentially huge benefit of biotech worth the risk? Who should be in charge of making sure that new technologies such as this one don't cause more harm than good? Share your ideas and opinions with other readers and writer Charles Mann in our TR Forum.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links

* Rural Advancement Foundation International
* Biotechnology Industry Organization
* Monsanto
* AgrEvo plant biotechnology information
* Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to sidebar: "The Terminator Tackles Seed Pirates"
Return to Articles Online Main Page





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



Subject: You say potato, they say pesticide
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:18:27 -0400

FRONT PAGE of the San Francisco Sunday Chronicle/Examiner July 11, 1999

You say potato, they say pesticide
You're probably already eating in the brave new world of biotech foods

By Jane Kay EXAMINER ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER

The popcorn at your movie house could be made from plants designed to fight off a voracious pest called the corn borer. Your baby's formula could come from soybean plants biologically transformed to withstand the herbicide Roundup. The bags of potato chips on your grocer's shelves could be sliced from spuds containing a gene that poisons Colorado potato beetles.

A dramatic increase in reliance on genetic engineering may be helping produce bumper crops, but it also is raising concern that labeling laws are weak and that too little is known about potential effects on humans and the environment.

As of last year, growers in the United States, Argentina, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Spain, France and South Africa dedicated 69.5 million acres to genetically modified crops, a 16-fold increase over just two years, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, an industry institute to promote new technology.

In the United States, which represents three-fourths of the world's agricultural acreage, altered corn accounted for 40 percent of the total crop planted this year, up from 26.5 percent the year before. This year, for the first time, canola farmers planted 300,000 acres of engineered plants. Acreage devoted to a wide range of engineered crops from papaya to radicchio to squash is expanding.

In opposition, consumer groups are citing a startling Cornell University lab experiment last May in which pollen from a corn plant altered to eradicate corn borers killed Monarch butterfly larvae. If the butterfly might succumb, they reason, what might happen to humans who consume a lifelong diet of such crops? And what might happen to beneficial insects and wildlife in the environment?

The questions are pitting consumers against the agricultural industry and the U.S. government, which insist that food from genetically modified crops primarily corn, soy beans, cotton and potatoes is no different and requires no special tests or labels.

'Frankenfood'

Opposition is swelling in Europe, where the term "Frankenfood" has entered the lexicon; some major supermarket and fast-food chains have promised to rid themselves of the products; and Italy, Greece, France, Luxembourg and Denmark are blocking authorization of new genetic crops in fields and markets of European Union nations.

The resistance may be spreading.

"U.S. consumers, too, are demanding mandatory labeling and mandatory testing for environmental and human health effects," said biologist Michael Hansen, research associate at Consumers Union's Consumer Policy Institute.

The biotechnology industry, led by Monsanto, Novartis, Dow, DuPont, AgrEvo and Zeneca, calls rising criticism in Europe "hysteria and hype" from the food scare over "mad cow" disease in England and dioxin in feed, poultry, beef and butter in Belgium.

The corporations and some universities say the U.S. government is watching over our food supply, the safest in the world. There's no reason to do special tests on food or label genetically engineered ingredients because the crops are virtually unchanged from conventionally bred crops, they argue. "A tomato is a tomato is a tomato," said Brian Sansoni, senior manager of public policy communications for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, some of whose largest corporate members are biotech companies.

"A tomato that is produced conventionally or a tomato that is developed through biotechnology, the product is the same. Both products are safe."

Genetic engineering has come into practice over the last 20 years. Most commonly, bacteria, viruses, and genes from tobacco or petunia plants are inserted into soy, corn, cotton and canola so that plants can survive field applications of weed killers. Or a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, a bacteria found in soil, is inserted into corn, cotton andpotatoes to produce a protein toxic to pests that feed on them.

A need for labeling?

Numerous polls over the past four years have revealed consumer demand for labeling of genetically modified foods, a step the industry is fighting. The last survey by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, conducted on 604 New Jersey residents in 1995, found that 84 percent of those polled wanted mandatory labeling of engineered fruits and vegetables.

In interviews, major food companies Frito-Lay, General Mills, Gerber, Heinz, Kraft, Nabisco, Pillsbury, Procter & Gamble, Quaker and Ross Products Division of Abbott Laboratories said they accepted genetically engineered ingredients for their food products. But consumers can't go into stores or call industry trade groups to secure a list of engineered brands, complains GeneWatch, a bulletin of the Council for Responsible Genetics, a Cambridge, Mass., nonprofit organization.

"People have a right to know what they're buying in a transaction," said Philip Bereano, a professor of technical communication at the University of Washington who writes for GeneWatch. "They have a right to spend their dollars in accordance with their preferences, even if their preferences were irrational," Bereano said.

The companies have lobbied successfully against labels before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulates food additives, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides.

Val Giddings, vice president for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said, "We've worked for a long time to come up with a labeling policy that we know will convey useful information about nutrition and health. "For the government to require labeling (of genetically engineered products) would be to suggest a safety or health difference where there isn't one. There's no good reason to do it."

Gathering and providing a list of altered foods would be impractical, said Sansoni of the Grocery Manufacturers. "The list would be too long," Sansoni said. "About 25 percent of corn, 38 percent of soybeans, 35 percent of canola and 45 percent of cotton crops are derived from biotechnology."

"In the U.S., companies aren't really set up for segregation," Sansoni said. "It would be enormously expensive. The products are mixed in with products that contain ingredients that are not genetically enhanced."

In May 1992, then-Vice President Dan Quayle announced a long-awaited U.S. policy: Genetically engineered crops, judged by government scientists to be no different from plants bred traditionally, would need no extra government scrutiny. The processed food made from the crops wouldn't require labeling or special testing before going to market.

The FDA doesn't test bio-engineered foods before they go to the public, deeming them not "materially" different from other foods. If the foods later pose a risk to public health, the FDA has the authority to remove them from the marketplace. FDA representatives say they would require labeling only if genes from plants that could cause allergies were engineered into a crop.

"The only way to be assured of not consuming genetically engineered food is to only buy food that is certified with an organic labeling," Bereano said.

Potato listed as a pesticide

Some foods, such as Monsanto's New Leaf potato, are actually registered with the EPA as a pesticide every part of it can kill a Colorado potato beetle. As a result, it comes under the regulatory jurisdiction of the EPA, not the Food and Drug Administration.

Kathleen Knox, deputy director of EPA's Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, said the agency "regulates biopesticides as we regulate other pesticides. We do the equivalent that we do for any other pesticides."

In the case of the bacterium Bt, she said, "We believe it's safe in the food supply. We certainly have looked at many factors, and we make sure things are adequately tested, particularly the things we've registered so far. We've collected data, done risk assessments. We continue to monitor what's going on in the field."

Hansen, of the Consumer Policy Institute, said neither the EPA, the FDA nor the USDA required adequate testing. "If you look at the FDA requirements carefully, you'll see that the industry is on the honor system," Hansen said. "There is no mandatory safety testing of food before it's put on the market. Bt crops aren't even regulated by the FDA. Legally, those crops aren't considered food but pesticides, which are regulated by the EPA."

But the EPA doesn't test the safety of the engineered plant itself the potato with Bt in it, Hansen said. The EPA tests Bt in isolation. Further, the studies are flawed because they don't use Bt toxin produced by the plant but use the Bt toxin produced by engineered bacteria, which is different, he said.

While proponents of genetic crop engineering say the selection of genes is precise, critics say inserting a gene into a living cell is highly imprecise, with no control over where in the DNA the new gene is implanted. This can disrupt the natural genetic information encoded in the DNA of a new plant, leading to unexpected and unwanted effects, including potentially increasing toxin levels, changing nutritional values or introducing allergy-causing properties.

"When you insert a gene into a DNA by using genetic modification, you have no idea where the gene goes it's absolutely a shot in the dark," said molecular biologist John Fagan, founder of Genetic ID Inc., a Fairfield, Iowa, laboratory. The lab tests foods for the presence of genetically engineered materials. His clients include many large food retailers in Europe that have promised to start weeding out modified foods.

"These random mutagenic events can cause plants or crops to produce new toxins, new allergens or they can reduce the nutritional value of the food," Fagan said. Because the toxins or other properties may be new, he said, there's no way to predict their effects. "The only way to detect them will be actual feeding studies with paid human volunteers," he said. "They do this for drugs and new food additives, and yet these tests are not required of the agricultural biotechnology industry.

The FDA's own scientists have expressed serious concerns about this." New studies are raising questions, said Fagan, who for nearly 20 years, including seven years at the National Institutes of Health, has used genetic engineering techniques in basic research.

A preliminary study by the Center for Ethics and Toxics in the North Coast town of Gualala, published July 1 in the Journal of Medicinal Food, found that soybeans altered to withstand Roundup might be nutritionally inferior to conventional soybeans. The altered soybeans contain reduced levels of phytoestrogens, substances in plants that are credited with guarding against heart disease and cancer, among other health benefits.

In a 1998 preliminary study at Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, rats fed genetically modified potatoes suffered damaged organs and stunted growth compared with rats eating normal potatoes.

A review panel formed by the Royal Society, a scientific body, challenged the research. Researcher Arpad Pusztai has said the panel hadn't looked at his recent data.

Are there environmental effects?

Critics complain there is little study on the environmental effects of genetically altered plants. The Cornell University experiment was an exception.

"That tiny little Monarch butterfly experiment, one that any high school student could have done? Well, those studies weren't being done," said Ignacio Chapela, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at UC-Berkeley.

Researchers report that two beneficial insects that attack pests ladybugs and green lacewings also might be victims of the crops designed to kill the corn borer and the Colorado potato beetle.

The Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture found in 1998 that green lacewings suffered a two-thirds increase in death rate when they fed on army worms eating corn engineered to contain a bacteria toxic to crop pests.

The Scottish Crop Research Institute in Dundee concluded the same year that female ladybugs that ate aphids that had fed on genetically modified potatoes laid fewer eggs and lived only half as long as the average ladybugs.

In May, the British Medical Association warned that it was far too early to know whether genetically modified foods were safe. It opposed rapid introduction of the crops into Great Britain and advised a ban on imported foods if they weren't clearly labeled.

"We should follow the old public health tradition now being used in Europe, called the precautionary principle, which embodies the age-old wisdom of 'look before you leap,' " said Bereano, of GeneWatch. "If there's a lot of uncertainty, the prudent course of action is to assess the product before sending it out for mass consumption.

"The burden of proof should rest on the proponent of the new technology."

======================================================




Subject: Bt-treated crops may induce allergies
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:30:50 -0400

Bt-treated crops may induce allergies
by Janet Raloff SCIENCE NEWS July 3, 1999

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a moth-killing bacteium that farmers use as an insecticide has been considered non-toxic to all but a few types of insect larvae. It may pose some health risk for people, however. A new study of Ohio crop pickers and handlers finds that Bt can provoke immunological changes indicative of a developing allergy. With long-term exposure, affected individuals might develop asthma or other serious allergic reactions, notes study leader Leonard Bernstein of the U. of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

During more than 30 years of use, Bt has exhibited little humantoxicity. However, "Its potential allergenicity had never been carefully addressed," Bernstein says. So, he studied farm workers before and after fields were sprayed.

In the July ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, his team demonstrates Bt's allergenicity. Before the pesticede's application, 4 of 48 crop pickers, about 8 %, had a positive skin test to Bt, indicating a sensitividty that can lead to an allergy. One month after harvesting BT-sprayed celery, parsley, cabbage, kale, spinach, and strawberries, half the pickers tested postiive. That share climbed to 70% within another 3 months.

Workers with less direct exposure proved less likely to develop Bt sensitivity. Of 35 packers who washed and crated Bt-treated crops, just 5, or 15%, had positive skin tests after the spraying. Among 44 field hands working 3 miles away from Bt-sprayed fields only 5, or 11 % tested positive.

Blood tests confirmed that many workers who tested positive also had immunoglobulin E antibodies to the strain of Bt sprayed. These antibodies can signal a developing allergy. Hay fever sufferers, for instance, often produce such antibodies 4 or 5 years before symptons such as sneezing develop.

"We'll take a look at this study," notes Chhris Klose of American Crop Protection Association in Washington DC. If the new study's findings are confirmed, "the (pesticides) industry would be concerned."

"In terms of consumer safety, there is probably also reason for concern," says Brian Baker of the Organic Materials Review Institute in Eugene, Or. Gardeners and others "should remember Bt is a pesticide and show it the same respect they would other pesticides," he adds.

Though data show that Bt "has the poential to eliciet allergic responses," the pesticide was "not horribly allergenic" observes coauthor MaryJane K. Selgrade of the Environmental Protection Agency in Research Triangle Park, NC. However, the new data are prodding the agency to develop standardized assays so that microbial-pesticide developers can rank the relative allergenicity of their products. Indeed, Selgrade notes, if what makes Bt allergenic is not what makes it pesticidal, developers might one day genetically manipulate Bt to make it less worrisome.


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

Bt is a selective insecticide used sparingly by organic gardeners. There
is concern that its widespread use will result in new generations of
resistant insects.






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



Subject: WSJ(7/14): USDA To Strengthen Biotechnology Oversight
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:17:08 -0400

Headline: WSJ(7/14): USDA To Strengthen Biotechnology Oversight
Wire Service: DJ (Dow Jones)
Date: Tue, Jul 13, 1999

WSJ(7/14): USDA To Strengthen Biotechnology Oversight

By Bruce Ingersoll and Scott Kilman
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced several regulatory moves to strengthen federal oversight of biotechnology and ensure consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods.

In a policy address yesterday, Mr. Glickman said he was setting up an advisory committee on agricultural biotechnology, and he promised to seek an independent review of the Agriculture Department's procedures for approving bioengineered crops going into food products. The secretary also said he would order an internal review of the department's approval process to ensure there is a "clear line" between USDA's dual roles as agriculture's regulator and promoter.

Biotechnology's "awesome potential" can be fulfilled only if the Agriculture Department, with the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency, retains the consumer's "trust" in the regulatory system, he said.

The Clinton administration, he said, plans to establish a network of 12 regional centers to evaluate bioengineered products over the long term for their effects on consumer health, agricultural pests and the environment. Mr. Glickman also called on the nation's biotech industry to report any unexpected or potentially adverse effects from products now on the market.

He clearly was trying to forestall any U.S. consumer backlash against bioengineered foods similar to a controversy in the European Union. The World Trade Organization has cleared the way for more than $117 million in annual penalties in retaliation against the EU ban on hormone-treated U.S. beef imports.

Mr. Glickman's speech signaled something of a labeling-policy split between the Agriculture Department and the FDA. The former Kansas congressman stepped up his effort to persuade U.S. food companies to voluntarily label any of their products made from genetically modified crops.

The FDA, the agency empowered to require such labeling, has taken the position that labels aren't necessary since the technology is safe. The sole exception is if the makeup of a food product is radically changed by genetic engineering.

Consumer surveys show shoppers want to know whether groceries contain ingredients from genetically modified crops. Biotech opponents are trying to rally consumers around the labeling issue.

Implicit in Mr. Glickman's remarks is the view that voluntary labeling would help defuse a controversy by giving consumers information to choose.

"I believe farmers and consumers will eventually come to see the economic, environmental and health benefits of biotechnology products, particularly if the industry reaches out and becomes more consumer accessible," he said.

Much of the food on U.S. supermarket shelves contains genetically modified ingredients, because food processors use soybeans in everything from cooking oil to baked goods. About half this year's U.S. soybeans planted are genetically engineered against herbicide exposure.

Food-industry leaders have resisted labeling for fear it would scare consumers. The Food Marketing Institute, a retail-wholesale food trade group, reiterated yesterday it supports the FDA position.

Mark Whiteis-Heln, a Friends of the Earth spokesman, chided Mr. Glickman for being "out of synch with the American public's concern about genetically engineered products" and for "ignoring scientific {environmental} alarm bells."

(END) DOW JONES NEWS 07-13-99

11:07 PM

Copyright 1999 Dow Jones & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.





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



Subject: Japan may exclude some foods from GMO labelling
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:22:11 -0400

Headline: Japan may exclude some foods from GMO labelling
Wire Service: RTw (Reuters World Report)
Date: Tue, Jul 13, 1999

Copyright 1999 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved.

TOKYO, July 13 (Reuters) - Japan should exclude certain types of food products from labelling guidelines for foods made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as it is technically impossible to check if such foods are GMO-free, experts on a government committee said on Tuesday.

The committee cited products such as soyoil, soy sauce, corn oil, cornflakes, corn syrup, rapeseed oil and cotton seed oil as possible exemptions from the government's labelling guidelines.

"It is impossible to check whether these products are made from GMOs or not. It is nonsense to apply GMO labelling guidelines to them," said Keiji Kainuma, chairman of the experts' sub-committee of a working committee on GMO labelling guidelines.

Based on proposals from the experts, the working committee will discuss at its next meeting which food products should require labelling and in how they should be labelled.

The meeting will be in late July or early August.

The working committee, composed of representatives from the food industry, consumer groups and academics, aims to conclude its two years of discussions by making a final decision on GMO labelling guidelines by the end of August.

Japanese consumers groups have demanded mandatory labelling of gene-altered foods due to concerns over possible health hazards, although the government has already approved 20 genetically engineered products under its safety guidelines.

Japan is believed to be the world's biggest importer of GMOs as it is heavily dependent on agricultural imports from the United States, the biggest producer of genetically altered crops.

U.S. soybeans accounted for 77 percent of Japan's total soybean imports of 5.06 million tonnes last year. Japan's Agriculture Ministry estimates GMO soybeans accounted for about 27 percent of total soybean planted acreage in the U.S. in 1998.

U.S. corns accounted for 87 percent of total Japanese annual corn imports of 14.7 million tonnes. The ministry estimates GMO corn in the U.S. accounted for 23 to 34 percent of total corn planted acrage in the U.S. in 1998.





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



Subject: USDA: Rudely Defending Biotech Foods
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:40:14 -0400

Focus on the Corporation
July 19, 1999


USDA: Rudely defending biotech foods
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman


When Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman wanted to address the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. to rave about the biotech industry and its wonders, he called Gene Grabowski.

Grabowski, a former Associated Press reporter and currently a spokesperson for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, sits on the Press Club's speakers committee.

Grabowski was happy to oblige Glickman's request. After all, GMA and Glickman are bosom buddies on the issue of biotech foods -- they both agree that since biotech foods are no different from conventional foods, there is no need for labeling.

Last week, Glickman addressed a National Press Club ballroom packed with biotech industry and agribusiness executives, with reporters bringing up the rear.

And he didn't disappoint them. Glickman hyped the benefits of biotech foods, and downplayed the risks. The title of the speech reflects his affection for the industry: "How Will Scientists, Farmers, and Consumers Learn to Love Biotechnology, and What Happens If They Don't?"

Some reporters misinterpreted Glickman's "five principles to guide the oversight of biotechnology in the 21st century" -- an arm's length regulatory process, consumer acceptance, fairness to farmers, corporate citizenship, and fair and open trade -- as meaning the government was serious about reining in an industry that has run roughshod over public health concerns.

In fact, the speech could have been written -- was it? -- by the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO) or its member companies such as Monsanto and Genentech.

The day after Glickman's speech, a reporter asked BIO president Carl Feldbaum whether the speech represented a "big blow" to the biotech industry.

"It was a good speech," Feldbaum said. "We are quite comfortable with his five principles. As you get into the details, I could not find much to quibble with. It is in no way a blow to the biotech industry. It was quite positive."

After the speech was over -- and the pro-biotech audience loved it -- we joined a group of reporters to seek some clarifications from the Secretary.

We asked Glickman why the USDA spent $100,000 to help develop the terminator seed technology -- if farmers plant these seeds, still in final development, the resulting crop would produce seed that is sterile, and farmers would be forced to buy new seed from the companies.

At first, Glickman handed the question over to his aide, Keith Pitts. But we wanted Glickman to answer the question.

"I certainly don't like the name of it -- it scares the hell out of me," Glickman said.

Okay, so the name scares you. But what about the technology itself? Does that scare the hell out of you?

"We need to study this," he said.

But sir, do you think this technology should be allowed onto the market?

Another Glickman associate yells that "he has answered the question."

But Glickman realizes he hasn't answered the question.

"In the future, we have to be very careful at USDA so that we don't finance the kind of arrangements that exclude family farmer choices," Glickman said.

In his speech, Glickman made the point that genetically engineered foods are already in the food supply. For 1998 crops, 44 percent of U.S. soybeans and 36 percent of U.S. corn were produced from genetically modified seeds.

Are you concerned Mr. Secretary that we are already eating genetically modified foods without knowing it, without it being labeled?

"You may be, I don't know if you are or not," Glickman responded. "I eat everything. If anything is there, I eat it. I presume it is safe and good."

"By and large, people have confidence in this country's system of food safety regulation," Glickman said. "The FDA is viewed as independent."

But the FDA is being sued for allowing biotech foods on the market without adequate review. And the man who approved the foods at the FDA came to the FDA from a law firm where he represented Monsanto, and after his stint at the FDA, he went to work directly for Monsanto's Washington office, where he sits today.

"All I can say is that the food system is safe," Glickman said.

Glickman was dismissive of the Europeans for opposing biotech imports from the United States. "When you go over there [to Europe] the attitude is -- don't confuse me with the facts," Glickman said.

In fact, European concerns about food safety are grounded in a moral and ethical belief system foreign to corporatists like Glickman.

The Prince of Wales (Prince Charles) has raised the question -- "do we have the right to experiment with, and commercialize, the building blocks of life?"

"I personally have no wish to eat anything produced by genetic modification, nor do I knowingly offer this sort of produce to my family or guests," Prince Charles has said.

When asked about Prince Charles' critique, Glickman was flip.

"I don't ask him to be Prince, and he doesn't ask me to be Secretary," Glickman said.

Before boarding the elevator to leave the Press Club, USDA communications director Tom Amontree accused us of being "rude" and not "nice."

In what sense were we rude?

You are rude because you were being "very argumentative" and you were asking "leading questions," he says.

Our view is that Glickman is being rude to the American people by kowtowing to a powerful and reckless industry that is playing genetic roulette with our future. He is recklessly running roughshod over the precautionary principle, which should underpin our regulation of technology. The precautionary principle says, in brief: If you have scientific uncertainty, and if you have the suspicion of harm, then act with caution. Glickman has thrown caution to the wind. Who will hold him accountable?

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Common Courage Press, 1999, http://www.corporatepredators.org)

(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

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

Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends or repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column on a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first contact us (russell@essential.org or rob@essential.org).

Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve corp-focus@essential.org. To subscribe to corp-focus, send an e-mail message to listproc@essential.org with the following all in one line:

subscribe corp-focus <your name(no period).

Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at
<http://lists.essential.org/corp-focus>.

Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like to comment on the columns, send a message to russell@essential.org or rob@essential.org.









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



Subject: Campaign against GM crops gains momentum
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:11:25 -0400

Headline: FEATURE - Campaign against GM crops gains momentum
Wire Service: RTw (Reuters World Report)
Date: Wed, Jul 21, 1999

Copyright 1999 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved.

By Peter Blackburn

WENDY, England, July 21 (Reuters) - Last weekend's destruction of one of Britain's largest trial crops of oilseed rape, genetically modified to resist weedkiller, was the latest in an escalating campaign to stop the new technology.

About 100 protestors, disguised by face masks and dressed in white chemical protection suits, trashed the 25-acre (10- hectare) crop in the southern county of Oxfordshire claiming that GM crops contaminate the countryside and threaten the safety of human and animal food.

Growing European public concern prompted EU environment ministers last week to approve a de-facto ban on new commercial GM crops until 2002 and tighter controls on trials of GM varieties which also produce higher yields, resist pests and withstand drought.

Researchers and plant breeders, caught between hostile European consumers and cautious politicians, have been increasingly forced onto the defensive.

"Indiscriminate attacks are very negative. We need objective scientific data to allow rational decisions," said John McLeod, director of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB).

The NIAB is an independent agency conducting tests for the government and industry to assess the potential impact of GM crops on agriculture and the environment. It does not breed genetically modified plants.

Mcleod said that on May 8 vandals destroyed 10 NIAB trial plots, of which three contained GM crops. Only 29 of the 1,200 plant varieties tested by the NIAB are genetically modified.

In Britain, nearly 180 GM small-scale crop trials -- mainly on oilseed rape, potatoes and sugar beet -- were taking place in mid-June 1999, according to the EU Joint Research Centre.

There were around 1,460 GM crop trials in the EU, with Britain in third place, behind France and Italy.

ATTACKS ON EXPERIMENTAL CROPS

Industry experts expressed concern at the growing number of attacks on experimental crops, many of which were not genetically modified.

"We have a particular problem in this country at the moment," said Colin Merritt, Monsanto Plc's biotechnology development manger, adding that some future testing might have to be done elsewhere.

Last month, protestors ripped up Monsanto's trial plot of GM sugar beet at an agricultural show at Wendy in eastern England.

Other demonstration plots at the show had previously been vandalised including non-GM oilseed rape plots belonging to the NIAB and Swiss-based Novartis AG.

"We are determined to carry on trials in this country," said Peter Sandbach of Novartis UK Ltd.

EUROPEAN FARMERS DISADVANTAGED

The attacks are destroying trials designed to assess the environmental and other risks the public is worried about, Sandbach added.

Delays in bringing GM sugar beet and other crops onto the market are seen as putting European farmers at a competitive disadvantage.

"British farmers are wary about U.S. and other farmers gaining an unfair advantage," said Sandbach. But the farmers are also wary about hostile public opinion.

In the United States there are no such hang-ups.

U.S. farmers account for about 75 percent of the estimated 40 million hectares of GM crops grown world-wide, according to Monsanto's Merritt.

GM soybeans and maize are already grown commercially in the U.S. and sugar beet is due to come onto the market next spring.

But in Europe this could take several years at least.

Since the BSE or "mad cow" crisis erupted in Britain in the late 1980s, Europeans have grown increasingly uneasy about interfering with nature.

U.S. consumers, spared cancer-causing dioxin in chicken and other food crises, have had few hang-ups over GM crops.

U.S. farmers, aided by a long growing season, abundant sunshine and water, have achieved yields of up to 152 tonnes of sugar beet per hectare.

British beet growers, the third most efficient in the EU, average just over 50 tonnes per hectare.

"It illustrates the tremendous future potential for the UK beet crop," said Mike Armstrong, head of research and development at British Sugar Plc.

Armstrong said that British yields will rise as a result of the use of improved seed varieties and better management of resources.

Researchers said that GM crops could offer real benefits.

"The gain to farmers is clear in terms of higher yields," said Jim Orson, director of the Morley Research Centre in Norfolk, eastern England. "We believe there are also ways of manipulating herbicide resistant crops for the advantage of the environment."

Sugar beet, modified to tolerate the general purpose weedkiller, glyphosphate, could bring benefits by allowing weeds to grow longer and provide food for wildlife.

Researchers say that use of the GM beet could almost halve the use of weedkiller which would reduce farmers' costs and help provide a safer environment.





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



Subject: CBS News story on Genetically engineered food
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:28:16 -0400

Here's the text (and URL) of the CBS Evening News report on genetically
engineered food that aired on Wed., July 21.

http://www.cbs.com/flat/story_170547.html

Amber Waves Of Altered Genes
*
Genetically Modified Crops Growing In U.S.
* Produce Designed To Fight Pests And Disease
* But Critics Say They Threaten The Environment
COGGON, Iowa
Wednesday, July 21,1999 - 08:48 PM ET CBS
Genetically Modified Corn

(CBS) "If I didn't believe it was safe, I wouldn't grow it," Doran Zumbach, a successful farmer in Iowa, told CBS News Correspondent Wyatt Andrews.

Zumbach hates it when someone accuses him of growing "Frankenstein food." "I think there s a huge amount of scare tactic there," he says.

What Zumbach is growing is genetically modified food -- corn that has been gene-spliced with a different organism. It's a forced genetic marriage between corn and a bacterium called Bt.

The Bt gene is inserted in the plant. It makes the plant toxic to an insect called the Corn Borer, but leaves the corn safe for human consumption. Zumbach argues the modified corn is much better for the environment because it eliminates the need for pesticides against the insect.

"Historically we've applied a lot of insecticide to kill Corn Borers," he says. "With the Bt gene inserted in the plant, I don't have to do that."

It's just the beginning of the genetically modified or "GM" future. Today it's pest resistant plants, but soon, there will be health foods. Soy spliced with the nutrients of olive oil, vegetables with more vitamin A, and potatoes that produce pharmaceutical drugs.

American farmers are planting these genetically altered crops whole hog. Today, half of the soy beans, 40 percent of the corn and an increasing number of potatoes are all being grown with this genetically engineered seed.

There are no labels to tell you, but thousands of foods in the store -- from corn-fed cattle, to corn flakes now comes from GM crops. Americans eat them every day.

In Europe and especially England, critics call it "Franken-food."

Prince Charles questions its safety, and at the British Medical Association, Dr. Vivienne Nathanson warns that altered DNA in food could produce allergies as well as other health problems.

"The fact there is no demonstrable effect on human health thus far does not mean that something is risk free," she says.

John Fagan, an American scientist whose laboratory tests genetic foods for European companies also believes GM foods need more research. "In fact every time you put in a gene it's causing genetic mutations to the existing genes of that organism, and so there are unexpected side effects that can come out of this process."

Hugh Grant is the president of agriculture at Monsanto, the largest U.S. producer of genetic seeds. He calls the fears expressed by critics unfounded.

He contends that genetically modified foods have been tested on humans, and that "these are proteins that are broken down as you ingest them."

Monsanto, which showed CBS News how the crops are developed, insists the plants are screened and tested for harmful proteins long before they sell the seeds to farmers.

"The government has given them an absolutely clean bill of health and they have sailed through the regulatory system in the U.S. and have been signed off as safe," Grant says.

Still, the speed of this revolution -- from nothing four years ago to tens of millions of acres today -- has put some farmers in a bind. They're growing food that some of their customers don't want; customers who don't trust the altered genetic makeup of the amber waves of grain.

Copyright 1999, CBS Worldwide Inc., All Rights Reserved.
CBS News Correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports.