AGNET SETEMBER 2, 2000 Potent pesticides Potatoes, pesticides divide Canadian island Dekalb will seek to have advisory jury decision overturned in patent lawsuit brought by Aventis CropScience USDA expands Florida citrus quarantine GMO scientists unite! Monsanto set for return to New York U.S. potatoes could get disease resistance from their Mexican cousins Waste and the future of biotechnology Watchdog group releases 'fear profiteers'; report exposes health scare industry Public radio, Science Friday: public attitude towards biotechnology What do Americans know about biotechnology? Study unmasks worst crop culprits; raccoons cause the most damage, farmers report Biotechnology simply continues selection trend started by nature CDC-chemicals The Phthalate Esters Panel of the American Chemistry Council statement on CDC biomonitoring results How to react to global warming: the report offers urgent advice. Take it with a grain of salt Using chemicals in schools really bugs hagman Agricultural Research Service notice of appointment of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council Pesticide program dialogue committee (PPDC): inert disclosure stakeholder workgroup; open meeting Tribal pesticide program council (TPPC) general meeting Agnet is produced by the Centre for Safe Food at the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Plants Program at the University of Guelph, with additional support provided by the U.S. National Pork Producers Council, the U.S. National Food Processors Association, Ag-West Biotech, Novartis Seeds, AGCare (Agricultural Groups Concerned About Resources and the Environment), Monsanto Canada, Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Ontario Egg Producers, U.S. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Novartis Crop Protection Canada, Halton Regional Health Department, the Rutgers Food Risk Analysis Initiative, the Crop Protection Institute, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ontario Corn Producers Association, Capital Health, Plant Protection Branch Dept of Agriculture Fisheries Forestry Australia, Performance Plants, Cargill AgHorizons, the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, AdCulture, Food Industry Environmental Network, Dow AgroSciences, W.G. Thompson & Sons, Crop and Food Research New Zealand, and the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program). archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htm POTENT PESTICIDES September 2, 2000 Globe and Mail A14 Sharon Labchuk of Earth Action, Charlottetown, writes that AGCare's Jim Fischer (letters -- Aug. 29) says a new report by the Canadian Institute of Child Health is based on the erroneous assumption that pesticide use is increasing. He claims pesticide use is actually decreasing and implies there is no reason to fret. Been to PEI lately, Jim? Sales of agricultural pesticides have increased by 600 per cent (by weight of active ingredient) in the past 16 years. If there is a decrease in pesticide sales in Ontario, as he claims, it has more to do with newer low-dose, high-toxicity pesticides replacing older, heavier chemicals than any organized effort to get rid of these poisons. POTATOES, PESTICIDES DIVIDE CANADIAN ISLAND Aug. 30/00 Knight-Ridder Tribune By Colin Nickerson, The Boston Globe KENSINGTON, Prince Edward Island-- On this bucolic island, the potato is, according to this story, king -- lord of the field and dominator of the economy, thanks largely to the insatiable North American appetite for french fries. But a hard-charging coalition of environmental activists, anglers, wildlife scientists, organic farmers, and summer visitors is seeking to topple the tuber from the throne, charging that pesticides used to cultivate potatoes are contaminating rivers and streams. In the end, the sound and fury echoing over tiny Prince Edward Island's big potato fields is really about changes coming to the island's farms, and about a widening gulf between farmers and a new generation of neighbors who live in the country but do not take their livelihoods from the land. The story says that the attack on a crop that is a staple of the economy and even an integral part of the island's identity has gained surprising momentum, mainly as the result of a shocking series of "fish kills" by insecticides and fungicides washed from potato fields during intense rainbursts over the past two summers. Owing to a combination of freak weather -- with torrents of rain falling in mere minutes -- but also to drastically expanded acreage planted in potatoes, roughly a dozen such kills have occurred since July 1999, with tens of thousands of trout and other fish dying within hours of the deluges. The waterways seem to rebound, but dead fish floating down tainted streams is not a happy image. Wayne MacKinnon, spokesman for the provincial Department of Agriculture was quoted as saying, "It's a pretty jarring note in our pastoral symphony. PEI's reputation as a pristine place is taking some knocks." In terms of economic might, tourism ranks a close second to potatoes. So letters to newspapers from off-island visitors upset by dead fish resonate at least as loudly as local complaints. As a result, businessfolk and tourist officials are also leaning on potato growers to clean up their act. The island's more strident critics of modern agriculture, meanwhile, accuse farmers of nothing less than poisoning paradise, wiping out aquatic species and introducing chemicals that may even pose a threat to human health in this picture-postcard realm of red-dirt fields, quaint fishing villages, and sandstone cliffs rising from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Activist Sharon Labchuk, who gained notoriety last year by posing naked, save a gas mask, for a photographer in a potato field, was quoted as saying, "The fish deaths are just an outward sign of deeper contamination by industrial-corporate agriculture. Beneath the outward beauty lies poison and death. Our island is becoming a toxic vacationland." Such rhetoric infuriates farmers, who say pesticides are crucial to healthy crops, and causes wincing among more moderate campaigners against pesticides. Daryl Guignion, professor of wildlife biology at the University of Prince Edward Island and president of the PEI Wildlife Federation was quoted as saying, "The real issue is soil erosion. Farming has changed so dramatically on the island over the past decade or so. The farms are bigger, the fields are bigger, the hedgerows have been bulldozed to make room for even more potatoes. Bigger fields mean more runoff, and that washed-off soil is carrying the poisons to the water." I don't think we have an environmental catastrophe here, yet. But the fish kills should certainly be taken as an alarm, ringing loud." The story says that most potato farmers have come to agree, with varying degrees of reluctance. Still, they are stunned by the anger and invective hurled their way by the more vociferous activists. Pesticide use on the island is at least as tightly regulated as anywhere else in Canada, and, because of environmental critics, probably more closely monitored. Robert MacDonald, whose family has been farming in Belle River for more than four decades was quoted as saying, "No one likes pesticides, but the reality is that we need them to grow the quantity and quality of potatoes that consumers demand. Fish kills are not acceptable. We're making changes and there are perhaps more to come. But we're also being dehumanized with terms like `corporate agriculture' and `industrial farming' -- as if we lived in distant boardrooms. We live on our farms, and our families eat the crops we grow. Modern farming takes more than sweat and a pitchfork. It takes brains, it takes technology, and yes, it takes chemicals." The story goes on to say that a decade ago, Prince Edward Island produced an annual 1.5 billion pounds of potatoes, most of which were sold as seed stock or in grocery bags. Today, 600 farms grow 2.5 billion pounds of potatoes a year, about half of which are processed into fast-food chains' french fries. At the same time, the amount of land dedicated to potato cultivation has doubled, from 55,000 acres in 1980 to 110,000 acres today. Farmers have had to employ an arsenal of chemicals to fight pests -- most notoriously the Colorado potato beetle and late blight, the fungus that caused the famines that devastated 19th-century Ireland. The use of poisons to battle the beetle has declined a bit in recent years, but spraying of fungicide to fight blight has risen 85 percent. Tony Reddin of the Environmental Coalition of Prince Edward Island was quoted as saying, "The over-intensive potato practices are very destructive. But farmers are as much the victims as the wildlife. ... Provincial and federal governments, as well as agribusiness, have sold them on industrial farming methods." Farmers roll their eyes at ecologists' suggestion that they give up modern methods to raise organic crops on small holdings. But most concede that new rules setting buffer zones of 10 to 30 yards between potato fields and waterways are necessary and overdue. At the same time, however, they feel frustrated by environmental activists who blast pesticide use but have prevented farms from switching to genetically modified potato resistant to beetles and blight. "We spray our crops not because we want to kill fish or hurt rivers, but because that's what it takes to raise healthy crops," said MacDonald. "Our only realistic choice is use these sprays or watch fields wither and die." DEKALB WILL SEEK TO HAVE ADVISORY JURY DECISION OVERTURNED IN PATENT LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE Sept. 1/00 from a press release GREENSBORO, N.C. -- An advisory jury in U.S. District Court here found that five employees of French-based conglomerate Rhone Poulenc Agrochemie, now Aventis CropScience, should be added as inventors of two patents held by DEKALB Genetics Corp., a seed company owned by Monsanto Company. DEKALB will ask the court to set aside the jury's decision, and if necessary, DEKALB will file an appeal to the Federal Circuit Court. "We're disappointed with this decision, but confident we'll prevail when all the facts are brought forward," said David F. Snively, assistant general counsel - litigation. Snively said the dispute between DEKALB and Aventis is a technical matter and has no bearing on current or future Roundup Ready corn product offerings by Monsanto through 200 regional seed companies licensed to sell these products to growers. Aventis is not licensed to make, use or sell Roundup Ready corn. /Web site: http://www.monsanto.com / USDA EXPANDS FLORIDA CITRUS QUARANTINE Sept 1/00 Reuters WASHINGTON - The U.S. Agriculture Department was cited as saying Friday that the spread of the contagious citrus canker disease has forced an expansion of the quarantine throughout south and central Florida. The USDA said it added portions of Palm Beach, Hillsborough and Hendry to its existing list of quarantined areas. The government said it also expanded the boundaries of quarantined portions of Dade, Broward, Collier and Manatee counties. Richard Dunkle, a deputy administrator of the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, was quoted as saying, "These actions are necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of citrus canker into noninfected areas of the United States, including those portions of Florida that are outside the current quarantined area." Since 1995, more than 265,000 citrus trees have been cut down and burned in south Florida to try to stop the spread of the disease. The bacteria has steadily marched northward, aided by tropical storms and tornadoes as well as the movement of infested materials, and threatens the state's $8.5 billion citrus industry. GMO SCIENTISTS UNITE! September 1, 2000 Science Volume 289, Number 5484 Hoping to bring a voice of reason to the debate over transgenic crops, a group of scientists is, according to this story, launching the first society and journal to specifically address their risks. The idea grew out of a series of international meetings, held biannually since 1988, that brought together an ad hoc group of scientists to discuss science-based regulatory policy for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). At its July meeting, organizers decided to form a permanent International Society for Biosafety Research. Mark Tepfer, who studies virus transfer at INRA, France's national agronomy research institute, was quoted as saying that after years of getting hammered by "both the Greens and industry people, we need a clearer voice for scientists in the field." He and others hope to exercise "complete neutrality" in studying such hot-button issues as Bt corn's impact on butterflies. The group's journal, Environmental Biosafety Research, will be launched early next year by Elsevier. Alan McHughen, a plant geneticist at the University of Saskatchewan, says it will feature research that other journals often turn down-including "negative results" studies showing that a transgenic crop appears no different from its traditionally bred counterpart. MONSANTO SET FOR RETURN TO NEW YORK September 1, 2000 The British Times http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/timconcon01001.html Adam Jones Monsanto is, according to this story, set for a prompt return to the New York stock market. The company was taken over by Pharmacia & Upjohn, the pharmaceuticals manufacturer earlier this year. But now Pharmacia has set out plans to sell a minority stake that will value Monsanto at $6.4 billion (£4.3 billion). The story says that Monsanto has appointed Mickey Kantor, the former US Commerce Secretary, to its board, an appointment that is likely to stengthen its influence in Washington DC. Unfortunately for Monsanto, the flotation coincides with the loss of US patent protection on its bestselling weedkiller, Roundup, this month. The story says that Monsanto is bracing itself for a glut of cheap, generic competitors when the patent on Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, which it discovered in 1970, expires on September 20. It has had to warn would-be investors in its forthcoming flotation that the loss of this intellectual property protection could hit sales and profits. The market for weedkillers is worth $14.3 billion a year. Roundup's global sales are five times higher than its next largest competitor. About 20 per cent of Monsanto's overall revenue - equivalent to more than $1 billion of its $5.2 billion sales - came from patent-protected glyphosate weedkillers in America last year. In anticipation of losing this protection, Monsanto cut prices of Roundup by up to 22 per cent in the US as long ago as September 1998. It expects to cut prices even further, betting that the volume increases will compensate for the discount. The strategy worked in the aftermath of the 1998 price cut, the company said. Another strategy to defend Roundup's dominance promotes a farming practice known as "conservation tillage". This involves farmers relying on "the judicious use of herbicides to control weeds", Monsanto said. It has also set itself up as a low-cost maker of glyphosate for rival companies. Monsanto's genetically modified seed products have made it the focus of concern in Europe over GM foods. However, it hopes that the sale of its "Roundup Ready" crops, which have been altered to improve their resistance to Roundup weedkiller, will give it another way of safeguarding its profitable weedkiller when it loses its patent protection. U.S. POTATOES COULD GET DISEASE RESISTANCE FROM THEIR MEXICAN COUSINS September 1, 2000 ARS News Service Agricultural Research Service, USDA The great American spud has a wild Mexican cousin with genes to help U.S. farmers cut their use of fungicides to combat late blight, the disease that caused the Irish potato famine. Agricultural Research Service researchers in Madison, Wis., have developed new ways to incorporate late blight resistance into U.S. potatoes from Solanum pinnatisectum, a wild species found in central Mexico. Late blight, caused by the fungus Phytophthora infestans, costs potato growers about $3 billion annually worldwide, according to the International Potato Center (CIP) in Lima, Peru. In the United States, using fungicides to control late blight has driven potato production costs up to nearly $200 an acre in some potato-producing states. Using a technique known as embryo rescue, the researchers mated S. pinnatisectum with a derivative of a commercial U.S. potato. Embryo rescue involves removing the normally developing embryo from the failing, developing seed and placing it on a culture media that will sustain its growth. A hybrid from the rescue can be used by breeders as a maternal parent in a mating with cultivated potatoes. Until now, these wild Mexican species have been difficult to cross with most other cultivated or wild species. But it's worth doing because the wild species have genetic resistance to viruses, insects, fungi and nematodes. Another plus: This Mexican species resists early blight, which produces problems similar to late blight. Early blight is caused by the fungus Alternaria solani. In 1994, the annual cost for controlling early blight alone was estimated to be $21 to $44 million in the United States and Canada. Resistance to both blights is important to reduce reliance on fungicides. In trials, the hybrid also resisted the Colorado potato beetle. S. pinnatisectum is maintained at the ARS-U.S. Potato Genebank in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. A report on this research appears in the September issue of Agricultural Research magazine, which can be found online at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/sep00/mexi0900.htm The potato genetics work is part of a nationwide effort in horticultural research at ARS, the USDA's chief scientific agency. For more information visit the web page for ARS national programs in ARS Crop Production, Product Value, and Safety: http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov/programs/cppvs.htm WASTE AND THE FUTURE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY September 1, 2000 From: "C. S. Prakash" Gareth Evans http://www.envirospace.com/waste_management/view_article.asp?article_id=313 Was there ever so demonized a field of endeavour as biotechnology? It seems that hardly a day goes by without some new scare, moral dilemma or concern playing itself out in the media. Cloned this, transgenic that and the genetically modified other have largely become a new pantheon of ghouls, goblins and bogeymen in popular culture, to such an extent that their true reality has become as lost in the mists of obscurity as Atlantis or the gods of ancient Rome. The dawn of the nuclear age promised unlimited cheap power, even though it was forged, quite literally in the heat of war; for all its incipient benefits to humanity, therapeutic and otherwise, biotechnology has never enjoyed this kind of public approbation. Perhaps in seeking to control biology, to harness its power to our will, we stray too close to the sin of Eden. Shall mankind truly become "like God" in our knowledge of life and of our own origins? In all of these grand issues and questions of our age, we tend to forget that not all "biotechnology" involves the modification of genomes, stem cells, cloning or xenotransplantation. Some of the potentially most beneficial uses of biological engineering which may touch the lives of the majority of people involve much simpler approaches. Less radical and showy, certainly, but powerful tools, just the same. Environmental biotechnology is fundamentally rooted in waste, typically concerned with either the remediation of land polluted by previous industrial use, or the treatment of waste from current human activities. Composting and the anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste (MSW) may not share the glamour and glitz of high-end genetic engineering, but equally, they come without provoking any of the strong passions that have greeted GM crop trials throughout the UK. In one of my previous articles here, I described the biological treatment of waste as a Cinderella science, widely seen as unglamorous, funded on a budget and traditionally viewed as a necessary inconvenience. The development and application of biotechnology may yet prove to be the fairy godmother in the story. Often it is specific local factors which have the greatest effect on biowaste processing and flexibility may be vitally important in allowing the need for maximum diversion to dovetail effectively with the demands of a given area. While it is unlikely that emergent biowaste treatments will ever represent a serious challenge to either composting or AD it would appear that such approaches will always have some value in response to particular circumstance. As individual states, authorities and other interested parties begin their considerations of the way they intend to treat biowaste in the future, a role , or even a need, may be found in their plans for alternative methods. With adequate political will to achieve the reduction in putrescible waste entering landfill, and suitable financial incentives to do it, it is likely that new technologies will be developed to solve many of the technical problems presently associated with maximizing the sustainable re-use of biowaste resources. Once the technology is in place, it only remains for the wider economic environment to foster the kind of conditions in which the emergent industry can thrive. The wider issue of resources management is intimately wound up in our approach to waste. Biowaste management cannot simply be about maximizing the diversion of biodegradable material from entering landfill; it must, equally, seek to maximize the rational re-integration of the materials diverted, returning them back into the chain of utility. In this sense, it is no different from any other form of recycling. A recovered aluminium can is of no intrinsic value until it has been made back into another can, or something else of use. There is, clearly, no virtue in simply having it pulled it out of the garbage. This in itself is one of the strongest arguments against those who seek to justify wholesale incineration as an alternative disposal route for biowaste. So-called "thermal recycling" can only truly be thus described if it does not represent a negative calorific contribution to the overall combustion process. It is apparent that all forms of biological treatments currently available have their characteristic advantages and limitations. It seems fair to speculate that the same will be true of any to be developed in the future and this could be an important factor in the years to come. It may ultimately spawn a series of "treatment train" approaches, with sequential use made of different technologies to process biowaste, each offering its own contribution as a step in the overall bio-conversion. This is, perhaps, where some of the less well known techniques may best be employed, although they may well retain a sole-use status for certain specialist applications. In a wider sense, the growth of biotechnology is likely to have major implications for waste management over the coming years, beyond the development of new and better systems of direct biowaste processing. Irrespective of the treatment method used, the clear benefits resulting from a relatively pure stream of biowaste feedstock entering the biological phase of the operation have been well established. This, of course, originally gave rise to the rival views of source separation and on-site sorting as the most appropriate practical way of achieving the required input material. One of the problems with the former approach has been the tendency for the bags in which the biowaste is stored and collected to become a nuisance at municipal facilities, often requiring to be opened and screened out, which can be a labour intensive prospect at this scale. The development of truly biodegradable plastics has already begun to have an impact, particularly at composting plants, where bags which will themselves breakdown, have significantly reduced the amount of work involved. It will be some time before the vision of vast swathes of land growing bio-plastics within transgenic crop plants, with production costs no higher than for potatoes or wheat, becomes a commercial reality, despite its obvious attractions. Never the less, progress is being made in this direction with the announcement of the successful use of genetically modified varieties of oilseed rape and cress. Not only is this new material biodegradable, but it is also suitable for a wide number of applications. Although other plastic-growing techniques have been used experimentally in the past, chiefly using strains of bacteria which can produce plastic under certain environmental conditions, the product has proved expensive, costing between three and five times as much as normal oil-derived plastic and typically is too brittle for most uses. By inserting four bacterial genes responsible for plastic production into plants, the expense of feeding bacteria on glucose is avoided, since photosynthesis naturally provides the necessary carbon. At present the yield is low; at 3%, it is around six times lower than has been achieved by other means and while success cannot be guaranteed, the next step will be to attempt to refine the process for greater production. However, if and when the predicted wider use of a broad variety of new families of such bio-plastics is realized, there may be some unforeseen consequences, particularly in respect of any statutory requirement to reduce the total amount of biodegradable material entering the landfill disposal route. With plastics accounting for around 8 - 10% of the waste stream, it is thoroughly laudable to wish to reduce our exploitation of finite oil reserves for polymer production, particularly when so much of the final product is lost, buried or burnt as unwanted packaging and containers. However, from one point of view, at least, this may represent something of an "own goal" as the replacement of even a portion of this total by new forms will inevitably increase the overall biodegradable component of waste. Dependent on the detail of any legislation regarding biowaste diversion, this may well ultimately mean that, recycling initiatives and waste minimization aside, an even greater percentage of MSW will require some form of biological treatment in the future. Waste treatment biotechnology may indeed be more of a fairy god-mother than a ghoul, but, if serious advances in biowaste diversion are genuinely intended, it seems likely that she will have her work cut out. This article has been adapted by the Author from his forthcoming book, Biowaste and Biological Waste Treatment, to be published in October by James & James (Scientific) of London. WATCHDOG GROUP RELEASES 'FEAR PROFITEERS'; REPORT EXPOSES HEALTH SCARE INDUSTRY August 31, 2000 The Fear Profiteers Contact: Steve Milloy Junkscience.com So-called "socially responsible" businesses make money by launching irresponsible and groundless health scares says a new report from the National Center for Public Policy Research. Authored by a distinguished group of experts, "Fear Profiteers: Do Socially Responsible Businesses Sow Health Scares to Reap Monetary Rewards?" describes a number of major health scares of the last decade and links them to Fenton Communications - a slick, for-profit public relations business that, along with its clients, makes money by alarming the public: The Natural Resources Defense Council hired Fenton in 1988 to coordinate the scare about the use of the growth regulator alar on apples. Fenton worked with the staff of the television show "60 Minutes" to launch a national scare and the NRDC as an ongoing client. Lawyers for silicone breast implant plaintiffs worked with Fenton to convert the Command Trust Network, a women's support group, into a mechanism for recruiting plaintiffs. One of Fenton's current clients, lawyer John O'Quinn, has made tens of millions of dollars for himself from breast implant litigation. Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. worked with Fenton to implement a marketing scheme implying that its ice cream was "all natural" and better for the environment because its milk and cream was not from cows treated with bovine growth hormone and its packaging was made from unbleached paper. Public relations activity for "Our Stolen Future" - a 1996 book promoting a scare about manmade chemicals allegedly disrupting hormonal systems - was managed by Fenton. Health Care Without Harm hired Fenton to scare the public about the use of vinyl intravenous (IV) bags. "Fenton is the hub of many of the biggest health scares of the last 12 years," said John Carlisle, director of the National Center's Environmental Policy Task Force. "From the deep pockets of charities like the W. Alton Jones Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts and Tides Foundation to businesses like Ben & Jerry's and personal injury lawyers to the on-the-ground activist groups like the NRDC, Environmental Working Group and Public Citizen," Fenton makes money making the scares work," added Carlisle. "Fenton will say and do anything to achieve its clients' misanthropic goals," said Steve Milloy, publisher of Junkscience.com. "Fenton once even misrepresented itself as working on behalf of the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, to disguise its actual client - breast implant plaintiff attorneys. "We urge the media to stop giving the fear profiteers a free ride," said Carlisle. "Social responsibility dictates that companies eschew these practices rather than embrace them." Milloy announced that Junkscience.com will dedicate a web site to follow the escapades of Fenton and the other fear profiteers. "The media seems reluctant to investigate and report to the public about how these fraudulent health scares are orchestrated and who benefits from them-leaving in the dark a terrified public, " said Milloy. The report is authored by: Dr. Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D, The Lexington Institute. Michael Fumento, an author, journalist, and attorney specializing in science and health issues. Michael Gough, a fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis Steven J. Milloy, publisher of Junkscience.com and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Dr. Henry I. Miller, a prominent academic researcher, author and regulatory consultant, is a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Kenneth Smith, 43, a deputy editor of the editorial page of The Washington Times. Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H; President and a founder of the American Council on Science and Health. PUBLIC RADIO, SCIENCE FRIDAY: PUBLIC ATTITUDE TOWARDS BIOTECHNOLOGY September 1, 2000 From: "C. S. Prakash" (Note: Science Friday is a popular science program from the US National Public Radio and you can listen to this program on the Internet through streaming audio. Today's discussion focuses on public attitudes towards biotechnology...CSP) Bioethics and Biotechnology. September 1, 2000. Hour One. Radio: Science Friday with Ira Flatow, http://www.sciencefriday.com/ Who decides whether or not new technologies are a good idea, and at what point in the development of new technologies do those decisions occur? Our listener call-in number is 1-800-989-8255 (1-800-989-TALK). Several new surveys published this week in the journal Nature Biotechnology take a look at public attitudes about biotechnology research around the world. A US survey found a rise in uncertainty about biotech in the US, although a majority of citizens remain supportive of the technology. Contrary to common wisdom, very few respondents to the US survey were neutral, undecided, or felt uninformed. Most of the US citizens surveyed had a clear position on the use of biotechnology and genetic engineering, and few respondents felt that more consultation with the public about the use of genetically modified foods would be "a waste of time." Other surveys found similar declines in support for biotechnology in Europe and Japan. Japanese public support for biotechnology remains stronger than in the U.S. or Europe. A Canadian study found that attitudes towards biotechnology in general may track public attitudes towards the idea of cloning. We'll talk about the surveys, about the larger issue of who makes decisions about the direction of scientific research-and about your feelings on biotechnology. Call in. Our number is 1-800-989-8255. Plus - scientists at Rockefeller University and Yale University believe they have identified a human gene linked to pheromones, messenger chemicals that can convey information and produce a response at levels below a smellable level. Pheromone-receptor genes have been detected before in mice, however, the discovery of the V1RL1 gene is the first to be reported in humans. The researchers believe it encodes for a receptor in the mucous membranes lining the nose. The behavior of insects and other mammals is heavily influenced by pheromones, particularly when it comes to sex. One 1998 study on humans by Barbara McClintock and co-workers found that a substance in underarm sweat could make women synchronize menstrual cycles-but other information about human pheromone sensation is limited. We'll talk a neurologist who helped discover the new receptor gene about the team's work, and what it might mean. Guests: Charles Greer Professor, Neuroscience Department of Neurosurgery and Neurobiology Yale University New Haven, Connecticut Arthur Caplan Director, Center for Bioethics University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Susanna Priest Assistant Professor, Journalism Texas A&M University College Station, Texas WHAT DO AMERICANS KNOW ABOUT BIOTECHNOLOGY? September 1, 2000 From: "C. S. Prakash" By Lisa J. Dry, Biotechnology Industry Organization Those charged with the marketing, development and communication of agricultural biotechnology products might feel blasted by a firestorm of media. It seems that every magazine from Cooking Light to Mademoiselle and Time has managed to cover this "controversial" news topic this year. Many reporters seem to almost plaintively bemoan the fact that Americans don't hold the same semi-hysterical perspective of some Europeans who stridently oppose the acceptance of biotech foods. So it is ironic to note that for the general public, the word "biotechnology" has little, if any meaning. Biotechnology, by any definition, is not top of mind for most consumers according to a recent study by the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI). In fact, 1 out of 5 consumers admit they have never even heard the word. Seventy percent in total have heard "something" and 12 percent have "heard a lot." Those most familiar with the terminology tend to be college graduates, and those in rural communities. Technology familiarity When asked to name different types of technology that affect how people live, computers ranked highest (62 percent), followed by the internet (22 percent), health technologies (7 percent) and biotechnology associated with genetic engineering or modification at only three percent, on a par with automotive technologies. When asked what comes to mind when they hear the word biotechnology, people are far more likely to mention health applications than those of food and agriculture. Although 12 percent say they think of "genetic modification" and "genetic engineering" there was only a 2 percent to 4 percent linkage with food and agriculture. The poll was conducted concurrent with BIO 2000 when there was widespread news coverage of biotechnology, including extensive coverage of protests and demonstrators. At that time 27 percent said yes to having heard or seen biotech stories in the news. Of that group, most recalled stories involving genetically altered plants and foods, and one in five recalled protests and controversy. Benefits of biotechnology Most importantly, researchers found that a higher level of awareness and understanding of biotech issues resulted in greater support for the technology. This validates the work of industry to continue to share information about the importance of biotechnology and new developments. Additionally, by a two to one margin, Americans agree that in the long run biotechnology will be beneficial to their families. Medical and health applications are viewed most positively, with increased agricultural, productivity and land use following. More than half agree that biotechnology will help ensure the long-term viability of farming in this country. Consumers seem to withhold judgment on the benefits of more nutritious food, or longer shelf life, because these products have yet to be realized. The Council for Biotechnology Information of which BIO is a founding member supplied research for this article. STUDY UNMASKS WORST CROP CULPRITS; RACCOONS CAUSE THE MOST DAMAGE, FARMERS REPORT September 1, 2000 The Toronto Star Brian McAndrew http://www.thestar.com/thestar/editorial/news/20000901NEW04_CI-CROPS.html Economist Kim Rollins, a professor in the agriculture economics and business department at the University of Guelph was cited as saying the major culprits that cost farmers millions of dollars in lost crops each year are raccoons, with the able assistance of deer, geese, rodents and blackbirds. Birds are to blame for most fruit crop losses. Coyotes and dogs are responsible for killing sheep and cattle. The study, which Rollins did for the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, was cited as concluding that crop and animal losses are costing Ontario farmers $33 million annually. And scarecrows aren't enough. Farmers spend $7.5 million trying to protect their investments. Among their defences are fences to keep out deer and nets over cherry trees to discourage birds. They spend another $1 million replanting or repruning gnawed plants. Rollins based her findings on surveys of about 1,000 of Ontario's 67,000 farmers in the $3 billion industry. Participants took part in several surveys and kept detailed logs of wildlife incidents over two years. Losses were reported by 50 per cent of fruit, vegetable and field crop producers; 30 per cent of sheep farmers and 10 per cent of beef operations. But only a minority of farms are preyed upon repeatedly by unwanted birds and animals looking for an easy meal. Rollins was quoted as saying that ``For 90 per cent of farmers, the damage from wildlife is minimal,'' and that most farmers look on the wildlife attacks as ``the cost of doing business'' and in 1998 spent $8 million to protect bird and animal habitats on their own land. ``The bottom line is that wildlife require a natural habitat. The animals are not owned, they are wild, and the farmers realize this.'' They blame poor farming practices when blackbirds cause severe damage to fruit crops, but ``the same farmers might not be as tolerant of losses due to raccoons,'' Rollins said. Farmers told Rollins they would like financial compensation for losses and subsidies for taking preventive measures. BIOTECHNOLOGY SIMPLY CONTINUES SELECTION TREND STARTED BY NATURE September 1, 2000 The Saskatoon StarPhoenix A11 Shankar Das, a Saskatoon resident, writes in this opinion piece that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) developed through biotechnology have generated an unparalleled debate around the world. While biotech proponents say that GMOs are better in many ways and will bring benefits for society, anti-GM groups oppose not only the products but the technology. The core concerns of opponents are at least three: food safety, environmental safety and economic/ethical issues. They think that unexpected genetic effects in the GMOs will introduce allergens or toxins to the food supply, generate pesticide-resistant insects or be detrimental to beneficial insects, such as the Monarch butterfly. They also fear that development of herbicide-resistant GMOs will create ``superweeds.'' Another big concern is that multinationals will control the food supply through GMOs. Das says that while people grow more apprehensive, the benefits that biotechnology can bring to solve real-world problems are receiving diminishing attention. People generally embrace new technologies because they bring benefits to their lives. In fact, people have been consuming biotech products for the last few decades without reporting any ill effects. Leading scientists believe the benefits should outweigh the risks (if any) if biotech products are carefully developed, adequately evaluated and properly managed. They see potential to increase food production for a growing world population living on shrinking farmlands, ensure better health, nutrition and medicine and help develop a sustainable environment. Being a plant scientist, as well as a consumer, Das says that much of the confusion, concern, debate and fierce opposition surrounding GMOs is due to a cautious response to scientists' efforts to communicate necessary information effectively to the general public. Das goes on to conclude that GMOs are nothing new in the history of agriculture. The products of the new technology are simply a continuation of a process that's gone on for thousands of years. Although the popular press seeks to make GMO a puzzling term, living organisms have been genetically modified throughout their evolution - sometimes with human intervention, sometimes without. CDC-CHEMICALS Sept. 1/00 AP WASHINGTON -- Researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were cited as reporting in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives Friday that people's bodies absorb chemicals called phthalates used in such everyday products as fingernail polish -- some, particularly in young women, at levels that raise questions about possible health effects. The story says that animal studies suggest large amounts of certain phthalates may disrupt normal hormone function and cause birth defects. Based on tested urine from 289 adults the researchers found the most common phthalates -- ones environmentalists have argued make toys and medical equipment dangerous -- float in people's bodies only at low levels. But the body levels of three chemicals used in cosmetics and solvents were higher than anticipated -- in some cases, higher than other well-studied pollutants like PCBs. Still, even women with the highest levels had 100 times fewer phthalates in their bodies than the level that caused birth defects in animals, Foster said. Nor do phthalates build up in the body -- they're excreted within days. The question is whether repeated exposure might be harmful, something the government is studying. On the Net: For the CDC study, http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov THE PHTHALATE ESTERS PANEL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL STATEMENT ON THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC) BIOMONITORING RESULTS Sept. 1/00 from a press release ARLINGTON, Va. -- The following statement is being issued by the Phthalate Esters Panel of the American Chemistry Council: * The recently released CDC report is consistent with earlier estimates of human exposure to phthalates and indicates that those levels are at or within the safety limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. * Independent scientists, international government bodies and phthalate producers have conducted extensive studies about the safety, health and environmental effects of phthalates, none of which present credible evidence that people are harmed by phthalates. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse health effects (including no human reproductive or developmental effects), in children or adults. Consumers can remain confident about using products that contain phthalates. * The concept of measuring exposure to substances is not a new one. The technique employed by the CDC in its measurement of phthalate metabolites is new. It will enable the monitoring of phthalate exposures to verify that they stay within government-determined safe levels. The Panel will continue its practice of working cooperatively with government agencies so that these valuable compounds can continue to be used safely. * Phthalate esters are a key ingredient found in hundreds of products that families rely on in their daily lives and that their doctors rely on to provide quality medical care. They are important ingredients in such products as medical devices, toys, vinyl flooring and wallcovering, food packaging, detergents, lubricating oils, solvents, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, such as cosmetics and lotions. Phthalates provide an excellent combination of performance and value. * Phthalates have been used in products that have improved the quality of life in American homes, offices, hospitals, and businesses for over 50 years. Because of their common use in a wide variety of applications, phthalates have been subjected to extensive health and environmental effects scrutiny by both independent scientists and international governmental bodies. Phthalates are some of the most studied and best understood compounds in the world from a health and environmental viewpoint. * The CDC data indicate that exposure levels are consistent with environmental exposure estimates that have previously been developed by a number of U.S. and international government agencies (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), European Union (EU), and the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR)). * The maximum exposures indicated by CDC are at or within the "safe" levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Those EPA levels, known as reference doses or RfDs, incorporate conservative margins of safety so that even exposures above the RfD are not necessarily of concern. The average exposures indicated by the CDC data -- including phthalates that are used in personal care products -- are well below those conservative RfDs. * Since its inception 27 years ago, the Phthalate Esters Panel and its members have sponsored health and safety research on phthalate esters. This cutting-edge research always follows the strictest government and scientific standards to promote reproducibility, reliability and accuracy. Resulting data and conclusions are peer- reviewed and published in respected scientific journals such as Toxicological Sciences, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. The Panel shares its data with government agencies around the globe, such as the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. /Web site: http://www.phthalates.org/ HOW TO REACT TO GLOBAL WARMING: THE REPORT OFFERS URGENT ADVICE. TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT September 1, 2000 The Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/gam/Editorials/20000901/EWARM.html According to this editorial, the debate about global warming is heating up again. With a key international meeting on the subject coming up in November, environmentalists are once again raising the alarm. Thus the release this week of a hair-raising World Wide Fund for Nature report predicting extinction for many Canadian creatures if global warming continues. Before considering the likelihood of that, let's step back a bit and look at the underpinnings of this vital environmental debate-certainly the most important of this generation. Those who argue for action on global warming make four basic points: 1. The massive release of man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is causing the planet to grow warmer. 2. This warming will have catastrophic effects on the natural environment: the melting of polar ice caps, a rise in the sea level, the spread of deserts. 3. There are relatively painless ways to slow the buildup of greenhouse gases and avoid a crisis. 4. The world must act now. Putting off action until later will lead to disaster. Let's concede that point one is correct. A great number of reputable scientists believe that the globe is indeed warming, and that human activity is responsible. As long ago as 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of leading scientists from around the world, concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Since then, the scientific consensus has only strengthened. Though a significant number of scientists dissent-they say computer models of climate change fail to take into account the effects of clouds and other factors such as sea ice; that land-based temperature measurements may be inaccurate; and that natural influences such as sea currents and volcanic dust may account for recent warming-these scientists remain a minority. When it comes to points two, three and four, however, there is, the editorial says, more reason for doubt. Start with point two: that warming will have catastrophic effects on the environment. This is speculation. No one really knows what will happen if the climate warms significantly over the next century. Most of what we do know comes from the study of events, such as the ice ages, that took place before the dawn of human civilization. Yet environmental groups routinely produce studies purporting to show in detail the alarming consequences of warming, from the outbreak of malaria in Winnipeg to the eradication of the snow goose. This week's WWF report is a perfect example. Using computer models as complex as the ones used to predict the rate of climate change, researchers Adam Markham and Jay Malcolm say warming may cause huge areas of wildlife habitat to disappear or change and many species may be unable to move fast enough to survive. Species such as the trout, the salmon and the collared lemming may die out. Parched northern forests will crack and die. What evidence is there for this scary movie? It seems reasonable to suggest that as the climate changes, the natural landscape will change. Some species will die off, as they did in the ice ages. Others, though, will adapt to the changing climate (it's called evolution) and still others will thrive in a warmer climate-including, perhaps, humans. One effect of a warmer Canada could be a longer growing season and possibly higher agricultural production. In any case, there's little evidence to conclude that the ecological future will be as bleak as the WWF picture. Then what of point three: that there are relatively painless ways to fight global warming? The editorial says that the broadcaster David Suzuki and others like him suggest that with measures such as insulating houses and driving more fuel-efficient cars, we can have the problem licked in 30 years. Wouldn't it be nice. Though studies vary on the cost of reducing greenhouse gases to the levels required by international treaties, at least one forecasts that Canada would see its economic output fall by 2.8 per cent below what it might otherwise have reached. That may not sound like much, but it means tens of thousands more people on the unemployment rolls. Let's not fool ourselves; reducing greenhouses gases will cost. What is more, it may not have much effect. One study suggests that even if all the international targets are met-unlikely, given the enormous price- it will reduce warming by only a 10th of a degree over the next 50 years. That's a pretty small payoff for such a gargantuan effort. Even so, the David Suzukis of the world insist we must act now. Which brings us to point four: that unless we want to condemn our children to live in a harsh overheated wasteland, we must take dramatic, immediate action against global warming. In fact, in a process as gradual as warming, waiting a decade or two would make little difference. By then the world might have a better grip on the science and a better idea how to reduce gas emissions without hobbling economic growth. This is not a cry for inaction. It makes sense to take the threat of global warming seriously. It makes sense to reduce gas emissions as much as we can without choking off growth. What does not make sense is to act out of a sense of panic whipped up by unprovable crystal-ball predictions about the environmental future. USING CHEMICALS IN SCHOOLS REALLY BUGS HAGMAN The Associated Press SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The actor Larry Hagman of Dallas and I Dream of Jeannie fame joined other pesticide opponents this week pushing for the use of extreme heat in school buildings rather than bug-killing chemicals. Hagman has also thrown his support behind a proposal that would require schools to notify parents and post public notices before and after pesticides are used in schools. Steve Forsberg, president of the Western Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide manufacturers, retailers and distributors, was quoted as saying that opponents are trying to ``stigmatize pesticide use.'' To demonstrate the new heat treatments, supporters of the technique draped the exterior walls of a Capitol storage building with tent-like material, then pumped in superheated air that topped 54 degrees C. As the cockroaches and rodents scattered, Hagman likened it to pasteurizing milk to kill bacteria. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF THE NATIONAL GENETIC RESOURCES ADVISORY COUNCIL September 1, 2000 Federal Register: (Volume 65, Number 171) [Notices] [Page 53261] [DOCID:fr01se00-71] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&doci d=00-22501-filed AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics, USDA. ACTION: Notification of appointment of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics of the Department of Agriculture, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., announces members appointed to the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council. Five members were appointed from nominations to replace five members whose terms had expired. Four members continue for the remaining two years of their four-year appointment. The following appointments to the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council have been made: Roni Sue DeNise, Department of Animal Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, David R. MacKenzie, Executive Director Northeastern Regional Association of State, Agricultural Experiment Stations, College Park, MD, Ru Nguyen, Entomologist, Florida Department of Agriculture, Gainesville, FL, Antonio Sotomayor-Rios, Agronomist, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, PR, Stoney J. Wright, Agronomist, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Palmer, AK. The following members will continue on the Advisory Council: Neil D. Hamilton, serving as Chair, Agricultural Law Center, Drake University, Des Moines, IA, Jennie Hunter-Cevera, Maryland Biotechnology Institute, College Park, MD, Charles A. Panton, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, Charles G. Sattler, National Association of Animal Breeders, Columbia, MO. Council members will serve four-year terms. In the event of a vacancy, the Secretary will appoint a new member as appropriate and subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The duties of the Council are solely advisory to the Secretary and the Director of the National Genetic Resources Program on matters concerning the National Genetic Resources Program of the USDA. Council members will serve without pay. Reimbursement of travel expenses and per diem costs shall be made to members who would be unable to attend council meetings without such reimbursement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions should be e-mailed to pbk@ars.usda.gov, faxed to 301-504-6191, or telephoned to 301-504-5541; all mailed correspondence should be sent to Peter Bretting, Designated Federal Official, USDA-ARS, Room 4-2212, George Washington Carver Center, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705-5139. Dated: August 25, 2000. Peter Bretting, Assistant Administrator for Genetic Resources, USDA-ARS. [FR Doc. 00-22501 Filed 8-31-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P PESTICIDE PROGRAM DIALOGUE COMMITTEE (PPDC): INERTDISCLOSURE STAKEHOLDER WORKGROUP; OPEN MEETING September 1, 2000 Federal Register (Volume 65, Number 171) [Notices] [Page 53299] [DOCID:fr01se00-115] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&doci d=00-22527-filed [OPP-00439D; FRL-6742-2] AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a conference call meeting of the Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup. The workgroup was established to advise the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee on ways of making information on inert ingredients more available to the public while working within the mandates of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and related Confidential Business Information concerns. DATES: The meeting will be held by conference call on Tuesday, September 12, 2000 from 12:00 pm to 3:00 pm EST. ADDRESSES: Members of the public may listen to the meeting discussions on site at: Crystal Mall #2 (CM #2), 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA; conference Room 1123. Seating is limited and will be available on a first come first serve basis. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Cameo Smoot, Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (703) 305-5454. Office locations: 11th floor, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. E-mail smoot.cameo@epa.gov. TRIBAL PESTICIDE PROGRAM COUNCIL (TPPC) GENERAL MEETING September 1, 2000 Federal Register: (Volume 65, Number 171) [Notices] [Page 53299-53301] [DOCID:fr01se00-116] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&doci d=00-22526-filed [OPP-00676; FRL-6741-4] AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Tribal Pesticide Program Council (TPPC) will hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on September 27, 2000 and ending on September 28, 2000. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics. This meeting is open to the general public, but there will be a Tribal Caucus for internal TPPC matters, which will be closed to the general public. DATES: The meeting will be held on September 27, 2000 from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., including a Tribal Caucus from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., and September 28, 2000 from 9 a. m. to 3:45 p.m. Requests to participate in the meeting may be received until September 25, 2000. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Yakama Nation - Winterlodge Cultural Heritage Center, (ask for directions to the Yakama Agency complex), Buster Lane, Toppenish, WA. [[Page 53300]] Requests to participate may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00676 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Wilmore, TPPC Facilitator, P.O. Box 470829; Brookline Village, MA. 02447-0829; telephone number (617) 232-5742; Fax Number (617) 277-1656; e-mail address: naecology@aol.com or Georgia A. McDuffie, Field and External Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 605-0195; fax number: (703) 308-1850; e-mail address: mcduffie.georgia@epa.gov. To subscribe to Agnet, send mail to: listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca leave subject line blank in the body of the message type: subscribe agnet-L firstname lastname i.e. subscribe agnet-L Doug Powell To unsubscribe to Agnet, send mail to: listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca leave subject line blank in the body of the message type: signoff agnet-L For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact: Dr. Douglas Powell dept. of plant agriculture University of Guelph Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1 tel: 519-824-4120 x2506 fax: 519-763-8933 dpowell@uoguelph.ca http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htm