AgNet Dec. 8/03 -- II
Same old,
same old: European GMO moratorium remains in place
Are
gene-altered foods safe? No definitive answer yet
Sowing
costly cotton seeds yields rich reward
Consumers'
Association changes course on GM labelling
Roundup
resistance armors weeds
Public input
urged in genetic modification
China
becomes one of the top transgenic planting countries
OECD urges
better communication of science advances
Label our
food
CCGA
standing up for the interests of canola growers
how to subscribe
Same
old, same old: European GMO moratorium remains in place
Dec. 8/03
Commentary from the Food Safety Network
Jay M. Holmes
www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
Today's decision by European Union countries to leave in place a de facto
moratorium on the importation of food products derived from genetically
engineered (GE) plants is another example of Europe's consistently
inconsistent approach to regulating the technology.
The European Union's Standing Committee for the Food Chain's decision to
block imports of GE sweet corn - despite a European Commission
recommendation to approve it and a clean bill of health from the European Food
Safety Authority -- amounts to a reversal of the EU's July/03
proclamation to begin importation of these products (albeit with miniscule
thresholds and onerous traceability requirements). The newly taken
decision has thrown plans to lift member countries' import bans and to
re-start the science-based regulatory approval process for GE crops into
limbo.
On the surface the reversal of the EU's previously stated policy
regarding biotechnology-derived food products is surprising. When one
looks deeper however, the reversal appears to be a continuation of the
European practice of using food safety concerns to mask protectionist
trade policies with the aim to keep the continent free of cheaper food
imports. Indeed, this decision gives further credence to the argument
being forwarded by the U.S., Canada and Argentina in their case that is
currently before the World Trade Organization (WTO) that the rationale behind
the European moratorium is based more on economics that science and food safety.
The sweet corn in question -- developed by Switzerland's Syngenta, not by
American big business as the Greens habitually claim -- is resistant to
corn pests and a herbicide that is more environmentally friendly that
traditional herbicides. Similar crops grown in North America have led to
reductions in pesticide use, reduced fossil fuel consumption by farmers,
and improved soil conservation.
Europe's vocal activist industry has taken advantage of the ban to
spread their anti-science, anti-corporate message. Consumers, who had
little understanding of the technology when the moratorium was first
introduced, have been exposed to a five-year campaign featuring
"Frankenfoods" and alleged threats against butterflies. The result?
European consumers were left to make decisions about this technology
hearing only this one-sided debate and lacking the ability to try these
products for themselves.
When Canadian consumers were provided with information about a related GE sweet
corn, designed to combat the European corn borer and reduce pesticide use, a
majority choose to purchase the equivalently priced and labeled GE sweet corn.
Research conducted in 2000 and published last month in the British Food Journal,
found that consumers chose GE sweet corn over its traditionally produced
equivalent by a ratio of 3:2. Follow-up studies showed even greater support for
the use of GE technology in 2001 and 2002. Many consumers cited the reduced use
of pesticides in the production of GE sweet corn as the reason for their choice,
although quality and taste were also key concerns.
Ironically, the EU, with its large and often Byzantine food safety
Systems, has been the site of some of the world's most high profile food
safety disasters. The British experience with bovine spongiform
encephalopathy and foot and mouth disease, and dioxin contamination
scares on the continent have led to the creation of a public that is
hypersensitive to food safety risks -- a sensitivity has been taken advantage of
by activist groups and those with an interest in erecting non-tariff trade
barriers. If nothing is done to dispel the myths created by activists and given
credence by
Brussels-based trade isolationists Europeans may find itself a populace
that is mired in anti-science hysteria and an economy that is out of
step with rest of the world.
Jay Holmes is a graduate student with the Food Safety Network at the University
of Guelph.
Are
gene-altered foods safe? No definitive answer yet
December 8, 2003
Washington Post
In theory, the technology that scientists have used to create genetically
engineered crops like corn, soybeans and cotton poses, according to this story,
two kinds of risks: Are the crops safe for the environment, and are the ones
grown for food safe to eat?
For all the controversy that has attended these questions, the technology is
really just one small branch of the genetic revolution sweeping through world
science. The peculiarities of living things are determined, to a large degree,
by specific alterations in their genetic material, and with tools developed over
the past three decades, scientists are decoding these variations at a rapid
pace. They are gaining the ability to alter genes, to switch them on or off, or
even to move them from one species to another to confer new traits.
In the 1980s, when scientists began manipulating plant genes, they assumed the
resulting products would be just as welcome. And indeed they seemed to be in the
mid-1990s, when Europe and the United States approved the first commercial
crops. But then a powerful backlash began among ordinary citizens in Europe, and
politicians there imposed a de facto moratorium on future crop approvals.
European buyers have continued to accept some crops, notably American soybean
meal to feed farm animals, but most human food containing gene-altered
ingredients has been forced off the shelves. In the United States, a majority of
food products on the market contain such ingredients.
Monsanto, of St. Louis, has led the development of the new crops, and most of
them contain one or both of two genetic alterations.
The story says that on food safety, most scientists say there isn't much ground
for concern — unlike a worm's digestive system, the human gut rapidly breaks
proteins down into their component parts, amino acids, that are identical to the
ones already in the body. But at least in theory, the new proteins might cause
allergies in some people, including potentially fatal reactions, before the
stomach destroys them. And some genes inserted into plants might, conceivably,
be transferred to bacteria in the human gut, accelerating the development of
germs resistant to antibiotics.
These questions have been studied in relatively short-term animal trials
sponsored by biotech companies, and the answers were reassuring to U.S.
government agencies, though many of the studies have not been made public or
subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. However, the products have been on
the market for the better part of a decade with no evidence of harm.
The environmental questions are more esoteric, and unique to each region where a
crop is to be grown. In a given area, for instance, will a crop kill off insects
beneficial to the local ecology, such as types of worms on which birds depend?
Various tests are under way to assess such risks, and initial results from
Britain have been somewhat worrisome. But the biotech crops have to be judged
against alternatives, such as heavy use of chemicals on the one hand and organic
farming on the other.
A definitive accounting of the risks, costs and benefits of each method could
take decades.
Sowing
costly cotton seeds yields rich reward
December 8, 2003
Washington Post
The poor, rural area of Makhathini Flats in South Africa's KwaZulu-Natal
province is, according to this story, one of the few places in Africa where
farmers are already growing gene-altered crops. Far down a dirt road, a man
named T.J. Buthelezi recently sat in a sandy yard and told the story of his
rising fortunes.
Buthelezi was cited as saying he was wary, a few years back, when a man from the
local cotton company began pushing a new type of biotech seed, developed in
America, that was twice as expensive as local cotton, but he was curious, so he
planted some of the seed near his regular cotton and was stunned by the
differences.
Cotton is an arduous crop to grow, with African farmers typically spraying
expensive, dangerous chemicals 10 or more times a season to fight off
fast-moving worms and other pests. That is a huge constraint on Zulu farmers —
lacking modern equipment, they can grow only as much cotton as one or two people
can spray by hand in a day, limiting their farms to a few acres.
Buthelezi was further cited as saying that the new crop required far less
spraying, only a couple of times the whole season in his case. The yields were
higher, and despite seed costs, the overall economics were much more favorable
than with regular cotton. He realized that he could plant bigger crops,
eventually giving him the money to build a new home and send his children —
from his five wives — to school.
The story explains that researchers at Britain's University of Reading, in the
most elaborate study of its kind yet done in Africa, have verified the economic
benefits of biotech cotton. And a half-dozen farmers interviewed in the
Makhathini Flats told tales similar to Buthelezi's.
The Reading researchers found evidence that the new crop is safer, too: Hospital
admissions for pesticide poisoning, an occupational hazard for cotton farmers,
are falling.
Cotton is not a food crop, of course, but the extra cash the biotech cotton is
throwing off has allowed farmers to buy the food they need.
Biotech seeds can cost twice as much as traditional ones, but the crops they
produce require less fertilizer and pesticides, and less work to maintain —
generating higher margins.
Many of the cotton farmers in the Flats are women, and they said the
easier-to-grow cotton has been particularly helpful for them, since the spray
tanks they strap to their backs are smaller than those for men.
Consumers'
Association changes course on GM labelling
December 3, 2003
CBC News
http://cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/03/Consumers/gmolabel031203
CALGARY - The Consumers' Association of Canada was cited as saying that
Canadians want mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods and that it
will ask the federal government to introduce legislation making labelling of
genetically modified foods mandatory.
The association says a new poll conducted by Decima Research in October found
that 91 per cent of Canadians want food labels to reflect whether the prodct
contains genetically modified organisms.
The story says that the poll results are similar to the results of a string of
polls over the past few years. However, until the CAC released this poll, it had
been against mandatory labelling. In March 2002, the organization told CBC-TV's
Marketplace that it opposed mandatory labelling because it would not be done
correctly.
"It all sounds so wonderfully simple, 'oh, let's label everything.' But
most people believe that genetically modified products are in the fruit and
vegetable aisle. They're not. They're not single-ingredient products. Most of
them are showing up in your cereals, your flours, your cake mixes, your pancake
mixes?So labelling is not simple," then CAC vice-president Jenny Hilliard
told Marketplace.
This most recent poll surveyed 2,000 people across Canada and is considered
accurate with a range of plus or minus two per cent. It found 80 per cent of
Canadians do not think the federal government has provided them with adequate
information about genetically modified foods.
Roundup
resistance armors weeds
December 5, 2003
UC Davis News
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=6820
California's weeds are getting more stubborn. Tom Lanini, a UC Davis weed
ecologist, estimates that Roundup-resistant weeds now affect 5,000 acres of
California farmland.
Roundup is a trade name for glyphosate, an herbicide that slows weed growth by
inhibiting protein synthesis. California's agricultural industry used 5.6
million pounds of glyphosate last year. And Roundup Ready crops, genetically
engineered to withstand Roundup, are increasing the herbicide's popularity.
But Lanini worries what overuse of Roundup will do to weeds. "Using a
single herbicide over a number of years, you're selecting for plants that aren't
controlled by that material," he says. Genetic selection means the few
weeds that survive Roundup treatment will produce similarly resistant offspring.
"You build up tolerant populations," says Lanini.
He also cautions that Roundup Ready crops could add to the resistance problem.
"Crops are becoming super-weeds," he said. "For example, if we
plant a field with Roundup Ready cotton one year, and then plant Roundup Ready
corn there the next year, any volunteer cotton that comes up with the corn will
be a Roundup-resistant weed. How do you control that?"
Getting to the answer is part of Lanini's job -- he's helping farmers find
alternate treatments for their resistant weeds. For example, almond growers can
let geese eat resistant rye grass in their orchards. Farmers can combat
resistance with varied cultivation practices and different herbicides.
Lanini wants to avoid the sort of widespread resistance that has made some
medical antibiotics ineffective. "I'm really interested in saving
Roundup," he says. "It's been an awesome product, and I'd like to see
it remain that way as long as possible."
Public
input urged in genetic modification
December 7, 2003
Central Alberta Adviser
21
Mark Weber
Red Deer Express; Central Alberta Adviser
Ian Mauro, a University of Manitoba researcher, was cited as telling at a
Council of Canadians meeting in Red Deer that genetically modified wheat could
pose unknown health concerns down the road, and that consumers are being left
out of the genetically modified food debate altogether, adding, "Consumers
need to be driving these issues. Publicly-funded research could help guide where
we go from here."
Trish Jordan, spokesperson for Monsanto, was cited as saying consumers can be
confident in the country's tightly controlled regulatory system, and that Canada
has one of the most stringent regulatory processes in the world, adding,
"If you didn't have that regulatory approval, no customer in their right
mind would say yes, we want this product."
Mauro was further cited as saying that economic pressures can blind industry to
the safety of pushing genetic boundaries, adding, "Can you make an
autonomous decision in a globalized world? People might be gung-ho about it, but
it may not be a panacea.
China
becomes one of the top transgenic planting countries
December 7, 2003
People's Daily
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200312/07/eng20031207_129867.shtml
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
The Chinese government attaches great importance to the research on
biotechnology and over 130 transgenic species involving more than 100 kinds of
genes are under research. China has been among the world's front ranks in terms
of research achievements in the fields of transgenic insect-resistant cotton,
transgenic rice and gene engineering vaccines. In 2002, China became a leading
transgenic planting country following the United States, Canada, Brazil and
Argentina with a total cultivation area exceeding 2.1 million hectares for
transgenic crops.
The Chinese government attaches great importance to the research on
biotechnology and over 130 transgenic species involving more than 100 kinds of
genes are under research. China has been among the world's front ranks in terms
of research achievements in the fields of transgenic insect-resistant cotton,
transgenic rice and gene engineering vaccines. In 2002, China became a leading
transgenic planting country following the United States, Canada, Brazil and
Argentina with a total cultivation area exceeding 2.1 million hectares for
transgenic crops.
This is learnt from the 7th APEC Seminar on Agricultural Biological Technology
and Biological Safety held on December 2 in Beijing. Zhang Fengtong, director of
the department of science and education under the Ministry of Agriculture, said
in an address made on behalf of China that China, while energetically developing
biotechnology, attaches great importance to its influence on the eco-environment
and human health. As early as 1993, China had published relevant laws and
regulations on the safety management of gene engineering. In 2001, the State
Council issued "Rules on Safety Management of Agricultural Transgenic
Plants". According to the rules, the Ministry of Agriculture released three
associated regulations on safety assessment, import and export and symbol early
last year for comprehensive management of the research, experiment, production,
processing, operation and import and export of agricultural transgenic crops.
OECD
urges better communication of science advances
December 8, 2003
Reuters
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
PARIS - Governments must do more to educate people about scientific and
technological advances to counter misinformation and often unfounded fears of
risks to health and the environment, a free-market forum said on Monday.
Innovation in areas like e-commerce, nuclear power, stem cell research and
genetically modified crops offers huge growth potential, but public confidence
is vital, Donald Johnston, secretary-general of the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), told a forum on investment.
"To preserve the vast potential of science to better the human condition,
governments must do much more to ensure the maintenance of public confidence.
Fears abound, stoked often by claims of some NGO activists who exercise media
power without... shouldering responsibility," Johnston said.
"Governments need to take back the initiative on science issues -- through
transparency, education and broad consultation. The public must understand the
trade-offs."
Noisy protests have greeted recent innovations like genetically modifying crops
to make them immune to disease or improve their quality, or advances in the use
of stem cells as potential treatments for diseases like cancer.
Opponents of GM foods say tinkering with the genetic make-up of crops could
upset the natural balance of the environment with serious consequences. Others
worried about the effect on human health have labelled such crops "Frankenfoods".
Controversy is also raging over research into the use of stem cells because
although they are found in adult tissue, the most flexible stem cells are found
in very young embryos. Johnston said the economic potential of electronic
commerce would never be fully realised unless national and global regulatory
frameworks were put in place to provide consumer protection and give people the
confidence to use the Internet commercially.
"Governments must be able to satisfy the public that they are equipped and
able to identify and manage the risks which might otherwise place the safety,
security and sometimes privacy of the public in jeopardy," he said.
Label
our food
December 5, 2003
The Sault Star
A4
Canadians are, according to this editorial, finding the arguments against labels
on foods containing genetically modified materials too hard to swallow.
A Consumers' Association of Canada poll released this week found 91 per cent
want GM foods to carry labels and 88 per cent think those labels should be
mandatory.
Consumers clearly want to know if genetically modified materials are in the food
they eat. Yet the government and food manufacturers stubbornly refuse to tell
them.
Apparently ignorance is bliss, if you're trying to ram new food products down
the consumer's throat.
This can only feed Canadians' suspicions about the safety of GM foods.
The editorial goes on to say that those who remain unconvinced of the
infallibility of Health Canada and the integrity of the food industry argue that
if genetic modification is so wonderful, why are they fighting so hard to keep
us from knowing which foods have GM ingredients? Shouldn't they be bragging
about it?
More likely, the real reason the food industry doesn't want GM foods to be
labelled is that they know a substantial number of consumers wouldn't buy them.
A poll that finds such a strong demand for labelling suggests there may be
widespread concern about the safety of genetically modified foods, justified or
not.
Many countries, particularly those in the European Union, have compulsory
labelling of genetically modified foods; perhaps sales are down there.
It's time for our government to stop serving the interests of food industry
lobbyists and start serving the public.
Well-informed or ill-informed, Canadians have a right to decide whether they
will or will not consume genetically modified food.
CCGA
standing up for the interests of canola growers
December 8, 2003
CCGA – Press Release
Carman, MB - The Canadian Canola Growers Association (CCGA) has been granted
leave to intervene in the Supreme Court appeal between Percy Schmeiser and
Monsanto. The issue to be decided is whether or not plant cells or genes derived
from biotechnology are patentable.
CCGA recognized that the Supreme Court decision in this case could directly
affect canola producers' access to current and future biotechnology, which would
ultimately determine their ability to compete in global markets.
Ross Ravelli, a canola grower and president of the CCGA said "We are
supporting the right of farmers to access existing and new products of
biotechnology. We are not supporting either Monsanto or Mr. Schmeiser-- a fact
that the Supreme Court has acknowledged by allowing CCGA to be an independent
intervener in this case." Ravelli went on to say that "up to this
point the Courts have not heard about the positive aspects of biotechnology from
a grower perspective, and it is vital that the Supreme Court takes this into
consideration when they make the final decision on this issue."
CCGA policy analyst Rick White pointed out that CCGA is looking at the long term
consequences to Canadian growers if plant technologies cannot be patented in
this country. White says "Intellectual property protection, including
patents, are necessary to encourage the research and development needed to keep
Canadian canola growers competitive in international markets." CCGA is very
concerned that Canada would be the only significant canola exporter to refuse to
patent plants and plant material, which would drive away technology developers
and leave Canadian growers without access to technological advances in new
varieties. White added "The implications of this decision extend well
beyond Mr. Schmeiser or Monsanto, otherwise we would have no interest in the
outcome of this case."
It is obvious that canola growers are benefiting from advances in modern
technology. Ravelli says that "novel trait canola varieties were first
available to growers in 1996, and now in 2003 we had ninety percent of the
canola acres planted to these technologically advanced varieties. There are
benefits to growers, and as an association we cannot ignore something that could
adversely affect ninety percent of the growers."
Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at
the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture
and Food, Plants Program at the University of Guelph, Agricultural Adaptation
Council (CanAdapt Program), AGCare, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors,
ConAgra Foods, Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Ag-West Biotech, Inc.,
Monsanto Canada, Meat and Livestock Australia, National Pork Board, Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Council for
Biotechnology Information, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Croplife Canada,
Syngenta Seeds Canada, Inc., Canadian Food Information Council, Saskatchewan
Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization, JIFSAN, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Food Processors Association, Ontario Agri-Food
Technologies, Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Ltd., BC Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Feedlot Health Management Services, Syngenta
Crop Protection, Ontario Corn Producers' Association, DuPont Canada, Inc.,
Office of Consumer Affairs, Burger King, Sobeys Ontario, McCain Produce Inc.,
Canadian Institute for Food Inspection and Regulation, Canadian Wheat Board,
National Meat Association, Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Ontario Soybean Growers,
Bunge, Ltd., UC Davis Biotechnology Program, Consumer Federation of America
Foundation, Optibrand, University of Idaho Department of Microbiology, Molecular
Biology and Biochemistry, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., Plant Bioscience
Ltd., CanAmera Foods, Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management, Inc.,
Hartono and Company, Agri Business Group, Inc., and Global Public Affairs.
To subscribe to the html version of Agnet (subscription is free), 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
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to subscribe to the text version of agnet)
To unsubscribe to the html version of Agnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff agnet-L
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to unsubscribe to the text version of agnet)
For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x54280
cell: 519-835-3015
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at "http://131.104.74.73:96/agnet-archives.htm