Agnet May 6, 2004
Royal
Society clashes with UK Parliamentary Committee over farm scale GM trials
MPs say
ministers ignored GM fears
The costly
fraud that is organic food: Its main contribution will be to sustain poverty and
malnutrition
Guest
Editorial - Genetic manipulation and information manipulation
Genetically-engineered
wheat a crumby concept, council says
Creating
controversy where none exists
Green Party
HSNO Amendment Bill picked
Scientists
fear weed epidemic from Monsanto's genetically altered grass
Panel touts
cost-effectiveness of agricultural biotech
Coconut
lethal yellowing disease Guatemala
Seed sector
review targets regulatory change
Bush
Administration moving to allow corporate takeover of organics
Molinate
cancellation order is issued
FVO - Plant
health inspections
Pine shoot
beetle; additions to quarantined areas
how to subscribe
Royal
Society clashes with UK Parliamentary Committee over farm scale GM trials
May 6, 2004
Cordis
The UK's Royal Society has, according to this story, attacked the findings of a
report by the House of Commons environmental audit committee, which cast doubt
on the reliability of results from the government's farm scale
evaluations of genetically modified (GM) crops.
The Royal Society called on the committee to withdraw its criticisms of the farm
scale evaluations (FSEs), branding them 'misleading'. In its report, published
in March, the committee of MPs argued that the trials had been too limited in
scope, failing to accurately measure crops yields, and assessing the crop's
effects of biodiversity only in relation to conventional farming methods, rather
than more biodiversity-friendly methods such as organic
farming.
Their report therefore concluded that: 'It would be irresponsible for the
government to permit the commercialisation of GM crops on the basis of one
narrow component of the entire evaluation of GM technology. This would be the
case even were there no significant doubts as to the robustness, validity and
relevance of the FSE results.'
On 5 May, however, the Royal Society defended the results of the trials, which
it had originally published in its scientific journal 'Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society' in October 2003. The President of the Royal
Society, Lord May of Oxford, was quoted as saying, 'I have expressed my
disappointment to the committee that they have still not publicly withdrawn
their misleading criticism of the journal papers about the GM farm trials. The
committee's statement, about 'significant doubts as to the
robustness, validity and relevance' of the results of the farm scale
evaluations, was both inaccurate and damaging. [...] If the committee had such
doubts, why did they not raise them directly with the scientists responsible for
carrying out the research in an oral evidence session?'
Another of the committee's criticisms centred on the fact that recent research
into experiences of growing GM crops in North America had not been carried out
until most of the FSEs had reported their results, and therefore would not be
factored into the government's current decision-making on GM
authorisation.
Lord May responded by saying: 'The committee questioned the validity of the
papers published in a peer reviewed journal about the most extensive research on
farmland ecology ever carried out. Yet they appeared to attach great importance
to a technical report about pesticide use associated with
GM crops in North America, which, by the author's own admission, was based on
extrapolated data and not subjected to peer review. The committee did not place
enough weight on scientific information that has been subjected to peer review.'
He added that an examination of North American experiences would be useful as
part of a general overview of experiences of growing GM crops, but warned
against placing too much weight on such data, as agricultural systems and
land use in the UK differ greatly from those in North America.
Lord May concluded that: 'The most pressing question arising from the farm scale
evaluations is not weather GM crops are better or worse for the environment than
conventional crops, but rather, what is it that we want
from modern agriculture?'
'We need a wide ranging debate about how future technologies, including new
non-traditional methods of genetically modifying crops, might be used to
minimise the adverse impact of agriculture on farmland wildlife. Perhaps the
committee could consider this as a topic for a future inquiry.'
MPs
say ministers ignored GM fears
May 6, 2004
The Guardian
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Members of the U.K. environment audit committee were cited as saying that the
government is guilty of "wilful or careless misinterpretations" in
ignoring the concerns of those who oppose the planting of GM crops in Britain,
and are angry that its scientific and social objections to the
early introduction of GM crops were brushed aside by the government, apparently
without considering them, just five days before the environment secretary,
Margaret Beckett, announced the go-ahead for GM maize.
They were disappointed by both the "tone and content" of the
government's response, which they said had misrepresented the all-party
committee's report and come to an "insupportable conclusion".
The story adds that the early introduction of GM maize will not go ahead as the
government intended because Bayer CropScience, the company that was given
permission to plant, withdrew the variety Chardon LL, which would have
been the UK's first commercially grown crop.
The Conservative committee chairman, Peter Ainsworth, was cited as saying this
made the government appear keener on GM crops than the companies that had
produced them.
The committee concluded that the government was prepared to leave conventional
and organic farmers exposed to the possibility of severe financial loss in its
rush to embrace GM.
The
costly fraud that is organic food: Its main contribution will be to sustain
poverty and malnutrition
May 6, 2004
The Guardian
Lord Dick Taverne, chair of Sense About Science and author of The March of
Unreason, to be published in November, writes in this op-ed that organic farming
is a billion-pound industry, promoted by a stream of propaganda from
green lobby groups, notably the Soil Association, and subsidised by government.
Supermarkets like it because premium prices increase profits.
Every lifestyle magazine regards organic food as synonymous with healthy living
and every TV chef tells us that organic food tastes better. To question claims
made by the organic lobby is not just akin to doubting the virtues of
motherhood, but to reveal indifference to the poisoning of the nation and the
fate of the planet, perhaps even to be guilty of corruption by American
multinationals and of support for George Bush.
Taverne says that the organic movement was inspired by the mysticism of Rudolf
Steiner, who believed in planting according to the phases of the moon, enriching
the soil through cowhorns stuffed with entrails, and who taught that chemical
fertilisers damage the brain. It is based on the belief that nature knows best
and science is dangerous.
The SA has argued that organic farming cannot be judged by scientific criteria
because "the current tools of scientific understanding are not sufficiently
developed" to measure its virtues. It seizes on any findings, however
flimsy, that seem to confirm its claims and dismisses any
contradictory evidence as irrelevant, prejudiced or influenced by the
biotechnology industry.
It has bitterly denounced the Food Standards Agency, an impartial body set up by
government to safeguard our welfare, which refuses to endorse the claims made
for organic food. Only in January the agency declared that "on
the basis of current evidence ... organic food is not significantly different in
terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally".
It is claimed that organic food is more natural and that its reliance on natural
chemicals makes it safer than food grown with the help of synthetic ones. This
is nonsense. There is nothing wholesome about natural chemicals
like ricin or aflatoxin or botulinum toxin, or especially dangerous about
synthetic chemicals like the sulphonamides, isoniazid that cures TB, or the
painkiller paracetamol.
We are told we should eat organic food because pesticide residues harm us.
As the FSA has pointed out, there is a disparity between public fears and the
facts. Dietary contributions to cardiovascular disease and cancer probably
account for more than 100,000 deaths a year; food poisoning for between 50 and
300. There are no known deaths from pesticide residues (or GM foods). A cup of
coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least a year's worth of
carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet. If people are worried about the
effect of pesticides in farming on wildlife or human health, they should promote
pesticide-resistant GM crops, which reduce their use.
It is said that organic food tastes better. Yes, if it is fresh. But blind tests
have shown fresh organic food tastes no better than fresh food grown
conventionally. Furthermore, about 70% of organic food is imported and is
not fresh, and since it is imported by air, it is not exactly environmentally
friendly.
It is said that organic farming benefits wildlife. True, many people become
organic farmers for environmental reasons, and achieve their aim. But studies
show that environmental effects depend on the style of management,
not the system of farming. In general, integrated farm management achieves the
best results. What is most beneficial to birds and wildlife is low-till farming,
which is made possible by cultivating GM crops. Organic farmers
depend on the plough, which disturbs the ecology of the soil, releases more
carbon dioxide, uses more fossil fuel and drives out nesting birds.
Even if most claims made for organic farming could be substantiated, its main
disadvantage is its inefficiency. Organic food costs more because average yields
are 20-50% lower than those from conventional farms. Its inefficiency is highly
relevant to the hungry and the poor.
While there may be food surpluses in some areas, we need to treble food
production in the next 50 years to feed 3 billion extra people and meet higher
living standards at the same time. We face an increasing shortage of water and
of good agricultural land. In many places the only way inefficient organic
farmers can feed an expanding population is by cutting down more tropical
forest. Every form of technology that increases efficiency in farming will
therefore be needed to contribute to the production of more food.
What contribution can organic farming make? In the words of the Indian biologist
CJ Prakash, its only contribution to sustainable agriculture will be "to
sustain poverty and malnutrition".
Guest
Editorial - Genetic manipulation and information manipulation
May 6, 2004
BioScience News & Advocate
Craig Cormick
It seems that everybody has an opinion as to what the public feel about gene
technology whether that be that the public will eventually accept it if only
they are given enough information, or they will reject if they are only
subject to enough scare campaigns, or whether they donšt really understand the
technology enough to know quite what they think.
And a lot of policy decisions relating to gene technology are based more on what
people feel that the public feel about the technology rather than actual hard
facts.
Fortunately enough quality surveys have been done (amongst the more dodgy
self-interested surveys) to provide some in-depth analysis as to what public
attitudes towards gene technology actually are, as well as what are the drivers
of those attitudes. And the findings overturn a few fairly
widespread beliefs.
Amongst the major findings of the most recent survey done by Biotechnology
Australia, as a part of our ongoing tracking of public attitudes, is that
rejection of GM foods is no longer due to health and safety concerns but more
because the public sees no direct consumer benefits. Also, attitudes to GM crops
and GM foods are moving further apart, with increased concerns about GM foods,
but increased acceptance of GM crops particularly those
modified to be more pest resistant.
Also of significant interest is that while more people are concerned about GM
foods, more people are willing to eat them (currently about 45%, up from 28% in
1999), indicating that concern might not be the strongest determinant of
behaviour. This is linked to the changing concept of risk in society, since
September 11 and other global insecurities, the notion of risk is radically
different from what it was three or more years ago.
But concern is still strong in relation to the quality of public debate.
Although it has improved markedly in Australia in the last few years, it is
still dominated by misinformation and many survey respondents express concern
about the quality of media and other information. The fastest growing source of
information on biotechnology, according to survey respondents, is the internet
which of course does not distinguish readily between a scientific reports and
a sensationalist claim.
Recently not just anti-GM advocates, but pro-GM groups have increased their use
of the internet to get their messages out. The result, unfortunately, tends to
be an increased polarization of public debate. On the one hand, we have
advocates of the technology over-promising its benefits: this technology will
feed the world and solve most diseases. And on the other hand we have opponents
of the technology demonising it: GM crops will lead to superweeds that cannot be
controlled and GM foods are dangerous.
We have a predominantly science-based lobby group on one side, arguing
scientific facts, and anti-GM lobbyists on the other side arguing emotions.
For the public they are two different languages that rarely meet, whether itšs
about stem cells or GM foods and crops or xenotransplantation.
Even the languages used by the two major groups differ. Type Genetically
Modified Foods into a search engine and youšll get predominantly science-based
sites, but type in Genetically Engineered Foods and youšll get predominantly
anti-GM activist sites.
But what does it all mean? Public attitudes towards gene technology are not
simple, and are driven by many things as well as being situation dependent - so
while a person might be against GM canola they could well support GM cotton. And
one person who uses genetically modified insulin might not want to eat GM
products, but another doesnšt mind having a little bit of GM soy in their
doughnuts or chicken nuggets.
At the simplest level though, decisions about different applications are made on
risk:benefit analyses, and only those applications where the public sees more
perceived benefit than risk will gain wide acceptance. The plus
side of this is that developers of biotechnology products are working hard to
increase benefits which will be good for society. The down side, as perceptions
are driving the public debate more than facts, misinformation wars will continue
for quite some time, as advocates attempt to win the hearts and minds and
wallets of the public.
Craig Cormick
Manager of Public Awareness
Biotechnology Australia.
Biotechnology Australia is the Australian Government agency responsible for co-ordinating
non-regulatory biotechnology issues. Copies of their survey data is obtainable
at www.biotechnology.gov.au
Genetically-engineered
wheat a crumby concept, council says
May 5, 2004
The Whitehorse Daily Star
3
Kelly-Anne Riess
Local members of the Council of Canadians loafed around the Alpine Bakery on
Tuesday, asking customers to mail a slice of bread to Prime Minister Paul Martin
to tell him they think genetically-engineered (GE) wheat is a "crumby"
idea.
Lynn Martin, a member of the Whitehorse Council of Canadians, was quoted as
saying in an interview that, "We saw what happened when you fed vegetarian
cows' meat. We got mad cow disease. Who knows what will happen to us if we
eat genetically-modified food? It just isn't a science that has been around long
enough for us to understand. There was experimentation with rats showing that
the lining of their stomach thickened when they were fed GE foods. I'm here
to educate people. The government of Canada is being
pressurized by Monsanto to do this so they can have a monopoly all around the
world."
Connie Dublenko, another member of the Whitehorse council, was cited as saying
she was there because she doesn't like the interference with natural food
production.
Coming from a farming background, Dublenko doesn't approve of a company that
refuses to let farmers save seed. Monsanto requires them to buy new seed each
year.
Creating
controversy where none exists
May 6, 2004
BioScience News & Advocate
Henry I. Miller
Part 1 of this series by Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko [published on May
4th] discussed the misconceptions and misrepresentations that are promulgated by
anti-biotechnology NGOs. Their significant distortions and
omissions of facts are not limited to statements about the nature or risk of the
technology itself. The activists also attempt in invidious ways to create a
presumption of genuine controversy (where none exists) over the safety and
usefulness of gene-splicing techniques.
For example, the Pew Initiative's 2003 report, "Public Sentiment About
Genetically Modified Food," is a typically disingenuous pastiche of
truisms, half-truths and sleight-of-hand. Their survey finds that
"Americans' knowledge about [biotech] foods remains low," with 54 per
cent saying they have heard nothing or not much about them. Then, without
enlightening the subjects or offering them any sort of proper context, the
survey goes on to pose leading questions about safety and regulation. Not
surprisingly, 89
percent agreed with the statement, "Companies should be required to submit
safety data to the FDA for review, and no genetically modified food product
should be allowed on the market until the FDA determines that it is safe."
This polling technique is rather like the example of Idaho junior high school
student Nathan Zohner, who found that 86 percent of survey respondents thought
the substance dihydrogen monoxide should be banned when told that prolonged
exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage, exposure to its gaseous
form causes severe burns, and it has been found in excised tumors of terminal
cancer patients. Only one in 50 of young Nathan's survey respondents correctly
identified dihydrogen monoxide as water, or H2O. As any pollster (as well as
common sense) will tell you, it's not hard to design survey questions to elicit
a desired response, and Pew has incorporated that trick into their repertoire.
What the almost nine-in-ten respondents in Pew's survey undoubtedly do not
recognize is that: 1) with the exception of wild berries, mushrooms and game,
and fish and shellfish, virtually all the organisms -- plants, animals,
microorganisms -- in our food supply have been modified by one genetic technique
or another; 2) because the techniques of the new biotech are more precise and
predictable than their predecessors, biotech foods are likely to be even more
safe than other foods; 3) food producers are already
legally responsible for assuring the safety of their products, and the FDA does
not normally perform safety determinations, but primarily conducts surveillance
of marketed foods and takes action if any are found to be
adulterated or mislabeled, and; (4) unwarranted, excessive regulation, including
unnecessary labeling requirements, discourages innovation, imposes costs that
are passed along to the consumer and are a disproportionate burden on the poor.
The Pew survey purposefully exploits consumers'
(understandable) lack of familiarity with the nuances of both the new biotech
and the way that food is currently regulated.
With critics raising at every opportunity the possibility of one hypothetical
risk or another of gene-splicing -- and a compliant, sensation-seeking media
printing every word -- it's no wonder that many of those who have heard about
biotechnology find it confusing and a little scary. But more generally,
hoodwinking the public on scientific and
technological subjects is not difficult. A study by the National Science
Foundation found that fewer than one in four know what a "molecule"
is, and only about half understand that the earth circles the sun once a year.
Another example of the public's muddled view of biotechnology is reflected in
the results of a survey of 1200 Americans, released in October by the Food
Policy Institute at Rutgers University. It found that, in an
eleven-item true/false quiz that was part of the survey, more than half of the
subjects received a failing grade (defined as less than 70 percent correct
answers). Only 57 percent recognized the falsity of the statement "ordinary
tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do."
Perhaps most shocking of all, only two thirds knew that eating genetically
modified fruit would not alter their own genes! One wonders whether the
one-third who got this question wrong think that if they eat rabbit stew,
they'll begin to hop . . .
Such results are not surprising. A reckoning of the costs and benefits that
could accrue to an individual confronted by such complex issues explains why few
citizens undertake to understand the subtleties of most government policies, let
alone those that involve scientific phenomena. There is vastly more to public
policy issues -- tax policy, foreign affairs, farm subsidies, health care
delivery and so on -- than any one person can grasp. For most citizens the
benefit of learning about issues and policies that do not
directly affect them is small and the cost is large, so they establish
priorities and pursue knowledge that is of the greatest immediate advantage, and
they end up not knowing much about public policy. Economists have dubbed
these poorly informed citizens "rationally ignorant"; incapable of
coming to grips with the nuances of complex policy issues, they simply choose to
focus their limited time and resources on other pursuits. NGOs have learned to
exploit the public's rational ignorance.
Many NGOs have a dual raison d'ętre: to pitch fears, not facts, to an
unsuspecting public, and to convince regulators to impose unnecessary,
discriminatory regulation on the new biotechnology. They have enjoyed modest
success. Over-regulation has inflated the costs of research and development,
made commercialization -- and even the ability to perform field testing --
uncertain, and put biotech off-limits to some philanthropists.
Consider the example of Harvest Plus, an alliance of organizations devoted to
producing and disseminating staple foods rich in micronutrients such as iron,
zinc and vitamin A. According to its director, the group has decided that,
although they will "investigate . . . the potential for biotechnology to
raise the level of nutrients in target crops above what can be accomplished with
conventional breeding . . . there is no plan for Harvest Plus to disseminate
[gene-spliced] crops, because of the high and
difficult-to-predict costs of meeting regulatory requirements in countries where
laws are already in place, and because many countries as yet do not have
regulatory structures."
Although efforts should be made to reassure the public about the safety of
gene-spliced crops and foods, excessive regulation is not the way. The
imposition of unwarranted regulation in order to quell public apprehension is
not a wise use of government power, nor is it likely to succeed. As the
president of Consumer Alert, a national consumer organization, testified to a
panel convened by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), "For obvious
reasons, the consumer views the technologies that are most regulated to be the
least safe ones. Heavy involvement by government, no matter how well intended,
inevitably sends the wrong signals. Rather than ensuring confidence, it raises
suspicion and doubt" (emphasis in original).
It is apparent that biotech's opponents will never be satisfied. At every
opportunity, they will raise spurious questions and make disingenuous
assertions, attempting both to prolong "controversy" and to maintain
existing unscientific regulatory regimes.
Biologist Donald Kennedy, editor of Science and former FDA Commissioner and
Stanford University president, has analyzed various aspects of governmental
oversight of America's scientific enterprise. Bringing to it the experience of a
scientist and regulator, Kennedy observes that bad public policy usually results
when we respond politically to some popular movement, such as radical
environmentalism, only to discover that we have mistaken its real motivation.
"'We did what they wanted, but after we did it they turned out to want
something else' is among the oldest of political complaints. It has all kinds of
bad consequences. Not only is the wrong policy put in place,
but those who have tried to be responsive experience alienation and
disillusionment when they discover that they have not provided any
satisfaction."
Kennedy chides policy makers: "Frequently decision-makers give up the
difficult task of finding out where the weight of scientific opinion lies, and
instead attach equal value to each side in an effort to approximate fairness. In
this way extraordinary opinions . . . are promoted to a form of
respectability that approaches equal status." Kennedy is too kind. Often
the policy makers do know where the weight of scientific opinion lies but use
the blandishments and demands of activists as cover for their own
over-regulatory tendencies.
Reluctant to let the world know their real agendas, biotech's antagonists seldom
tip their hand, but once in a while we get a revealing glimpse. The Pew
Charitable Trusts, the parent of the Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology, has announced that it is changing its legal and tax status from
the more restrictive "foundation" to a "public charity," in
order to be able to undertake more overt and aggressive lobbying and advocacy --
that is
to say, what it was doing previously in a more understated way.
There are more substantive, less legalistic examples. In 2000, a university
research team based in Switzerland and Germany announced an extraordinary
scientific tour de force that resulted in a marked enhancement of beta-carotene,
or provitamin A, in rice grains. The creation of this "golden
rice" (so called because of its yellow color) was widely hailed as an
example of how gene-splicing can benefit society, especially the inhabitants of
less developed countries. Vitamin A supplementation of the diet prevents
blindness and can be life saving to the millions of
children who are deficient in the vitamin.
Astonishingly, activists lost no time in attacking even this beneficent
innovation. Golden rice's developers were criticized for working with companies
to distribute seed to the indigent. Then, torturing the data as they are wont to
do, Greenpeace declared that golden rice was a fraud because an adult
"would have to eat around 9kg [19.8 pounds] of cooked rice daily to satisfy
his/her daily need of vitamin A." Greenpeace's Benedikt Haerlin threatened
direct action against test plants in the field.
Greenpeace's radical media allies, including the Guardian, rushed to support
them, and Michael Pollan of the New York Times dubbed golden rice "the
great yellow hype."
All of this is the most vile sort of distortion and misrepresentation. Even
small amounts of vitamin supplementation can have huge effects. Golden rice
and other products like it can be a life-enhancing, life-saving adjunct to those
with vitamin A deficiency -- but only if its producers can ever overcome NGO
opposition and regulatory hurdles, and get it to the farmers who need it.
Still, such blatant and rabid militancy might make those who "merely"
demand stifling regulation appear temperate by comparison. But correspondence
published in the journal Science in 2003 opened a window into the motivations of
the so-called "moderate" wing of the anti-biotech lobby.
Steven H. Strauss, a Professor of Forest Science at Oregon State University,
proposed in an article in that journal a very modest streamlining of the
regulation of negligible-risk genetic constructions of gene-spliced plants.
The reform that he suggested would remedy, in a small way, the irreconcilable
paradox in the current federal oversight of plant biotechnology: that the use of
the most precise and predictable techniques is far more stringently regulated
than techniques that are less precise and predictable. In other words, Strauss
was lobbying for regulatory proportionality, a recognition of the basic
principle that the degree of oversight should be commensurate with the degree of
risk.
Jerry Cayford, of Resources for the Future, responded with a letter published in
Science: "Steven H. Strauss makes a plea for less onerous field trial
regulations for less radical genetic modifications . . . thereby helping smaller
companies and public-sector investigators to be able to
afford to try out crop variants. Unfortunately, his pleas ignore the politics of
the genetically modified (GM) food debate . . . Strauss' proposal, reasonable as
it may be, asks critics to surrender a major bargaining chip -- strict
regulation of field trials -- but offers them nothing in return."
In other words, although it would favor consumers, researchers, and the public
interest, sensible regulatory policy is not a goal in itself but is merely a
bargaining chip to be held or given up in a negotiation among radical groups,
business interests, academic researchers and government regulators!
Strauss' response to Cayford deplored this "hostage-taking" attitude,
because "the costs to people and environment of effectively losing genetic
engineering from most agricultural sectors as a result of excess regulation
are too great for so simple-minded a political approach." He added that
there are few practices more "'democratizing' than protecting and promoting
the ideas and work of society's innovators when applied to improve food quality,
dependability, and affordability."
The coup de grace in Strauss' response serves as a worthy epilogue to the
unworthy efforts and venal motivation of biotech's antagonists, whether they are
blatantly belligerent or subtly shifty: "[W]ith the high level of
regulation and stigma successfully implanted in places such as Europe, policies
and attitudes may take a generation or more to change course. The opportunity
costs in dollars, and costs to human health and environment, will be
incalculable."
No one should mistake the anti-biotech NGOs' misdemeanors for naive exuberance
or excessive zeal in a good cause. Their motives are self-serving and their
tactics vicious, an ongoing example of the sentiments expressed by Linus van
Pelt, a character in the Peanuts comic strip, "I love humanity; it's people
I can't stand." People should fight back. And those who understand these
issues need to do a better job of educating the large segment of the public that
is uninformed -- not only about the science, but
also about the chicanery and mendacity of biotech's foes.
Henry I. Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, headed the FDA's Office of
Biotechnology from 1989-1993. Gregory Conko is Director of Food Safety Policy at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Their book, "The Frankenfood Myth:
How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution" will be published
later this year.
Green
Party HSNO Amendment Bill picked
May 6, 2004
NZ Green Party Press Release
The selection of the Green Party's private members' Bill that would reinstate
the Genetic Engineering moratorium will give New Zealand another chance to
reject the presence of GE organisms in our environment, Green MP Ian Ewen-Street
said today.
Mr Ewen Street's private members' Bill, the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms (Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill, would re-impose the
moratorium that was lifted last year. The Bill was picked from the members'
ballot today.
"New Zealand has overwhelmingly said no to GE, now parliament gets another
chance to reconsider the stupidity of allowing GE organisms into our environment
and our food chain," said Mr Ewen-Street, the Green Party's Agriculture
spokesperson.
"The fact that there have yet to be any applications for the commercial
release of GE products proves that it is not too late for the Government to
listen to the majority of New Zealanders and New Zealand farmers - who do not
want GE released.
"The absence of support for GE was demonstrated today by the winding up of
pro-GE groups because they lacked enough subscribers. I'm happy that the public
and Parliament will get the opportunity through my private members' Bill to
rectify the mistake of lifting the moratorium last
year."
Mr Ewen-Street said it was plainly obvious that there was insufficient evidence
to allow the moratorium to be lifted in October last year, as research into soil
ecosystems and horizontal gene transfer is still several years from completion.
It also threatened to sink our burgeoning organic and GE-Free agriculture
industry.
"Last year the Government failed to 'proceed with caution' - instead they
proceeded with reckless abandon to allow GE to wind up in the food we eat and
the air we breathe. It was environmentally and economically irresponsible to
lift the moratorium last year and posed a direct threat to our agriculture
industry," he said.
Greens Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said that since the moratorium was lifted,
international evidence proved that the GE path would be met with much
resistance.
"Evidence since last year has accumulated that approval for GE foods has
been given on entirely flimsy information and negligible testing, even on
animals," said Ms Fitzsimons. "The UK decision to make those who
release GE
organisms responsible for any harm they cause has resulted in the withdrawal by
Bayer of its proposed application to grow GE maize.
"Monsanto cannot find producers willing to grow its new GE wheat because of
market resistance. It is time Parliament had another opportunity to review the
evidence before ERMA is allowed to consider the first application for
release," she said.
Scientists
fear weed epidemic from Monsanto's genetically altered grass
May 6, 2004
Knight-Ridder Tribune
Eli Kintisch, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Two multinational companies want, according to this story, to make millions
selling a high-tech grass that they say will resist weeds and be safe for the
environment.
The story says that thousands of greenskeepers like St. Louis Country Club
superintendent Tim Burch are eager to buy the new turf, called Roundup Ready
Creeping Bentgrass. He wants to use the new grass to win the war against a
weed called annual bluegrass that plagues golf courses around the country.
The story explains that the grass, made by the Scotts company, based in
Marysville, Ohio, and Monsanto, based in Creve Coeur, has been genetically
altered to be resistant to Monsanto's widely-used herbicide Roundup. Burch could
use Roundup to remove the bluegrass without harming the creeping bentgrass --
leaving the course "green as a gourd."
Lining up against the new grass are federal scientists, marking the first time
that government agencies have weighed in publicly against a genetically modified
crop. The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service
both fear the bentgrass could lead to the spread of resistant weeds.
The story adds that critics of biotechnology, including the Center for Food
Safety in Washington, and the Sierra Club, are weighing in on what they say are
environmental risks.
In addition to its fear that the new crop could spread herbicide resistance, the
Forest Service worries that the grass could infect rare species with the
unfamiliar genes.
Forest Service national botanist Wayne Owen was quoted as saying, "We're
concerned about the GM grass escaping from where it's growing, moving into the
wild and then establishing adjacent to those rare grasses," adding the
new genes would fundamentally alter their nature as "native species."
Similar concern has led the agency to remove non-native fish that can mate with
rare salmon in mountain streams.
Scotts and Monsanto applied for commercial approval in April of last year, and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture is expected to rule soon on whether the grass
can be sold or not.
Rick Roush, an ecologist who has worked with Monsanto on biotechnology projects,
was quoted as saying, "Among scientists there is a much higher level of
anxiety for this than for other GM crops. Bentgrass gives us all pause."
The story goes on to say that critics worry that altered bentgrass could pass
its resistance genes on to related grasses and those species themselves could
become invasive weeds. At least 13 American species of bentgrass are
known to crossbreed with natural creeping bentgrass, and the newly engineered
version could be just as promiscuous.
Panel
touts cost-effectiveness of agricultural biotech
May 6, 2004
Knight-Ridder Tribune
Rachel Melcer, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Hugh Grant, president, chairman and chief executive of Creve Coeur-based
Monsanto Co. was quoted as saying at the BIO Mid-America Venture Forum that,
"When you place a bet of $400 million a year, you stand a good chance of
finding something (with internal research). . . . But we also spend a lot of
time trolling" for technology in startup companies and academia.
The story says that agricultural biotechnology is among the smallest disciplines
of the booming biotech industry. Its commercial products -- row crops
genetically modified to resist herbicide and bugs -- are not so sexy as genomics
and life-saving drugs.
W. Pete Siggelko, vice president of genetics and biotechnology for Dow
AgroSciences LLC, was cited as saying he isn't overly concerned with European
controversy over genetically engineered foods, adding, "There's a huge
market in North and South America."
Dow and Monsanto are developing biotech traits to add flavor, nutritional value
or improved industrial-processing characteristics to plants. They believe that
such consumer-oriented outputs will help to sway public opinion toward ag
biotech approval.
Coconut
lethal yellowing disease Guatemala
May 5, 2004
ProMED-mail post
http://www.promedmail.org
Source: British Soc. Plant Pathol., New Disease Reports [edited]
1st report of coconut lethal yellowing disease in Guatemala
F. Mejia
, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala; M. Palmieri (as for Mejial); C.
Oropeza, Centro de Investigacion Cientifica de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico;
M. Doyle, Pan American College of Agriculture, Zamorano, Honduras; N. Harrison,
University of
Florida, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, Florida, USA; E.
Aguilar, (as for Doyle); M. Narvaez, (as for Cropeza); R. Estrada, Ministerio de
Agricultura, Ganaderia y Alimentacion, Guatemala; and G. Ortiz, (as for
Estrada).
Accepted for publication 27/04/04
The Atlantic coast of Guatemala runs between Belize and Honduras, 2 countries in
which coconut lethal yellowing (LY) disease is highly active (Harrison et al.,
2002). Coconut palms (_Cocos nucifera_, Atlantic tall ecotype), with symptoms
indicative of LY (Harrison and Jones, 2003)
including premature nutfall, necrosis of immature inflorescences, progressive
frond yellowing, and eventual palm death were 1st observed at several sites
along the coast during 2000. However, the syndrome differed from that reported
for LY, as inflorescence necrosis was evident after, rather than before, frond
yellowing.
Tissues from trunks, young leaves -- or inflorescences -- were sampled from
palms with, and without, symptoms at Estero Lagarto, Finca Baltimore, Santa
Maria del Mar, and Punta Manabique. Total DNA was extracted from tissues by
a small-scale method and tested for phytoplasma DNA by a nested PCR using
phytoplasma universal rRNA primer pair P1 / P7, followed by LY group-specific
primer pair LY16Sf / LY16Sr (Harrison et al., 2002).
RFLP profiles obtained by digesting the nested PCR products with Hinf I
endonuclease (Harrison and Jones, 2003) were identical for all phytoplasma-positive
Guatemalan palms and matched rDNA profiles of Honduran and Florida isolates of
the LY phytoplasma included for comparison.
LY phytoplasma was detected in all symptomatic palms (8/8), but none (0/8) of
the symptomless palms tested positive. These results were confirmed later at the
Centro de Investigacion Cientifica de Yucatan, and at the University
of Florida, using either LY group-specific, or LY pathogen-specific, PCR
(Harrison et al., 1994).
Following this initial survey, more LY-diseased coconut palms were sighted at
other locations along the Atlantic coast, but, as of 2003, LY has not been seen
during surveys of coconut populations along the Pacific coast of Guatemala.
This is the 1st report of coconut lethal yellowing disease in Guatemala.
References:
Harrison NA, Jones P, 2003. Diseases of coconut. In: Ploetz, RC, ed. Diseases of
Tropical Fruit Crops. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, 197-225.
Harrison NA, Myrie W, Jones P, Carpio ML, Castillo M, Doyle MM, Oropeza P, 2002.
16S rRNA interoperon sequence heterogeneity distinguishes strain populations of
palm lethal yellowing phytoplasma in the Caribbean region.
Annals of Applied Biology 141, 183-193.
Harrison NA, Richardson PA, Kramer JB, Tsai JH, 1994. Detection of the
phytoplasma associated with lethal yellowing disease of palms in Florida by
polymerase chain reaction. Plant Pathology 43, 998-1008.
[LY spreads rapidly, destroying coconut and other palms. Millions of palms have
been killed in the Caribbean region over the past 40 years. LY disease has swept
through the coconut-growing regions of Jamaica, Cuba, the Cayman
Islands, and Florida and is presently destroying palms in the Yucatan Peninsula,
Honduras, as well as mainland Belize. Similar diseases have been identified in
Africa (Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, and
Cameroon). If unchecked, LY disease may spread to South America. Millions of
coconut palms on the Caribbean and Atlantic coasts are endangered, because the
common cultivar is highly susceptible to the phytoplasma.
LY, described by some as the "dengue of palm trees," is spread by the
planthopper Myndus crudus, but other planthopper species are being assessed for
their role as vectors. Infected palms die within 6-9 months after
symptoms are 1st expressed. The vascular systems of infected palms are plugged
with the phytoplasma thus stressing the palms and accelerating the onset of
death. Research scientists at Ft. Lauderdale, FL, and Meridia, in
Yucatan, have identified other phytoplasma strains ssociated with coconut palm
that express leaf-yellowing syndromes in southern Mexico that are distinct from
LY phytoplasmas.
There is no effective cure for LY-infected palms. Previously ravaged areas have
been replanted with resistant cultivars and hybrids such as 'Maypan'.
There is some work being done on genetic modification of palms, but
transformation of palms with genes of interest including LY resistance, and
other traits, is still in the offing.
Useful references:
Mod.DH]
Seed
sector review targets regulatory change
May 5, 2004
>From a press release
OTTAWA, ONTARIO - May 5, 2004 - A first-of-its-kind seed industry partnership
has recommended major regulatory changes for Canada's seed sector. The changes,
if accepted, will modernize and streamline the entire seed regulatory framework,
benefiting all participants from the plant
breeder through to the consumer.
The establishment of a permanent, multi-stakeholder consultative body to bring
about these changes and navigate future regulatory review is the signature
recommendation of the report.
Four industry partners representing a broad spectrum from the seed and grain
business - the Canadian Seed Growers' Association (CSGA), the Canadian Seed
Trade Association (CSTA), the Canadian Seed Institute (CSI) and the Grain
Growers of Canada (GGC) - were given logistical and advisory support from the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in conducting a review of the seed sector
and its current regulatory environment. The review's work was
made possible with a contribution by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's (AAFC)
Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development Fund (CARD).
The committee's recommendations are contained in The Report of the Seed Sector
Advisory Committee, a comprehensive assessment, analysis and road map for the
seed sector's future.
After a 10-month, industry-wide consultative process and fact-finding mission
that included discussions with international seed organizations, these proposed
changes are among the highlights of the report:
1. To implement a permanent, industry-wide consultative body that will: provide
advice on policy;
provide a mechanism for industry consultation and advice on priorities and
proposals for regulatory and procedural change; and provide a forum for
industry/government dialogue on priority issues that involve many varied
stakeholder interests.
2. To restructure variety registration to create a more flexible system of
registration information requirements based on crop kind.
3. To streamline the current body of regulations in order to transfer some of
the technical standards from regulation into administrative manuals.
4. To ensure that Canada continues to provide a risk-based environment that
supports and rewards innovation. For example, that Canada updates its Plant
Breeders' Rights (PBR) legislation to conform to UPOV'91.
In addition to regulatory flexibility and responsiveness, the report also zeros
in on the importance of fostering innovation in bio-based products, sector
profitability, consumer acceptance and consumer confidence - providing a
wide-ranging discussion on these issues but acknowledging that more debate is
required on a path forward.
"This is an unprecedented industry-led, industry-wide review of what it
will take to maintain and build upon Canada's stellar reputation in domestic and
international seed markets," says Barry Reisner, a Saskatchewan seed grower
and president of the CSGA. "It's a very positive step toward building a
solid, successful future for our industry."
The report recognizes a continuing evolution or shift in the roles of industry
and government in the regulation of the seed and grains sector - with industry
acting as a consultant to government in a co-operative effort.
"It's been 20 years since a comprehensive review of the seed sector was
undertaken and this kind of pan-industry assessment has never been done
before," says Dr. Tom Francis, past president of the CSTA. "I think
the
stakeholder groups involved can be proud of what they have accomplished and we
are united in our decision to make the process of regulatory change the
overriding priority. We certainly appreciate the foresight of AAFC and
cooperation of CFIA in helping the committee to develop this forward-looking
report."
Echoing the sentiment of all of the review participants, Manitoba grain producer
and representative of the Grain Growers of Canada Art Enns says the study was an
excellent way to leverage the expertise of the entire industry.
"A new consultative body - focused on results -- would help us keep the
momentum going. Much has been accomplished, but there's still more to be
done," he says.
To underscore that point, the report lays out three categories of
recommendations. The actionable "Category A" recommendations are those
where consensus was reached on the need and the direction of proposed changes.
"Category B" recommendations encompass areas where there was
consensus on the need for change, but more discussion is required on the
direction. Finally, "Category C" details areas where there was
agreement that more discussion should take place.
The Canadian Seed Sector Review included broad consultation with researchers and
plant breeders, pedigreed seed growers, seed processing establishments, seed
companies, government regulators, plus various seed analyst, grain
growers and trade organizations.
For more information, or to read the complete report, visit
www.seedsectorreview.com. This Web site is also open for a comment period of
three months for feedback on the report and its recommendations.
Bush
Administration moving to allow corporate takeover of organics
May 6, 2004
Organic Consumers Association
http://www.organicconsumers.org
Over the past few weeks America's organic standards have once again come under
heavy attack. First the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) announced on April
14 that they would no longer monitor or police "organic" labels on
non-agricultural products, literally opening the door for
unscrupulous companies to put bogus organic labels on products such as fish,
body care products, pet foods, fertilizer, and clothing.
In the case of seafood
and body care products
, the
marketplace is already starting to become flooded with products bearing the
organic label, even though the production methods (industrial fish farms) or
content ("organic" shampoos with organic claims based upon added
water) in many of these products violate traditional organic principles. Besides
giving the green light to bogus organic labels the new USDA "scope
policy" penalizes genuine organic companies that have begun sourcing,
certifying, and labeling their products as organic. Corporate agribusiness and
the biotech lobby have apparently decided that strict organic farming practices
and the booming organic market constitute a threat to their bottom line, and
have called on their friends in the Bush administration USDA to degrade organic
standards and prepare for a restructuring of organic production so
as to facilitate the use of industrial agriculture practices such as pesticides,
antibiotics, non-organic feed, growth hormones and even genetically engineered
animal drugs.
l#monsanto> (For more info on corporate agribusiness control of U.S.
government, click here)
USDA's NOP announced on April 28 controversial new directives/guidance
statements on national organic standards including:
"Organic" Crops Raised with Pesticides?
The USDA has now stated that as long as the farmer and the organic certifier
don't know the specific ingredients of the pesticides applied to the
"organic" plants, the crops can be sold as "organic". To
make matters worse, it is not required by law for pesticide companies to list
the ingredients on their products (it's considered proprietary information), so
the farmers rarely know what the specific ingredients are.
(Read full USDA pesticide statement here)
"Organic" Dairy Cows Injected with Antibiotics and Synthetic Hormones?
The USDA has announced that individual cows can be treated with any kind of drug
at any time, including synthetic growth hormones, but milk can only be sold from
that cow 12 months after that treatment. The problem with this directive is that
it opens up the door for split operation factory style dairy farms, whereby
organic and non-organic dairy operations are carried
out simultaneously, and hundreds if not thousands of "organic" dairy
cows are kept in intensive confinement. Not only are industrial sized dairy
farms bad for the environment, but they inevitably give rise to sick cows who
have to be treated with drugs. Of course many of these drugs build up in the
body fat and are released in the milk and meat from these animals.. If this new
directive is allowed to stand, organic milk could potentially contain
residues of drugs and hormones.
(Read full USDA dairy statement here
)
Mercury and PCBs Allowed in "Organic" Beef?
The USDA also stated on April 28 that non-organic fishmeal can be fed to cattle
and the beef can still be sold as "organic". Fishmeal is used as a
protein supplement on conventional cattle ranches, but it frequently contains
mercury, PCBs and other synthetic chemicals. Mercury and PCBs are "bioacculmulators"
meaning they are concentrated and stored in the "meat" of the animal.
(Read full USDA livestock feed statement here
)
Molinate
cancellation order is issued
May 6, 2004
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Protection
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/molinate-order.htm
In a Federal Register notice published on April 7, 2004, EPA announced its
approval of requests by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Helm Agro US, Inc. to
voluntarily cancel and amend the registrations of all of their
products containing molinate, and to gradually reduce the amount of molinate
that may be sold and distributed until the cancellation becomes effective on
June 30, 2008. A thiocarbamate herbicide, molinate is used primarily for
controlling water grass in rice. Rice is grown in California and the South
Central/Southeastern states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and
Texas. In addition to the voluntary cancellations, Syngenta and Helm
requested modifications to the terms and conditions of their molinate product
registrations to limit the maximum amount of molinate that may be sold and
distributed during 2004, 2005, and 2006 to the 2002 sales level, and decrease
the amount to 75% of the 2002 sales level in 2007 and to 50% in 2008. Under the
existing stocks provisions, no use of molinate will be permitted after the 2009
growing season ending August 31, 2009. Syngenta and Helm will provide annual
production and sales reports to EPA in 2004 through
2009, and inventory reports for 2007 through 2009.
EPA responded to comments on the voluntary cancellation requests submitted by
the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC). Both commenters strongly support the molinate
cancellation but are concerned that the phaseout period is too long and will
permit ongoing harm to the environment and human health. They are concerned that
the Agency is not requiring risk mitigation during the phase-out to address
molinate exposure in ambient air. EPA believes the voluntary
agreement achieves more timely risk mitigation than would have been achieved
through a regulatory process.
The molinate cancellation order is available on EPAšs website at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2004/April/Day-07/p7868.htm. Additional
information about EPAšs review of molinate is available at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/molinate/.
FVO
- Plant health inspections
May 6, 2004
European Commission Health and Consumer Protection
The complete document of the following can be viewed from:
Finland:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/pi/reports/finland/index_en.html
Germany:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/pi/reports/germany/index_en.html
Finland - Germany - "Evaluation of import controls for plant health"
Pine
shoot beetle; additions to quarantined areas
May 6, 2004
Federal Register: (Volume 69, Number 88)
[Page 25303-25305]
[DOCID:fr06my04-1]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. 03-102-2]
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that
amended the pine shoot beetle regulations by adding 37 counties in Illinois,
Indiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and
Virginia to the list of quarantined areas. As a result of that action, the
interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas is restricted.
The interim rule was necessary to prevent the spread of pine shoot beetle, a
pest of pine products, into noninfested areas of the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: The interim rule became effective on January 5, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Weyman Fussell, Program Manager, Pest
Detection and Management Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 134,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5705.
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., Meat & Livestock Australia, Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited
(Canada), Monsanto Canada, National Pork Board, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. USA, JIFSAN,
CropLife Canada, Canadian Animal Health Institute, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association/Cattlemen's Beef Board, Burger King Corporation, Southern Crop
Protection Association, Ag-West Biotech Inc., Ontario Agri-Food Technologies,
Syngenta Crop Protection, Feedlot Health Management Services, Institute of
Environmental Science & Research Limited , National Food Processors
Association, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., CanAmera Foods, Global Public
Affairs, and Agri Business Group, Inc.
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