|
|
 
|
Monsanto and Dow Chemical agree to joint effort
(Monday, Jan. 23, 2006 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. Terminator threat looms 1. Terminator threat looms: Intergovernmental meeting to tackle suicide seeds issue
CBD's Working Group on 8(j) Meets in Granada, Spain 23-27 January ETC Group Indigenous peoples, farmers' organizations and civil society representatives are bracing
to defend a de facto United Nations' moratorium on seed sterilization technology - the
moratorium is now under attack by the multinational seed and biotech industry. A meeting
of the Convention on Biological Diversity, where "suicide seeds" are on the agenda,
gets underway in Spain next week. The UN moratorium - which recommends against the
field-testing and commercial sale of seed sterilization technology - is under attack.
Delta & Pine Land (a multinational seed company) and the US Department of Agriculture
recently won new patents on Terminator in Europe and Canada.(1) Terminator (a.k.a. "genetic use restriction technology" - GURTs) refers to plants that
are genetically modified to produce sterile seeds at harvest. The technology was
developed by the multinational seed/agrochemical industry and the US government. If
commercialized, Terminator would prevent farmers from saving seeds from their harvest,
forcing them to return to the commercial market every year and marking the end of
locally-adapted agriculture through seed selection. The vast majority of the world's
farmers routinely save seed from their harvest for re-planting. Bombshell in Bangkok: Almost one year ago, the Canadian government and its seed industry
allies made a scandalous bid to dismantle the United Nations' moratorium on Terminator
seed technology at a February 2005 meeting of a scientific advisory body to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Bangkok. A leaked memo revealed that the
Canadian government was prepared to push for language allowing for field-testing and
commercialization of Terminator. Ultimately, the Canadian government was forced to
publicly distance itself from Terminator in response to citizen protests back home, and
due to key interventions from other governments that support the moratorium. (For more
details: http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=500 ) "The promise of increased profits is simply too enticing for industry to give up on
Terminator seeds," explains Lucy Sharratt, coordinator of the international Ban
Terminator Campaign (www.banterminator.org). "Terminator seeds will become a commercial
reality unless governments take action to prevent it," agrees Hope Shand of ETC Group. The Ban Terminator Campaign, launched in response to attacks on the CBD moratorium,
seeks to promote government bans on Terminator technology at the national and
international levels. It also supports efforts of civil society, farmers, Indigenous
peoples and social movements to campaign against suicide seeds. National Bans: In March 2005 the Brazilian government passed a national law that
prohibits the use, sale, registration, patenting and licensing of Terminator seeds. The
Government of India has implemented a national ban on Terminator through its legislation
governing plant variety registration. One More Round in Granada: Governments will meet in Granada, Spain next week (January
23-27) to consider the social, economic and cultural impacts of Terminator seeds on
indigenous and local communities, and on peasant farmers. The meeting will review an
expert report on Terminator (known as the AHTEG Report
http://www.banterminator.org/the_issues/
indigenous_peoples_traditional_knowledge_and_biodiversity/ expert_group_report_on_gurts)
and make recommendations to the 8th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (COP8) in Curitiba, Brazil, 20-31 March 2006, where Terminator is
on the agenda. "Terminator technology is an assault on the traditional knowledge, innovation and
practices of indigenous and local communities," said Debra Harry of the Indigenous
Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, and member of the expert group that examined the
potential impacts of GURTs (Terminator) on indigenous peoples, smallholder farmers and
Farmers' Rights. "Field testing or commercial use of sterile seed technology is a
fundamental violation of the human rights of Indigenous peoples, a breach of the right
of self-determination," said Harry. The Ban Terminator Campaign urges the Working Group on 8j to unambiguously advise that
genetic seed sterility threatens biodiversity, indigenous knowledge systems and food
sovereignty. The AHTEG Report on GURTs should be forwarded to COP8 for its
consideration, and the report's recommendation that governments adopt national
regulations to prohibit the field-testing and commercial use of GURTs should be
strengthened. For more information: Lucy Sharratt, Ban Terminator Campaign Hope Shand or Veronica Villa (1) Delta & Pine Land and USDA, EP775212B, (European Patent), issued 5 October 2005;
Delta & Pine Land and USDA, CA2196410, (Canadian Patent), issued 11 October 2005 2. Monsanto and Dow Chemical agree to joint effort Thursday, January 18, 2006 The world's biggest seed company is using an old piece of countryside
wisdom: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." After years of litigation, Monsanto Co. announced Wednesday it reached an
agreement with competitor Dow Chemical Co. that will allow the companies to
share patented technology for developing genetically altered crops. St. Louis-based Monsanto is by far the industry leader in the
multibillion-dollar market for biotech crops, having released the first strains 10 years
ago. A key source of profit is Monsanto's patented genes, which allow it to
charge fees and premium prices for seed. The deal allows Monsanto and Dow's subsidiary, Dow AgroSciences LLC, to
share patented genes in different strains of corn, soybeans and cotton. Adding
multiple engineered genes into a seed is called "stacking" in the industry and
produces plants with a number of traits, such as pest and herbicide
resistance. Under the new agreement, Dow will have access to Monsanto's Roundup Ready
genes that make corn resistant to the popular herbicide. Monsanto will have
access to Dow's Herculex genes for pest resistance. The companies didn't release financial terms of the deal, which also
included an agreement to end litigation over the patented Bt gene that makes corn
resistant to insects. The deal could help end the historical pattern of Monsanto and Midland,
Mich.-based Dow suing each other, said analyst Frank Mitsch with Fulcrum Research
in New York. "Not only do the companies avoid costly legal fees going forward, but each
gains access to new technologies that provide financial benefits," Mitsch
wrote in a report on the deal. On the losing end of this agreement is Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of Monsanto's
biggest competitors, Mitsch said. A division of Wilmington-based DuPont Co.,
Pioneer is the second-biggest biotech crop company after Monsanto. The new agreement will increase competition for Pioneer, which has ramped up
efforts to take market share from Monsanto during the past few years, Mitsch
said. At Monsanto's annual shareholder's meeting Tuesday, CEO Hugh Grant was asked
about litigation with Dow over patents. Grant hinted that the companies
could achieve more through cooperation. Grant compared the biotech crop market to making television sets. In that
industry, a single television contains pieces that are patented by a number of
companies. It's how the TV is put together that gives it value, he said. Monsanto's goal is anything but modest when it comes to selling biotech
seed. Monsanto already dominates the market for genetically engineered soybeans,
and the agreement with Dow will help it make inroads in the corn market. Monsanto-patented genes are now planted on about 24 million acres of U.S.
cropland, company spokesman Lee Quarles said. Grant said Tuesday the company wants to expand that to 50 million acres by
2008 or 2009, which would account for about 63 percent of all corn acreage. Copyright The News Journal 3. A decade later: is GM winning hearts and minds? Wednesday, January 18, 2006 It is ten years since the first large-scale planting of genetically modified
(GM) crops. Food Navigator looks at both sides of the argument to assess the
future of the technology and its implications for the European food
industry. The argument for genetically modified crops Advocates such as the International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) argue that the benefits of the technology to the
food industry have simply become irresistible. More and more farmers are planting GM crops, while hostile regulators such
as those in the EU are softening up to the technology. Farmer demand has driven annual double-digit increases in biotech crop
adoption since the crops were first commercialised a decade ago, with four new
countries and a quarter million more farmers planting biotech crops last year. The 8.5 million farmers planting biotech crops in 2005 also marked a
significant milestone as the 1 billionth cumulative acre, or 400 millionth hectare,
was planted. "Farmers from the United States to Iran, and five EU countries demonstrate a
trust and confidence in biotech crops, as indicated by the unprecedented high
adoption rate of these crops," said ISAAA chairman Clive James. Certainly, 2005 saw Iran growing its first crop of biotech rice, while the
Czech Republic planted Bt maize for the first time, bringing the total number
of EU countries growing biotech crops to five with Spain, Germany and the
Czech Republic being joined by France and Portugal. This, says the ISAAA, could signal an important trend in the EU. Last week,
the EU ordered Greece to lift its ban on a GM seed manufactured by Monsanto,
and also granted European approval for three Monsanto GM maize types. Ultimately, claim supporters, GM crops have proved their effectiveness in
the space of a decade despite fierce opposition. Opinions are beginning to
change. Recent European Commission decisions have tended to back GM use, and
consumers are being won over by scientific as well as economic argument. "I am cautiously optimistic the stellar growth experienced during the first
decade of commercialisation will not only continue, but will be surpassed in
the second decade," said James. "The number of countries and farmers growing biotech crops is expected to
grow, particularly in developing countries, while second-generation input and
output traits are expected to become available." The argument against genetically modified crops This of course is not a view shared by many environmentalists and food
activists. European consumer opinion is still unequivocally anti-GM, and retailers
have tended to respond by advertising their products as ‘non-GM', creating
an impression that this is a health and safety as well as an environmental
issue. Pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth have marked the ten year
anniversary of GM crops by arguing that no benefits to consumers or the environment
have materialised. "Contrary to the promises made by the biotech industry, the reality of the
last ten years shows that the safety of GM crops cannot be ensured and that
these crops are neither cheaper nor better quality," said Nnimmo Bassey of
Friends of the Earth (FoE) Nigeria. A new FoE report argues that contrary to what the ISAAA might say, GM crops
are not ‘green'. According to the pressure group, Monsanto's Roundup Ready
soybeans, the most extensively grown GM crop today, has led to an increase in
herbicide use. It claims that independent reports from the US show that since 1996, GM
corn, soybean and cotton have led to an increase in pesticide use of 55 million
kilos. The intensive cultivation of soybeans in South America is fostering
deforestation, and has been associated with a decline in soil fertility and soil
erosion. In addition, the report argues that GM crops do not tackle hunger or
poverty. Most GM crops commercialised so far are destined for animal feed, not for
food, and none have been introduced to address hunger and poverty issues. And what's more, the biotech industry has failed to introduce the promised ‘
new generation' of GM crops with consumer benefits. "After 30 years of research, only two modifications have made it to the
marketplace on any scale: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance," said FoE. "
The biotech industry is still mostly focusing on the traits, crops and
applications that it did in the 1990s, and animal feed is the exclusive or primary
intended use of most new-generation GM crops." …and the future? European consumers undoubtedly still hold strong reservations over the
proliferation of GM crops. Member States such as Luxembourg, Greece and Austria
consistently vote against GMO approvals and will not be happy with the recent EC
announcement that Greece must lift its ban on Monsanto's MON 810. In contrast to the US, pressure groups have successfully convinced the
public that the powerful biotech sector is somehow trying to hoodwink them into
consuming risky foods. But the fact remains that firm proof that GM foods could
harm human health is absent. This has diluted the argument against GM crops. If debate continues to focus
on whether GM has health and safety implications, then the biotech industry
will likely win over European regulators, as it is already doing. But if the debate focuses fully on whether GM has had a negative
environmental impact, as the FoE suggests, then the industry could have a real fight on
its hands. © 2000/2006 Decision News Media S 4. Seeds of legislative meddling: BY CATHERINE BADGLEY and IVETTE PERFECTO A national food controversy is now simmering in Michigan, as the state
Senate considers a bill that would bar towns and counties from enacting
local legislation to regulate genetically engineered seed. This bill
poses a threat to our democracy and could prove especially harmful given
the serious concerns raised by genetically engineered crops. Genetically engineered organisms are created by inserting pieces of DNA
from a distantly related organism into the DNA of a host plant or
animal. For example, in one common GE crop, bacterial genes are
genetically engineered into corn to create corn plants that produce
their own pesticide. GE crops, especially corn and soybeans, are widely grown in Michigan and
across the United States. They are found in many processed foods in U.S.
supermarkets. Yet controversy swirls around GE foods, and they have been banned or
require labels in some countries. At issue are concerns about inadequate
evaluation of the health risks and environmental consequences of GE
crops currently in use, genetic contamination of organic and
conventional crops, and the ability to regulate GE foods within the food
system. A related looming issue is the production of biopharmaceutical crops --
food crops engineered to produce prescription drugs or industrial
chemicals. Currently, outdoor experimental plots of biopharmaceutical
crops -- such as corn engineered to produce blood clotters and
contraceptives -- present significant contamination risks to the food
system. In response to these uncertainties, citizens in three counties in
California passed ordinances in 2004 to ban the raising of GE crops and
livestock, and local action has been taken in nearly 100 New England towns. Agribusiness reacted swiftly to these local initiatives. Its legislative
supporters have introduced preemptive bills in 18 states to prevent
local governments from enacting legislation about seeds and plants.
Fourteen states already have passed these bills into law; Michigan's
version, SB 777, is scheduled to get another committee hearing Thursday. The public should be concerned about this bill for four reasons. GE foods pose genuine health and environmental concerns. Scientific
experiments where laboratory mammals were fed GE food resulted in
allergic reactions in one instance and toxic effects in another. Threat
of allergic reaction led to the recall of hundreds of products
containing genetically engineered corn in 2000. The Food and Drug Administration still does not require premarket safety
testing for GE foods. The legislation prevents local enactment of the precautionary principle.
The precautionary principle advocates thorough investigation of the
risks posed by a new technology before it's adopted. Following the precautionary principle, GE organisms would be required to
demonstrate they do no harm before they are grown and consumed, based on
rigorous testing of health and environmental impacts. Preemptive legislation of this sort violates democratic principles and
citizen involvement in issues of public well-being. It takes away local
control, the authority of local governments, and the ability of voters
to pass local ballot initiatives -- important tenets of our democracy. Pre-emptive legislation, when it is justified in the public interest,
should establish minimums for general health and safety, not set the
upper limit on what is permitted. SB 777 would legally prohibit local
regulation of GE seeds, thereby creating a ceiling for all Michiganders
to live under, regardless of the risk factors. SB 777 does not deserve the support of legislators or the public,
whether the reason is GE plants specifically or the right to precaution
and self-governance in general. CATHERINE BADGLEY and IVETTE PERFECTO are on the faculty at the
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Museum of Paleontology and the
School of Natural Resources & Environment, respectively. 5. Report slams USDA biotech experiments: HONOLULU, Hawaii (AP) -- In a report released quietly just before Christmas,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's investigative arm disclosed that the
department failed to properly monitor thousands of acres of experimental
biotechnology crops. The report by the department's inspector general said USDA didn't thoroughly
evaluate applications to grow experimental crops and then didn't ensure the
genetically engineered plants were destroyed after experiments.
In several cases, the agency didn't even know where so-called field trials
were located. "The system has been set up practically as a self-reporting system," said
Greg Jaffe, biotech director for the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public
Interest. "It's a 'don't look, don't find' policy." The two-year audit, which ended in April, made 28 separate recommendations
for improving oversight, the job of the USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service. In a written response, W. Ron DeHaven, the inspection service's
administrator, said USDA has safely regulated biotechnology experiments since 1987 "with
no demonstrable negative environmental impacts." A new biotechnology department was created at the start of the audit that is
addressing most of the concerns raised by the report, he said.
Still, many scientists worry that biotechnology crops will inadvertently
cross-pollinate with conventionally grown crops. That poses a particular problem
for organic farmers who charge a premium to guarantee customers their
groceries are free of genetic engineering. Soy and corn are the most commonly planted genetically engineered crops in
the United States. Soy is engineered to resist weed killer and the corn
spliced with a bacteria gene to resist bugs.
The report said the inspection service "lacks basic information about the
field test sites it approves and is responsible for monitoring, including where
and how the crops are being grown, and what becomes of them at the end of
the field test." The report also said the agency failed to keep a promise to inspect more
crops engineered to make drugs using human and other animal genes.
Three years ago, the agency vowed to do a better job of monitoring crops
after it fined Prodigene Inc. of College Station, Texas, $250,000 for failing to
remove corn engineered to produce a pig vaccine before soybeans were
planted. The audit did not find any environmental harm but said the USDA's inadequate
safeguards "increase the risk that genetically engineered organisms will
inadvertently persist in the environment before they are deemed safe to grow
without regulation." The agency was responsible for monitoring outdoor experiments of genetically
engineered crops in all states and U.S. territories. Only Vermont, Nevada
and New Hampshire have never hosted such trials within their borders. 6. Un-spinning the spin masters on genetically engineered food Part 3 of 3 This is the third of three parts of Jeffrey Smith's response to Hans
Lombard. Lombard, a South African biotech PR consultant, accused Smith
of blatant lies in his September 2005 interview in the investigative
magazine noseweek. Smith replies to each of the accusations point by
point below. To read the original noseweek interview, go to
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/Sept05Rammeddownourthroats/index.cfm . To read all three parts, go to
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showDocumentFile/?objectID=101 . 7. Down on the biopharm, Missouri plows ahead By Rachel Melcer Attracting and growing biopharm companies - those that genetically
engineer
crops to produce drugs or polymers - is just one play in Missouri's
bid to
build a biotech industry. But it is an important one, because it trumps the concerns of outstate
voters
and legislators who now see the state's spending on biotech as a
benefit only
to St. Louis and Kansas City. The burgeoning biopharm business is a
potential
boon to farm income and rural economies. So, Missouri is offering financial incentives to a pair of biopharm
firms, with
mixed results. Chlorogen Inc., a startup company based at the Nidus Center for
Scientific
Enterprise in Creve Coeur, has decided to contract with farmers and
build a
processing plant in Cape Girardeau in about a year, said Chief
Executive David
Duncan. The company was wooed by Kentucky, Florida and South Carolina, but
Missouri
offered the best financial package, he said. Ventria Bioscience, a Sacramento, Calif.-based company, had planned to
relocate
to Maryville, Mo., but the deal fell through when federal and state
grants
failed to materialize. Missouri officials say they still are talking
with
Ventria in hopes of bringing the company to the state, but the
discussion has
gone back to the drawing board. "We've also got feelers out to a number of other companies," said Mike
Mills,
deputy director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development.
"We do
focus very heavily on the biotech industry, and (biopharming) just
happens to
be a subset that provides an opportunity for rural Missouri to benefit
greatly." Even if these efforts succeed, a jackpot is not assured. Scientists
agree that
biopharming technology can work, but it is controversial. There are concerns that plants engineered to grow non-food proteins
might
cross-pollinate with unmodified neighbors and contaminate food and
animal feed
supplies. Industry proponents say scientific and physical precautions
can be
taken to prevent this - growing the proteins in non-food crops, such
as the
tobacco produced by Chlorogen, or raising modified food plants in
areas distant
from crops that will be eaten, as Ventria proposed to do by growing
rice in
northwestern Missouri instead of the state's Bootheel. Chlorogen also is using chloroplast cells of tobacco leaves to express
the
pharmaceutical proteins, and these cells do not play a part in
reproduction. But regulatory agencies are playing catch-up with the science, which
is
developing at a rapid pace. Strict rules need to be developed to
manage
biopharm crops, and it is unknown how these will affect the industry,
said
Roger Beachy, president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in
Creve
Coeur and chair of Gov. Matt Blunt's Advisory Council for Plant
Biotechnology. "There is a lot of hard science and good regulations to be developed
as (this)
industry develops," Beachy said. But he believes it can succeed. Proponents also say biopharming can be lucrative, though the size of
the payoff
and its beneficiaries are in question. A recent report by agriculture economist Robert Wisner of Iowa State
University, commissioned by the nonprofit Union of Concerned
Scientists, said
most of the benefit of biopharm crops would flow to big pharmaceutical
companies rather than to farmers. Most industry observers agree that the small biotech startups
developing this
technology will need to partner with these large corporations in order
to fund
the years of clinical trials and big marketing efforts needed to sell
any
therapeutic drug. Chlorogen needs to secure such a deal before building operations in
Cape
Girardeau, Duncan said. But growers and rural towns can benefit if production facilities are
built near
farm fields, as Chlorogen and Ventria have planned. Missouri has
engineering
and processing talent that can be employed in biopharming, said Perry
Wong,
senior economist with the Milken Institute, a think tank in Santa
Monica, Calif.
"It's a region (where) agriculture meets industry," he said. "It's
only
natural, and with very good synergy, that the area try to bring in
some new
technology ... to maximize the benefit to the state in job creation
and
building." The technology offers a way to turn commodity farming into a
high-value niche
production system, said Jason Garst, a farmer in Watson, Mo., who has
contracted with Ventria to produce its biopharm rice. "It's simply the
next
level of technology that's going to allow us growers to remain
profitable." The key to keep in mind is that it's a niche industry, said Judith
Kjelstrom, a
microbiologist and director of the biotechnology program at the
University of
California, Davis. "Some of the (political) leadership in the Midwest got caught up in,
'Wow, this
is high-value farming.' And it is. But it's not going to be the
acreage that
you're used to seeing with soybeans and corn," Kjelstrom said,
comparing its
market potential to that of organic farming. Beachy said the state's goal is to pursue a variety of high-tech,
value-added
agricultural biotech specialties, not just biopharming. For example, Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co., the world's leading
producer of
genetically modified crops, is developing soybeans and corn for food
use that
have added nutritional or processing benefits. Researchers at the
Donald
Danforth Plant Science Center are engaged in similar work. Beachy agreed with Kjelstrom that biopharming alone is not likely to
be a huge
industry - unless it is embraced by the pharmaceutical giants. But he
said he
is confident that Missouri would be a good home for it. The state also could gain from biopharming by boosting its overall
image as a
high-tech hot spot, Kjelstrom said. "Any state that gets into promoting this technology, it's going to be
successful," she said. "If you can say biopharming is alive and well
in
Missouri, you'll be seen as really visionary people." 8. UM researcher cites GE contamination; genetic herbicide resistance found in seeds Published on Friday, January 13, 2006 by the Bangor Daily News AUGUSTA - Maine farmers cannot be 100 percent sure that the canola seeds
they purchase to grow on their farms do not contain genetically engineered
traits, a University of Maine agriculture research professor said this week. Tests conducted last fall on research crops in northern Maine and Vermont
indicated that the conventional crops and seeds contained genetically
engineered DNA - DNA altered to allow crops not to be affected by herbicide
applications - even though separated from GE plots. "The genie is out of the bottle," professor John Jemison declared Wednesday
during a presentation of his findings. The issue of contaminated seeds goes straight to the heart of the organic
industry, which prides itself on the purity of its natural products. Maine
potato farmers were hoping that Jemison's research would indicate that canola was
a profitable and soil-benefiting rotational crop. Jemison's findings mirror those released in a study in 2004 by the Union of
Concerned Scientists that found GE DNA is contaminating traditional seeds in
three major U.S. crops - corn, soybeans and canola. The UCS, headquartered
in Cambridge, Mass., is an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000
concerned citizens and scientists. The UCS policy is that seed contamination, left unchecked, could disrupt
agricultural trade, unfairly burden the organic industry and allow hazardous
materials into the food supply. Jemison was part of a three-plot research project last summer that grew
conventional and genetically engineered canola on a total of 50 acres in Presque
Isle, Orono and Vermont. Canola seed is grown in Maine for its oil and to be
plowed under to enrich the soil. The GE and non-GE seeds for last fall's project were seeds left over from
previous field trials at Orono and donated seeds from several seed companies. Speaking Wednesday at the Maine Agricultural Trades Show in Augusta, Jemison
said that after harvest, tests were conducted on 4,500 conventionally grown
canola plants. "We found contamination, or genetic resistance to herbicides, in five out of
the six [genetic] lines," Jemison said, a condition that could not have been
caused by current-season drift from GE crops. This means that conventional canola seeds already are contaminated with
GE-resistance traits, he said, and farmers cannot be 100 percent sure they are
getting purely organic seeds. According to the UCS, seed becomes contaminated when a conventional crop
being grown for seed production is located downwind from a field growing GE
crops. GE pollen, blown by the wind, pollinates the conventional crops, and some
of those seeds contain the DNA from the GE crop. The UCS says the seed producer, unaware of the contamination, harvests the
seed and sends it to a seed production facility to be processed and bagged.
Farmers then purchase the seed, marketed as pure, traditional seed, and the
crops they grow produce crops with the genetically engineered DNA. Russell Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners
Association, said Maine's 301 certified organic farmers are extremely
concerned about adulterated seeds and GE crop drift. "So far, we've been fortunate not to have severe issues in Maine, but the
organic consumer is looking for non-GE food, and it is our job to provide
that," Libby said. "There are some real questions about whether crops with even a
minuscule amount of GE DNA can be marketed as organic." Maine's organic industry represents more than $10 million annually and is
the state's fastest-growing agriculture segment, according to Libby. "I continue to think Maine has an opportunity to carve out a different kind
of agriculture, and that will be organic," he said. Libby said many countries have a zero tolerance, and "we're trying in Maine
to hold to that zero percent. The U.S. Department of Agriculture so far
hasn't tackled this issue. It's been food buyers and consumers that are setting
the standards." Doug Johnson of the Maine Biotechnology Information Bureau said this week
that he has not seen Jemison's study, but he added that "foreign genes in seed
lines are nothing unusual. The Association of Official Seed Certifying
Agencies tolerates 0.5 percent of seed of other varieties or off-types in a 'pure'
seed." Jemison said his research percentage fell within those parameters. Many
countries importing U.S. crops and organic producers, however, will accept no
level of foreign genes. Jemison said he is visiting potato and canola farmers, presenting his
research and letting them make up their own minds. "But I'm telling them that we aren't seeing any benefits to GE canola," he
said. Jemison said the level of genetic alteration discovered was "certainly
greater than the percent found to naturally occur in plants. In nature, there is
about one in a trillion plants that will mutate and produce a natural
resistance [to herbicides]." As far as the yield of the conventional versus GE canola, Jemison said the
results indicated that in some fields the GE yield was 100 pounds more an
acre. Yield, however, is not the only consideration. "But once you add in the cost of the herbicide and the technology fees [for
the GE seeds], it is a completely different picture," Jemison said. "In the
Orono trial, it turned out we could save $3 an acre not using the GE seeds. "We concluded the GE strains provide no significant benefit, no positive
response," he said. Jemison said the GE crops originally were touted as a way to feed the
world's hungry, but only Canada, the United States and Argentina have embraced them. "In Europe, the opposition to GE foods is mostly cultural," he
explained. Jemison said the United States, however, takes the attitude of "innocent
until proven guilty" and takes the approach of trying the new technologies
without regard to culture. "We take a fairly short-term view of our farming economies, and we need to
rethink our policies," he said. "We need to look at eating as an agricultural
event, not just to fill our stomachs." | |
