|
Altered crops in Europe: At what cost?
(Thursday, June 1, 2006 -- CropChoice news) --
1. Missouri GMO bill pushed back by agriculture 1. Missouri GMO bill pushed back by agriculture
By David Bennett Farm Press Editorial Staff
Until it was pulled from consideration late in the Missouri legislature’s
spring session, Senate Bill 1009 had promised a vigorous tussle between
farmers, politicians and biotech lobbyists. SB 1009 called for giving the state
power over the “regulation, labeling, sale, storage and planting of seeds.”
Before the bill’s language was changed late in the debate, it would also
have prohibited the state from enacting any seed regulation exceeding federal
requirements.
Many farmers, an independent lot by nature, were not happy at the prospect
of turning over local controls to the state or federal government. But the
ceding of local control over crops planted — “pre-emption language” is the term
favored by proponents — isn’t just happening in Missouri. More than 10
state legislatures have passed similar bills in recent sessions.
Opposition to the wave of pre-emption legislation hasn’t been especially
loud. But Bootheel rice farmers had their antennae up because just last year a
crisis erupted when GMO/pharmaceutical rice was to be planted near commercial
fields. Rice farmers claimed the pharma rice — to be grown by Ventria
BioScience — was a threat to their markets.
(For more, see _http://deltafarmpress.com/news/050525-ventria-rice/_
(http://deltafarmpress.com/news/050525-ventria-rice/) )
Their claims gained little traction with leading state politicians despite
backing from Riceland, the largest rice co-op in the nation. Plans to grow the
pharma rice were scuttled only after St. Louis-based Anheuser Busch, the
largest buyer of Delta rice, threatened to stop buying the home-grown commodity
over fears of a beer consumer backlash.
“If (SB 1009) had passed, we’d have had no say about what could, or couldn’t, be planted,” says Sonny Martin, a prominent Bootheel rice producer and
chairman of the Missouri Rice Research and Merchandising Council. “If (the bill)
had been in place last year, Ventria could have come in here and planted
their rice within 50 feet of all the commercial rice in the Bootheel. There
would have been nothing we could’ve done about it.”
Labeling the charge “absolutely untrue,” Kelly Gillespie, who heads MOBIO
(a trade organization funded by private corporations like Monsanto, Pfizer,
and Johnson and Johnson), says after consultations with Anheuser Busch and
other companies, the amended bill dropped the “no stricter than federal”
provision. In doing so, “Busch agreed to endorse and support the county pre-emption
bill. They didn’t have a problem with it.”
Asked for comment, Anheuser Busch sent Delta Farm Press this statement: “
Anheuser-Busch was willing to support a compromise version of SB 1009 that would
have contained a state pre-emption on regulations pertaining to research,
development and use of seed technologies and that maintained the state’s
authority to regulate in these areas.”
According to Gillespie, others supporting the bill included the Missouri
Farm Bureau, the Missouri Soybean Association, the Missouri Corn Growers
Association, Syngenta, Monsanto, Bayer, Pioneer and Dupont.
On the other side, it wasn’t only rice farmers who were opposed. Farmers and
ranchers from around the state were also part of the pushback.
“This would have affected wheat, cattle, hog farmers and everyone else,”
says Greg Yielding, a field representative with the U.S. Rice Producers
Association. “When it comes to making a living, farmers know what works. They don’t
want some… bureaucrat with a lobbyist in his ear making decisions on what
can be planted next door.”
“Right now,” says Tim Gibbons, communications director for the Missouri
Rural Crisis Center, “(Bootheel) counties could enact some kind of regulation to
keep GMO rice out. This bill would take that possibility away.”
Gibbons says the crisis center is focused on family farms. “We try to defend
the rights of family farmers. It’s important to keep up with legislation
because nowadays many politicians are chipping away at local control of
agriculture. We try and keep that from happening. We’re for local control, for
government that’s closer to the people.”
Bill proponents said, “‘we don’t need a patchwork of different ordinances
around the state,’” says Yielding. “Well, from our standpoint, that takes the
farmers — especially in the Bootheel — out of the equation. As we saw in
the (Ventria situation), they have a hard enough time getting the state’s
attention, much less defeating companies with a bunch of money behind them.
“If there’s no possibility southeast counties can pass an ordinance saying,
‘we want no pharmaceutical rice,’ then (these companies) can come in and do
whatever they want. There would be no threat the farmers could muster.”
Those arguing for the bill claim a desire to head off GMO-growing bans like
those enacted in California.
“The bill was more a direct response to activities that occurred in 2003 in
Mendocino County, Calif.,” says Gillespie. “An initiative passed there
specifically related to the selling of GMO seed — something as basic as Roundup
Ready soybeans (would be prohibited).”
The move to pass pre-emption language across the nation is a response to the
actions of that single county?
“Absolutely,” says Gillespie. “(Such bans) would be devastating. What
happens if a farmer’s land is on the border of two counties? He could put one set
of seeds here and not over there?”
Martin laughs at the comparison. “They’re pointing to California as an
example to scare everyone into this. But California is off by itself in so many
ways, you know? This is Missouri! We’re not against GMOs here — farmers are
growing Roundup Ready crops all over this state. But we can’t let someone else
decide what does or doesn’t (constitute) a threat to our markets.”
Not surprisingly, Yielding agrees. “There hasn’t been any movement in
California’s rice-growing area to pass anything like this. Actually, what they
want to do is make Missouri essentially a regulatory-free zone for GMOs. These
politicians think biotech will be Missouri’s savior and there will be a
business boom.
“But from the rice farmers’ perspective, we can’t have pharma-rice grown
near commercial. This was just an attempt by the GMO companies to do what they
want in Missouri. And it’s so shortsighted. No one was thinking about what it
means to markets in the long run.”
Gillespie concedes it is unlikely county GMO bans will pop up in the
Bootheel. But he says such a ban in a “liberal community” that is “easily guided by
an outside national organization…is a possibility.”
“We’re not trying to close markets for any farmer. We’re trying to expand
them, open them, and leverage the technologies as they become accepted.
“We want to give farmers another option. There are many farmers who’ll
choose to grow organic. Others will grow conventional. Yet others will choose to
grow biotech crops. We think the coexistence among those camps is a strong
suit for American farmers.”
Actually, not one but three California counties have passed GMO bans. Are
they really a countrywide threat? In a column last November, Harry Cline,
Western Farm Press editor, addressed the situation.
“Of course, the anti-GMO crowd gloats about victories in Mendocino, Marin
and Trinity counties,” wrote Cline. “They won in Mendocino with a sneak attack
where no grassroots opposition was mounted. They won in Marin by default.
There was no organized opposition because there is no agriculture there. The ‘
victory’ in Trinity was an ordinance hastily passed by the board of
supervisors partly to avoid a costly county referendum.
“There have been at least a dozen California counties that have passed
ordinances supporting biotechnology and at least one county rejecting a proposed
anti-biotech ordinance.
“The way I figure it, the score is at least 15 to 3 and 3 is being generous.
Game’s over.”
Back in Missouri, trying to work within the bill’s framework, rice farmers
proposed several amendments that bill proponents rejected. “One proposal was a
200-mile restriction for GMOs from commercial rice growing areas,” says
Martin. “Pass that and they could have done whatever else they wanted. If wheat
wanted to fight it more, if pork folks want to fight it, fine. I bet (those
commodity groups) were trying to cut their own deals. We were trying to protect
the rice crop and still work with (the proponents). But they wouldn’t go for
that. They wouldn’t agree to any compromise.”
Since the blanket term “GMO” covers so many aspects of biotechnology and
only certain ones — like plant-made pharmaceuticals — are controversial in
Missouri, why lump them all together? Why not break the pre-emption legislation
into separate GMO components?
“In the world of business attraction… do you want to be known as a
science-friendly and biotech-friendly state?” asks Gillespie. “Is there a welcoming
environment for these types of companies? Thirteen or 14 states have said, ‘
Yes,’ not only as a public policy stance but as a marketing stance. They want
such companies to know they won’t be exposed to the wacko element from
California that sees a problem where there is none.
“What kind of message (would breaking the GMO components up) send? When you
begin to carve out (such an) approach — ‘not in my backyard’ or ‘not in my
territory’ — where do you draw the line? How many others would say, ‘Oh, me
too! Make sure you exclude me, as well.’”
The counter argument, Martin points out, is counties banning pharma crops
could actually strengthen their markets. Buyers may be more willing to buy —
perhaps even pay a premium for — a crop they know has less chance of being
contaminated.
Despite the bill being pulled, many expect it to resurface during next year’s legislative session.
“This is going to haunt us again,” says Martin. “Hopefully, before it does,
common sense will catch on. This needs to be talked out so people understand
what’s going on.”
“Don’t forget, this is an election year,” says Gibbons. “(For fear of
losing votes) I think a lot of contentious issues were passed on. They’ll bring
this back.”
Yes, they will, confirms Gillespie. “We certainly intend to bring forward
the bill in 2007. But if there are legislative changes we can make to improve
it in the meantime, we will.”
2. Genetically engineered crops may produce herbicide inside our
intestines
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Pioneer Hi-Bred's website boasts that their genetically modified (GM)
Liberty Link[1] corn survives doses of Liberty herbicide, which would
normally kill corn. The reason, they say, is that the herbicide
becomes "inactive in the corn plant."[2] They fail to reveal, however,
that after you eat the GM corn, some inactive herbicide may become
reactivated inside your gut and cause a toxic reaction. In addition, a
gene that was inserted into the corn might transfer into the DNA of
your gut bacteria, producing long-term effects. These are just a
couple of the many potential side-effects of GM crops that critics say
put the public at risk.
Herbicide tolerance (HT) is one of two basic traits common to nearly
all GM crops. About 71% of the crops are engineered to resistant
herbicide, including Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) and Roundup[3]
(glyphosate). About 18% produce their own pesticide. And 11% do both.
The four major GM crops are soy, corn, cotton and canola, all of which
have approved Liberty- and Roundup-tolerant varieties. Herbicide
tolerant (HT) crops are a particularly big money-maker for biotech
companies, because when farmers buy HT seeds, they are required to
purchase the companies' brand of herbicide as well. In addition, HT
crops dramatically increase the use of herbicide,[4] which further
contributes to the companies' bottom line.
There are no required safety tests for HT crops in the US?if the
biotech companies declare them fit for human consumption, the FDA has
no further questions. But many scientists and consumers remain
concerned, and the Liberty Link varieties pose unique risks.
Liberty herbicide (also marketed as Basta, Ignite, Rely, Finale and
Challenge) can kill a wide variety of plants. It can also kill
bacteria,[5] fungi[6] and insects,[7] and has toxic effects on humans
and animals.[8] The herbicide is derived from a natural antibiotic,
which is produced by two strains of a soil bacterium. In order that
the bacteria are not killed by the antibiotic that they themselves
create, the strains also produce specialized enzymes which transform
the antibiotic to a non-toxic form called NAG (N-acetyl-L-
glufosinate). The specialized enzymes are called the pat protein and
the bar protein, which are produced by the pat gene and the bar gene
respectively. The two genes are inserted into the DNA of GM crops,
where they produce the enzymes in every cell. When the plant is
sprayed, Liberty's solvents and surfactants transport glufosinate
ammonium throughout the plant, where the enzymes convert it primarily
into NAG. Thus, the GM plant detoxifies the herbicide and lives, while
the surrounding weeds die.
The problem is that the NAG, which is not naturally present in
plants, remains there and accumulates with every subsequent spray.
Thus, when we eat these GM crops, we consume NAG. Once the NAG is
inside our digestive system, some of it may be re-transformed back
into the toxic herbicide. In rats fed NAG, for example, 10% of it was
converted back to glufosinate by the time it was excreted in the
feces.[9] Another rat study found a 1% conversion.[10] And with goats,
more than one-third of what was excreted had turned into
glufosinate.[11]
It is believed that gut bacteria, primarily found in the colon or
rectum, are responsible for this re-toxification.[12] Although these
parts of the gut do not absorb as many nutrients as other sections,
rats fed NAG did show toxic effects. This indicates that the herbicide
had been regenerated, was biologically active, and had been
assimilated by the rats.[13] A goat study also confirmed that some of
the herbicide regenerated from NAG ended up in the kidneys, liver,
muscle, fat and milk.[14]
More information about the impact of this conversion is presumably
found in "Toxicology and Metabolism Studies" on NAG, submitted to
European regulators by AgrEvo (now Bayer CropScience). These
unpublished studies were part of the application seeking approval of
herbicide-tolerant canola. When the UK government's Pesticide Safety
Directorate attempted to provide some of this information to an
independent researcher, they were blocked by the company's threats of
legal action.[15] The studies remained private.
Toxicity of the herbicide
Glufosinate ammonium is structurally similar to a natural amino acid
called glutamic acid, which can stimulate the central nervous system
and, in excess levels, cause the death of nerve cells in the
brain.[16] The common reactions to glufosinate poisoning in humans
include unconsciousness, respiratory distress and convulsions. One
study also linked the herbicide with a kidney disorder.[17] These
reactions typically involve large amounts of the herbicide. It is
unclear if the amount converted from GM crops would accumulate to
promote such responses or if there are low dose chronic effects.
Perhaps a more critical question may be whether infants or fetuses
are impacted with smaller doses. A January 2006 report issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Inspector General
said that studies demonstrate that certain pesticides easily enter the
brain of young children and fetuses, and can destroy cells. That same
report, however, stated that the EPA lacks standard evaluation
protocols for measuring the toxicity of pesticides on developing
nervous systems.[18] Scientists at the agency also charged that "risk
assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which any
exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not
adversely affect their neurological development." [19] Furthermore,
three trade unions representing 9,000 EPA workers claimed that the
evaluation techniques used at the agency were highly politicized.
According to a May 24, 2006 letter to the EPA's administrator, the
unions cited "political pressure exerted by Agency officials perceived
to be too closely aligned with the pesticide industry and former EPA
officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural
community"[20]
Although the EPA may be hampered in its evaluations, research has
nonetheless accumulated which suggests that glufosinate carries
significant risks for the next generation. According to Yoichiro
Kuroda, the principal investigator in the Japanese project entitled
"Effects of Endocrine Disrupters on the Developing Brain," glufosinate
is like a "mock neurotransmitter." Exposure of a baby or embryo can
affect behavior, because the chemical disturbs gene functions that
regulate brain development.[21]
When mouse embryos were exposed to glufosinate, it resulted in growth
retardation, increased death rates, incomplete development of the
forebrain and cleft lips,[22] as well as cell death in part of the
brain.[23] After pregnant rats were injected with glufosinate, the
number of glutamate receptors in the brains of the offspring appeared
to be reduced.[24] When infant rats were exposed to low doses of
glufosinate, some of their brain receptors appeared to change as
well.[25]
Glufosinate herbicide might also influence behavior. According to
Kuroda, "female rats born from mothers that were given high doses of
glufosinate became aggressive and started to bite each other?in some
cases until one died." He added, "That report sent a chill through
me."[26]
Disturbing gut bacteria
If the herbicide is regenerated inside our gut, since it is an
antibiotic, it will likely kill gut bacteria. Gut microorganisms are
crucial for health. They not only provide essential metabolites like
certain vitamins and short fatty acids, but also help the break down
and absorption of food and protect against pathogens. Disrupting the
balance of gut bacteria can cause a wide range of problems. According
to molecular geneticist Ricarda Steinbrecher, "the data obtained
strongly suggest that the balance of gut bacteria will be
affected"[27] by the conversion of NAG to glufosinate.
When eating Liberty Link corn, we not only consume NAG, but also the
pat and bar genes with their pat and bar proteins. It is possible that
when NAG is converted to herbicide in our gut, the pat protein, for
example, might reconvert some of the herbicide back to NAG. This might
lower concentrations of glufosinate inside of our gut. On the other
hand, some microorganisms may be able to convert in both directions,
from glufosinate to NAG and also back again. If the pat protein can do
this, that is, if it can transform NAG to herbicide, than the presence
of the pat protein inside our gut might regenerate more herbicide from
the ingested NAG. Since there are no public studies on this, we do not
know if consuming the pat gene or bar genes will make the situation
better or worse.
But one study on the pat gene raises all sorts of red flags. German
scientist Hans-Heinrich Kaatz demonstrated that the pat gene can
transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. He found his evidence in young
bees that had been fed pollen from glufosinate-tolerant canola plants.
The pat gene transferred into the bacteria and yeast inside the bees'
intestines. Kaatz said, "This happened rarely, but it did happen."[28]
Although no studies have looked at whether pat genes end up in human
gut bacteria, the only human GM-feeding study ever conducted did show
that genetic material can transfer to our gut bacteria. This study,
published in 2004, confirmed that portions of the Roundup-tolerant
gene in soybeans transferred to microorganisms within the human
digestive tract.[29]
Since the pat gene can transfer to gut bacteria in bees, and since
genetic material from another GM crop can transfer to human gut
bacteria, it is likely that the pat gene can also transfer from
Liberty Link corn or soybeans to our intestinal flora. If so, a key
question is whether the presence of the pat gene confers some sort of
survival advantage to the bacteria. If so, "selection pressure" would
favor its long term proliferation in the gut.
Because the pat protein can protect bacteria from being killed by
glufosinate, gut bacteria that take up the gene appears to have a
significant survival advantage. Thus, the gene may spread from
bacteria to bacteria, and might stick around inside us for the long-
term. With more pat genes, more and more pat protein is created. The
effects of long-term exposure to this protein have not been evaluated.
Now suppose that the pat protein can also re-toxify NAG back into
active herbicide, as discussed above. A dangerous feedback loop may be
created: We eat Liberty Link corn or soy. Our gut bacteria, plus the
pat protein, turns NAG into herbicide. With more herbicide, more
bacteria are killed. This increases the survival advantage for
bacteria that contain the pat gene. As a consequence, more bacteria
end up with the gene. Then, more pat protein is produced, which
converts more NAG into herbicide, which threatens more bacteria, which
creates more selection pressure, and so on. Since studies have not
been done to see if such a cycle is occurring, we can only speculate.
Endocrine disruption at extremely low doses
Another potential danger from the glufosinate-tolerant crops is the
potential for endocrine disruption. Recent studies reveal that
endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can have significant hormonal
effects at doses far below those previously thought to be significant.
The disruptive effects are often found only at minute levels, which
are measured in parts per trillion or in the low parts per billion.
This is seen, for example, in the way estrogen works in women. When
the brain encounters a mere 3 parts per trillion, it shuts down
production of key hormones. When estrogen concentration reaches 10
parts per trillion, however, there is a hormone surge, followed by
ovulation.
Unfortunately, the regulation and testing of agricultural chemicals,
including herbicides, has lagged behind these findings of extremely
low dose effects. The determination of legally acceptable levels of
herbicide residues on food was based on a linear model, where the
effect of toxic chemicals was thought to be consistent and
proportional with its dosage. But as the paper Large Effects from
Small Exposuresshows, this model underestimates biological effects of
EDCs by as much as 10,000 fold.[30]
In anticipation of their (not-yet-commercialized) Liberty Link rice,
Bayer CropScience successfully petitioned the EPA in 2003 to approve
maximum threshold levels of glufosinate ammonium on rice. During the
comment period preceding approval, a Sierra Club submittal stated the
following.
"We find EPA's statements on the potential of glufosinate to function
as an endocrine-disrupting substance in humans and animals as not
founded on logical information or peer-reviewed studies. In fact EPA
states that no special studies have been conducted to investigate the
potential of glufosinate ammonium to induce estrogenic or other
endocrine effects. . . . We feel it's totally premature for EPA at
this time to dismiss all concerns about glufosinate as an endocrine-
disrupting substance. . . . Due to the millions of Americans and their
children exposed to glufosinate and its metabolites, EPA needs to
conclusively determine if this herbicide has endocrine-disrupting
potential."
The EPA's response was that "glufosinate ammonium may be subjected to
additional screening and/or testing to better characterize effects
related to endocrine disruption" but this will only take place after
these protocols are developed. In the mean time, the agency approved
glufosinate ammonium residues on rice at 1 part per million.
Since glufosinate ammonium might have endocrine disrupting
properties, even small conversions of NAG to herbicide may carry
significant health risks for ourselves and our children.
The EPA's response was that "glufosinate ammonium may be subjected to
additional screening and/or testing to better characterize effects
related to endocrine disruption" but this will only take place after
these protocols are developed. In the mean time, the agency approved
glufosinate ammonium residues on rice at 1 part per million.
Since glufosinate ammonium might have endocrine disrupting
properties, even small conversions of NAG to herbicide may carry
significant health risks for ourselves and our children.
Inadequate animal feeding studies
If we look to animal feeding studies to find out if Liberty Link corn
creates health effects, we encounter what independent observers have
expressed for years?frustration. Industry-sponsored safety studies,
which are rarely published and often kept secret, are often described
as designed to avoid finding problems.
If we look to animal feeding studies to find out if Liberty Link corn
creates health effects, we encounter what independent observers have
expressed for years?frustration. Industry-sponsored safety studies,
which are rarely published and often kept secret, are often described
as designed to avoid finding problems.
In a 42 day feeding study on chickens, for example, 10 chickens (7%)
fed Liberty Link corn died compared to 5 chickens eating natural corn.
Even with a the death rate doubled, "because the experimental design
was so flawed," said bio-physicist Mae-Wan Ho, "statistical analysis
failed to detect a significant difference between the two groups."
Similarly, although the GM-fed group gained less weight, the study
failed to recognize that as significant. According to testimony by two
experts in chicken feeding studies, the Liberty Link corn study
wouldn't identify something as significant unless there had been
"huge" changes. The experts said, "It may be worth noting, in passing,
that if one were seeking to show no effect, one of the best methods to
do this is would be to use insufficient replication, a small n," which
is exactly the case in the chicken study.
Without adequate tests and with a rubber stamp approval process, GM
crops like Liberty Link corn may already be creating significant hard-
to-detect health problems. In Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, China,
India, Brazil and elsewhere, shoppers have the benefit of laws that
require foods with GM ingredients to be labeled. In the US, however,
consumers wishing to avoid them are forced to eliminate all products
containing soy and corn, as well as canola and cottonseed oils. Or
they can buy products that are organic or say "non-GMO" on the
package. Changing one's diet is a hassle, but with the hidden
surprises inside GM foods, it may be a prudent option for health-
conscious people, especially young children and pregnant women.
Jeffrey Smith is the author of the international bestseller, Seeds of
Deception. The information in this article presents some of the
numerous health risks of GM foods that will be presented in his
forthcoming book, Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of
genetically engineered foods, due out in the fall.
Membership to the Institute for Responsible Technology costs $25 per
year. New members receive The GMO Trilogy, a three-disc set produced
by Jeffrey Smith (see www.GMOTrilogy.com). Donations to the Institute
are tax deductible.
[1] Liberty Link is a registered trademark of Bayer CropScience.
[2] http://www.pioneer.com/canada/crop_management/fsllink.htm
[3] Roundup is a registered trademark of Monsanto
[4] Charles Benbrook, "Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use
in the United States: The First Nine Years," October 2004
http://www.biotech-info.net/Technical_Paper_6.pdf
[5] Colanduoni JA and Villafranca JJ (1986). Inhibition of
Escherichia coli glutamine-synthetase by phosphinothricin. Bioorganic
Chemistry 14(2): 163-169, and Pline W A~ Lacy GH~ Stromberg V ~
Hatzios KK (200 I). Antibacterial activity of the herbicide
glufosinate on Pseudomonas syringae pathovar glycinea. Pesticide
Biochemistry And Physiology 71(1): 48-55
[6] Liu CA; Zhong H; Vargas J; Penner D; Sticklen M (1998).
Prevention of fungal diseases in transgenic, bialaphos- and
glufosinate-resistant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustrls). Weed
Science 46(1): 139-146, and Tada T~ Kanzaki H~ Norita E~ Uchimiya H~
Nakamura I (1998). Decreased symptoms of rice blast disease on leaves
of bar-expressing transgenic rice plants following treatment with
bialaphos. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 9(8): 762-764
[7] Ahn Y -J, Kim Y -J and Yoo J-K (2001). Toxicity of the herbicide
glufosinate-ammonium to predatory insects and mites of Tetranychus
urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) under laboratory conditions. Journal Of
Economic Entomology 94(1): s157-161
[8] Watanabe T and Sano T (1998). Neurological effects of glufosinate
poisoning with a brief review. Human & Experimental Toxicology 17(1):
35-39
[9] Bremmer IN and Leist K-H (1997). Disodium-N-acetyl-L-glufosinate;
AE F099730 - Hazard evaluation of Lglufosinate produced intestinally
from N-acetyl-L-glufosinate. Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH, Safety
Evaluation Frankfurt. TOX97/014. A58659. Unpublished. (see FAO
publication on
www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpp/pesticid/jmpr/Download/98/glufosi3.pdf)
[10] Kellner H-M, StumpfK and Braun R (1993). Hoe 099730-14C
Pharmacokinetics in rats following single oral and intravenous
administration of3 mg/kg body. Hoechst RCL, Germany, 01-L42?0670-93.
A49978. Unpublished.
[11] Huang, M.N. and Smith, S.M. 1995b. Metabolism of [14C]-N-acetyl
glufosinate in a lactating goat. AgrEvo USA Co.Pikeville, PTRL East
Inc., USA. Project 502BK. Study U012A/A524. Report A54155. Unpublished.
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/JMPR/Download/98_eva/glufosi.pdf
[12] In one study, for example, protein produced from a gene found in
E. coli turned NAG into glufosinate. G. Kriete et al, Male sterility
in transgenic tobacco plants induced by tapetum-specific deacetylation
of the externally applied non-toxic compound N-acetyl-L-
phosphinothricin, Plant Journal, 1996, Vol.9, No.6, pp.809-818
[13] Bremmer IN and Leist K-H (1998). Disodium-N-acetyl-L-glufosinate
(AE F099730, substance technical) - Toxicity and metabolism studies
summary and evaluation. Hoechst Schering AgrEvo, Frankfurt. TOX98/027.
A67420. Unpublished. (see FAO publication on
www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpp/pesticid/jmpr/Download/98/glufosi3.pdf)
[14] Huang, M.N. and Smith, S.M. 1995b. Metabolism of [14C]-N-acetyl
glufosinate in a lactating goat. AgrEvo USA Co.Pikeville, PTRL East
Inc., USA. Project 502BK. Study U012A/A524. Report A54155. Unpublished.
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/JMPR/Download/98_eva/glufosi.pdf
[15] Ricarda A. Steinbrecher, Risks associated with ingestion of
Chardon LL maize, The reversal of N-acetyl-L- glufosinate to the
active herbicide L-glufosinate in the gut of animals, Chardon LL
Hearing, May 2002, London (Note: This work is an excellent summary of
the risks associated with NAG conversion within the gut.)
[16] Fujii, T., Transgenerational effects of maternal exposure to
chemicals on the functional development of the brain in the offspring.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1997, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 524-528.
[17] H. Takahashi et al., "A Case of Transient Diabetes Isipidus
Associated with Poisoning by a Herbicide Containing Glufosinate."
Clinical Toxicology 38(2), 2000, pp.153-156.
[18] Ohn J. Fialka, EPA Scientists Pressured to Allow Continued Use
of Dangerous Pesticides, Wall Street Journal Page A4, May 25, 2006
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114852646165862757.html
[19] EPA SCIENTISTS PROTEST PENDING PESTICIDE APPROVALS; Unacceptable
Risk to Children and Political Pressure on Scientists Decried, Press
release, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. May 25,
2006, http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=691
[20] EPA SCIENTISTS PROTEST PENDING PESTICIDE APPROVALS; Unacceptable
Risk to Children and Political Pressure on Scientists Decried, Press
release, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. May 25,
2006, http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=691
[21] Bayer's GE Crop Herbicide, Glufosinate, Causes Brain Damage, The
Japan Times, 7 December 2004
[22] Watanabe, T. and T. Iwase, Development and dymorphogenic effects
of glufosinate ammonium on mouse embryos in culture. Teratogenesis
carcinogenesis and mutagenesis, 1996, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 287-299.
[23] Watanabe, T. , Apoptosis induced by glufosinate ammonium in the
neuroepithelium of developing mouse embryos in culture.
Neuroscientific Letters, 1997, Vol. 222, No. 1, pp.17-20, as cited in
Glufosinate ammonium fact sheet, Pesticides News No.42, December 1998,
p 20-21
[24] Fujii, T., Transgenerational effects of maternal exposure to
chemicals on the functional development of the brain in the offspring.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1997, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 524-528.
[25] Fujii, T., T. Ohata, M. Horinaka, Alternations in the response
to kainic acid in rats exposed to glufosinate-ammonium, a herbicide,
during infantile period. Proc. Of the Japan Acad. Series B-Physical
and Biological Sciences, 1996, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 7-10.
[26] Bayer's GE Crop Herbicide, Glufosinate, Causes Brain Damage, The
Japan Times, 7 December 2004
[27] Ricarda A. Steinbrecher, Risks associated with ingestion of
Chardon LL maize, The reversal of N-acetyl-L- glufosinate to the
active herbicide L-glufosinate in the gut of animals, Chardon LL
Hearing, May 2002, London (Note: This work is an excellent summary of
the risks associated with NAG conversion within the gut.)
[28] Antony Barnett, New Research Shows Genetically Modified Genes
Are Jumping Species Barrier, London Observer, May 28, 2000
[29] Netherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant
DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22
Number 2 February 2004.
[30] Wade V. Welshons et al, Large Effects from Small Exposures. I.
Mechanisms for Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals with Estrogenic
Activity, Table 2,Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 111, Number
8, June 2003
[31] Glufosinate Ammonium; Pesticide Tolerance, Environmental
Protection Agency, Federal Register: September 29, 2003 (Volume 68,
Number 188), 40 CFR Part 180, ACTION: Final rule,
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/September/Day-29/p24565.htm
[32] S. Leeson, The effect of Glufosinate Resistant Corn on Growth of
Male Broiler Chickens, by Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences,
University of Guelph. Report No. A56379; July 12, 1996.
[33] Mae-Wan Ho, Exposed: More Shoddy Science in GM Maize Approval,
ISIS Press Release 13/03/04, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MSSIGMMA.php
[34] Testimony of Steve Kestin and Toby Knowles, Department of
Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol on behalf of
Friends of the Earth, before the Chardon LL Hearings of the Advisory
Committee on Releases to the Environment, November 2000
[35] Testimony of Steve Kestin and Toby Knowles, Department of
Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol on behalf of
Friends of the Earth, before the Chardon LL Hearings of the Advisory
Committee on Releases to the Environment, November 2000
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at
www.responsibletechnology.org.
3. Altered crops in Europe: At what cost?
International Herald Tribune, USA. by Elisabeth Rosenthal ALBONS, Spain Enric Navarro was dumbfounded when the letter arrived from
the testing lab of the Spanish organic farmers association in late
February, informing him that his organic crop contained 12 percent
genetically modified corn. Hearing that his plants had been modified by
biotechnology was almost as traumatic for Navarro as finding they
contained nuclear waste.
For four years, he has lovingly planted hundreds of varieties of trees,
shrubs, flowers and herbs to attract just the right mix of insects so
that he would not need fertilizers or weed- killers on his precious
seven hectares. "If I could not farm organic, I would not farm," Navarro
said. "I could not sleep at night if I sold that crop."
He burned the corn in the field to rid his farm of what he calls a
"contaminant." But he does not know how the genetically modified seed
blew in. He cannot claim compensation for his losses. Also, since pollen
lingers, he is not sure when, if ever, it will be safe to use the field
to farm organic corn again.
As the European Union cracks open the door to genetically modified
crops, Navarro's tale serves as a caution about the risks, scientific
uncertainties and the hazy policies now in place to deal with problems
that will almost certainly arise.
For eight years, Spain was the only EU member state to allow commercial
cultivation of genetically modified crops. In the last 18 months, the
European Commission has approved 11 genetically modified seeds for
planting in the bloc. In 2005, France, Germany, Portugal and the Czech
Republic began planting small commercial plots.
The cornerstone of the EU's policy is the political conviction that
genetically altered crops and conventional crops can coexist as long as
proper safeguards are in place - such as keeping a distance between the
two types of fields and imposing a liability scheme for accidents.
But scientifically, there are strong disagreements about whether
coexistence is possible, and at what cost.
"Coexistence is feasible in the vast majority of places, so long as
farmers talk to each other and cooperate," agreeing, for example, not to
place GM and conventional seeds of the same crop in adjacent fields,
said Simon Barber of EuropaBio, an industry group in Brussels. Ordeals
like Navarro's, he said, should be rare.
But many scientists - not just those with Green credentials - believe
that the small, closely spaced farms of Europe make such coexistence
difficult if not prohibitively expensive.
"My experts all agreed that coexistence often just doesn't work, it
isn't possible," said Chantal Line Carpentier, an agricultural economist
who assembled an independent panel of international experts to study the
issue in North America.
The study was requested by Mexico in 2002, after GM corn was discovered
contaminating fields of native crops in Oaxaca, hundreds of miles south
of the United States. Mexico had not permitted GM cultivation, for fear
that the heartier, but more uniform, genetically modified variants would
edge out its dozens of unique strains of maize.
That report, "Maize and Biodiversity," prepared by the North American
Council on Environmental Cooperation, concluded that the GM corn - which
came from the United States - might have a long-term effect on Mexico's
ecology and biodiversity and should be more thoroughly studied and
monitored.
The United States and Canada attacked its conclusions. "We are deeply
disappointed that the CEC secretariat has produced a report that ignores
key science about biotechnology," reads a letter of protest from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
But some farmers believe the report did not go far enough. "Saying that
GM and non-GM farming can coexist is nonsensical," said Julian Rose, an
organic farmer from England who has helped organize Polish farmers
against modified crops. "It's like saying that noise and silence can
coexist in a room."
The biotech industry considers that "coexistence" has been achieved if
mixing is below 0.9 percent. It argues that foods in the EU could be
labeled GM- free if they contained less than that amount. The concept
infuriates advocates of organic foods, who liken it to allowing a bit of
meat in vegetarian products. But even industry analysts admit that 100
percent GM free foods are not practical once GM farming begins on a
large scale. "Coexistence has become a problem in Europe because some
people want zero percent tolerance," Barber said. "And that is, quite
frankly, unobtainable."
There are simply too many ways that mixing occurs: Mills grind crops
from different farms, a cookie contains oil made from imported GM soy.
The GM corn in Oaxaca was most likely the progeny of GM ears that had
been legally imported for animal feed, whose kernels had been illegally
used for planting.
With so many routes, environmental groups say it inevitably spreads past
the 0.9 percent limit and to areas where it is unwelcome.
"When the government of Catalonia says there's no evidence of genetic
pollution, what they mean is they didn't look," said Anna Rosa Martinez
of Greenpeace in Barcelona. Last year, Greenpeace tested 40 organic
farms, and nearly 20 percent had some level of contamination, from 0.7
to 12 percent.
Suzette Jackson, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace International, said: "We
would like to keep Europe as a supplier of non-GM food, and when you
look at countries with a lot of GM crops, it eventually becomes really
hard, or hugely expensive, to maintain regular farming."
Spain allowed GM cultivation in 1998. Twelve percent of corn is now GM -
50,000 to 60,000 hectares - about half of that in Catalonia.
Farmers are free to choose what to plant, but representatives of GM seed
companies now regularly hold dinners touting the benefits of modified
seeds, which are patented. Some variants produce pesticides, others have
stalks that resist wind or need less water.
While some farmers signed on, others - like Navarro - said no,
preferring the independence and quality they see with traditional seeds.
Traditional farmers in Mexico, and many in Europe, save seed from one
season's crop to plant the next. It is cheaper and allows selection of
unique varieties. Such replanting is forbidden under the agreement for
GM corn seed that farmers sign with companies like Monsanto and Syngenta.
In 2004, knowing that GM corn was growing in his area, Navarro planted
just a small patch of land to see if he could grow without
contamination. Successful, he later planted two large corn fields. "But
it was very windy here last fall," he said, "so perhaps it blew in some
stalks from another field, and contaminated me. I don't know, I will
never know."
His two fields are 70 and 100 meters, 230 and 330 feet, from his
neighbors' farms, a distance often deemed adequate to prevent mixing.
But the GM seed could have come on the wind or on a truck tire, from
anywhere.
He would like an investigation to prevent a recurrence. But there is no
reliable log of which farmers plant GM seeds in the area, and farmers
are not likely to confess, for fear of being sued.
In Denmark, to prepare for GM farming, the government is creating a
liability pool that all GM farmers will have to pay in to.
The EU agriculture commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, has told EU
states to try to guarantee coexistence, but it is unclear how, or at
what cost. Can farmers afford to maintain buffer zones of 100 meters
between fields? Would it work to create zones specifically designated
for GM crops? Will the GM crops harm the environment?
4. BASF drops plan to test GM potatoes in Ireland
IRELAND: May 25, 2006 DUBLIN - German chemicals firm BASF has decided against planting genetically modified
potato crops in Ireland this year, the country's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
said on Wednesday.
Ireland, Europe's biggest per capita consumer of potatoes, gave the go-ahead earlier this
month for BASF to grow varieties of the crop modified with improved resistance to late
potato blight, which brought famine to Ireland in the 19th century.
"We've just been told they they are not going to go ahead this year," a spokeswoman for
the EPA, which awarded the licence, said.
BASF Plant Science said in a statement that the EPA's consent had contained a number of
conditions and that it had been looking for clarification in certain areas.
"Due to the limited time restrictions of the planting season, it has been decided not to
conduct the field trials in 2006," the company said.
Having tested blight-resistant potatoes in Sweden in 2005, it would perform field trials
in Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany this year, BASF's plant biotechnology unit added.
Previous trials of GM foods in Ireland have been disrupted by environmentalists.
Ireland's Green Party called on the the EPA to reverse its decision to allow GM trials.
"The EPA...must not give in to any demands from BASF," Green Party Leader Trevor Sargent
said in a statement.
"Now is the opportunity to ensure that Ireland remains a GM-free producing island.
Ireland's traditional GM-free food status is a key selling point for Irish food exports
and must be protected."
The EPA said the licence would remain in place but would not be altered in any way.
"The licence is set now," the spokeswoman said.
Blight-resistant GM potatoes were first developed in 2003 after scientists discovered a
wild potato in Mexico that is naturally resistant to the disease.
The field trials were to be have been carried out at a one hectare site in County Meath.
The licence gave BASF the right to conduct trials for five years from 2006 to 2010, with
monitoring continuing until 2014.
5. Argentina to take legal action against U.S. biotech giant Monsanto in Spain
By David Haskel BUENOS AIRES--Argentina will take legal action against Monsanto in Spain and
in other European nations if the U.S. biotechnology giant continues to block
Argentine soy shipments from reaching European Union markets, an Argentine
Agriculture Secretariat official said.
"What Monsanto is doing has no legal grounds whatsoever," she told BNA May
22 after the U.S. firm, locked in a bitter dispute with Argentina over
unpaid royalties for its genetically modified soy seeds, managed to stop
several ships from downloading their cargo in Spanish ports over the past
few weeks.
In recent months the company managed to have courts seize Argentine soy
byproducts in Spain, Britain, Denmark, and the Netherlands. "We will take
legal action in Spain and wherever is needed in order to defend our
legitimate interests," said the official, who asked not to be named.
She added Argentina has already been accepted by Danish and Dutch courts as
"third party involved" after Monsanto--unable to collect royalties from
Argentine producers and traders--litigated against importers of Argentine
soy products at destination point. As an involved third party, Argentina can
play an active role in court, championing the importers' cause, she said.
Argentina is the world's No. 3 soybean exporter behind the United States and
Brazil, and 95 percent of it comes from Monsanto seed. The company says it
is losing hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid royalties.
But the Agriculture Secretariat official said most shipments arriving in
Europe were of soymeal and other soy byproducts, which are not covered by
patents related strictly to the seed.
Besides, the deadline for Monsanto to apply for copyright protection in
Argentina expired eight years ago, one year after it first introduced the
"Roundup Ready" (RR) seed, so-called because it has been genetically
modified to resist Monsanto's own Roundup weed-killer.
European Legal Action
The company started to take legal action in Europe in 2005 after more than
two years of fruitless attempts to have Argentine authorities clamp down on
an a widespread black market of the seed. The illegal trade means that only
20 percent of the soybean planted in Argentina comes from certified seed,
Monsanto complains.
RR seed has patent protection in many countries, including those of the
European Union, but Monsanto has failed to get it in Argentina. The firm
says its current legal strategy is focused on asserting its patent rights on
Argentine seed rather than on actually collecting money from seized
consignments, although it has reserved the right to demand $15 per metric
ton of Argentine soybean shipments.
The government has in the past promised to create a special fund to
compensate Monsanto, but the project got stuck in Congress where it met
resistance from farm lobbies. Farmers have in the past recognized Monsanto's
right to seek royalties, but decry what they call its bully tactics, with
the powerful Argentine Rural Society condemning its "trampling and
monopolistic stance."
Soybeans are the single largest hard-currency earner for Argentina and its
exports are heavily taxed, making it a key tool in the government's effort
to put the country back on its feet again following a 4-1/2-year-long
economic slump.
In a recent speech, Agriculture Secretary Miguel Campos called on Argentines
to unite in the fight against Monsanto. "We must not be afraid to defend
ourselves," he said. "Not just the government, but all Argentines. Let's
bear in mind that our country is now emerging from a deep crisis and that
soy is a source of riches and a key helper in the fight against poverty."
6. Vermont governor vetoes GE seed liability bill
The Associated Press, May 16, 2006 FAIRFIELD -- Gov. Jim Douglas on Monday vetoed a bill that would have made
seed manufacturers liable for damages caused by genetically engineered seeds
that drift into the fields of farms that do not want to use them.
Douglas said the measure was unnecessary and divisive and would have caused
manufacturers to raise prices or restrict the seed sales in Vermont.
"It is with regret that I veto this bill," Douglas said of legislation that
passed the House, 77-63, and the Senate, 19-8.
"I greatly respect how passionate the arguments are around the issue of
genetically engineered crops and the work of the Legislature in attempting a
compromise. However, S.18 fails to find a middle ground between the competing
interests, but instead dives into new legal territory that may only promote
needless litigation that pits farmer against farmer and neighbor against
neighbor."
The applause from the crowd of largely conventional dairy farmers showed how
passionate the debate had become. Some farmers and consumers are opposed to
the use of seeds that can be scientifically altered to resist pests or
disease. Others say the seeds are needed to control pests and keep food affordable.
"What irritated me the most was the organic and conventional farmer were
split. We'd always gotten along before," said Bernard Dubois, who owns a
1,000-cow farm in Addison.
"With the obstacles that we face, we certainly don't need to have our feed
taken away from us or sold to us at an elevated price," said Bill Rowell, a
dairy farmer in Sheldon.
Margaret Laggis, a lobbyist for the biotechnology industry, which opposed
the bill, said her clients had not determined whether they would change their
seed sales if the bill had not been killed.
"All the companies were really looking at the issue of selling in that
climate," she said.
Douglas said the discussion about the use of genetically engineered seeds in
Vermont would continue. He said he'd asked the agriculture secretary to
bring together conventional and organic farmers to try to resolve the issues
related to the seeds' use.
"I look forward to working with the farming community in continuing this
discussion," he said.
Down the road following the veto, supporters of the bill gathered for their
own news conference and accused the administration of bowing to pressure from
manufacturers.
"Gov. Douglas has chosen hypocrisy over democracy in siding with the
chemical giants and not listening to the farmers," said Rep. Dexter Randall, P-Troy,
the primary sponsor of the bill and a dairy farmer.
"This is a huge insult for the farm community of Vermont, only widening the
gap between conventional and organic farmers."
Advocates said they would continue to push for farmer protection from
contamination from genetically engineered seeds.
Jack Lazor of Butterworks Farm of Westfield, who producers organic yogurt,
cream and grains addressed the crowd.
"Go home and keep doing our work and keep talking about it and hopefully
things are going to change," he said.
7. World Council Of Churches: Take action to stop Terminator seeds
The WCC's news release is available here: http://www.oikoumene.org/
en/news/news-management/all-news-english/display-single-english-news/
article/1634/take-action-to-stop-termi.html The general secretary of the World Council of Churches, Rev. Dr
Samuel Kobia, called upon churches and ecumenical partners to take
action to stop "terminator technology". "Applying technology to
design sterile seeds turns life, which is a gift from God, into a
commodity. Preventing farmers from re-planting saved seed will
increase economic injustice all over the world and add to the burdens
of those already living in hardship," stated Kobia.
He underlined: "Terminator technology locates food sovereignty, once
the very backbone of community, in the hands of technologists and
large corporations. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization
estimates that 1.4 billion people depend on farmer-saved seed as
their primary seed source. All Christians pray "Give us this day our
daily bread" (Matt 6:11). That this profoundly material request
appears in this profoundly spiritual prayer, signals for us the
centrality of food in our lives, as well as the indivisibility of the
material and spiritual in the eyes of God. It is of great concern to
me that life itself is now often thought of and used as a commodity."
Governments upheld the international de facto moratorium on
"Terminator technology," which refers to plants that are genetically
engineered to produce sterile seeds, about a month ago at the Eighth
meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP8) to the UN's
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Curitiba, Brazil.
They finally gave in to strong pressure by social movements and civil
society groups and a number of governmental delegations supporting
their claims. The UN conference was held in Brazil only weeks after
the WCC's 9th General Assembly in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where
delegates urged the WCC to respond to the challenges posed by science
and technology.
The call for a ban on sterile-seed technology had taken center stage
at the two-week meeting in Curitiba. Thousands of peasant farmers,
including those from Brazil's Landless Workers Movement (Movimento
Sem Terra), protested daily outside the conference center to demand a
ban. The women of the international peasant farmers' organization Via
Campesina staged a silent protest inside the plenary hall on 23
March, holding hand-painted signs with the words "Terminar Terminator
con la Vida" ("Terminate Terminator with Life").
Brazil and India have already passed national laws to ban Terminator
- and other campaigns to prevent commercialization of seed
sterilization technologies will follow in various countries around
the world. Protestant churches in Germany lobby for a national law
and European Union legislation to ban terminator seeds. They also
argue against the patenting of terminator technologies.
"Though the international moratorium on Terminator was upheld at
COP8, the battle to block the technology is now moving to the
national level. This requires us to alert our member churches and
ecumenical partners to be vigilant in their respective countries,"
explains the WCC general secretary who is confident that this concern
unites Christian churches and people of other faiths who care for
small scale farmers and God's creation.
8. Furor over 'biopharming': Small firm's rice project chased out of two states
By PAUL ELIAS SAN FRANCISCO - In its quest to genetically engineer rice with human
genes to produce a treatment for childhood diarrhea, tiny Ventria
Bioscience has made an astonishing number of powerful enemies spanning
the political spectrum.
Environmental groups, corporate food interests and thousands of farmers
across the country have succeeded in chasing the company's rice farms
out of two states. And critics continue to complain that Ventria is
recklessly plowing ahead with a mostly untested technology that
threatens the safety of conventional crops grown for the food supply.
''We just want them to go away,'' said Bob Papanos of the U.S. Rice
Producers Association. ''This little company could cause major
problems.''
Ventria, with 16 employees, practices ''biopharming,'' the most
contentious segment of agricultural biotechnology because its adherents
essentially operate open-air drug factories by splicing human genes
into crops to produce proteins that can be turned into medicines.
Ventria's rice produces two human proteins found in mother's milk,
saliva and tears, which help people hydrate and lessen the severity and
duration of diarrhea attacks, a top killer of children in developing
countries.
But farmers, environmentalists and others fear that such medicinal
crops will mix with conventional crops, making them unsafe to eat.
Danger deemed unlikely|
The company says the chance of its genetically engineered rice ending
up in the food supply is remote because the company grinds the rice and
extracts the protein before shipping. What's more, rice is
''self-pollinating,'' and it's virtually impossible for genetically
engineered rice to accidentally cross breed with conventional crops.
''We use a contained system,'' Ventria Chief Executive Scott Deeter
said.
Regardless, U.S. rice farmers in particular fear that important
overseas customers in lucrative, biotechnology-averse countries like
Japan will shun U.S. crops if biopharming is allowed to proliferate.
Exports account for 50 percent of the rice industry's $1.18 billion in
annual sales.
Japanese consumers, like those in Western Europe, are still alarmed by
past mad cow disease outbreaks mishandled by their governments, making
them deeply skeptical of any changes to their food supply, including
genetically engineered crops.
Rice interests in California drove Ventria's experimental work out of
the state in 2004, after Japanese customers said they wouldn't buy the
rice if Ventria were allowed to set up shop.
Anheuser-Busch Inc. and Riceland Foods Inc., the world's largest rice
miller, were among the corporate interests that pressured the company
to abandon plans to set up a commercial-scale farm in Missouri's rice
belt last year.
But Ventria was undeterred. The company, which has its headquarters in
Sacramento, finally landed near Greenville, N.C. In March it received
U.S. Department of Agriculture clearance to expand its operation there
from 70 acres to 335. Ventria is hoping to get regulatory clearance
this year to market its diarrhea-fighting protein powder.
There has been little resistance from corporate and farming interests
in eastern North Carolina. But the company's work has raised the
hackles of environmentalists there.
''The issue is the growing of pharmaceutical products in food crops
grown outdoors,'' said Hope Shand of the environmental nonprofit ETC
Group in Carrboro, N.C. ''The chance this will contaminate
traditionally grown crops is great. This is a very risky business.''
Deeter points out that there aren't any commercial rice growers in
North Carolina, although the USDA did allow Ventria to grow its
controversial crop about a half-mile from a government ''rice
station,'' where new strains are tested. The USDA has since moved that
station to Beltsville, Md., though an agency spokeswoman said the
relocation had nothing to do with Ventria.
The company, meanwhile, has applied to the Food and Drug Administration
to approve the protein powder as a ''medical food'' rather than a drug.
That means Ventria wouldn't have to conduct long and costly human
tests. Instead, it submitted data from scientific experts attesting to
the company's powder is ''generally regarded as safe.''
Quicker recovery|
Earlier this month, a Peruvian scientist sponsored by Ventria presented
data at the Pediatric Academics Societies meeting in San Francisco. It
showed children hospitalized in Peru with serious diarrhea attacks
recovered quicker -- 3.67 days versus 5.21 days -- if the dehydration
solution they were fed contained the powder.
Ventria's chief executive said he hopes to have an approval this year
and envisions a $100 million annual market in the United States. Deeter
forecasts a $500 million market overseas, especially in developing
countries where diarrhea is a top killer of children under the age of
5. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 2 million children
succumb to diarrhea each year.
But overcoming consumer skepticism and regulatory concerns about
feeding babies with products derived from genetic engineering is a tall
order. This is especially true in the face of continued opposition to
biopharming from the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America,
which represents food, beverage and consumer products companies with
combined U.S. sales of $460 billion.
Ventria hopes to add its protein powder to existing infant products.
There is no requirement to label any food products in the United States
as containing genetically engineered ingredients.
The company also has ambitious plans to add its product to infant
formula, a $10 billion-a-year market.
, even though the major food manufacturers have so far shown little
interest in using genetically engineered ingredients. But Deeter says
Ventria can win over the manufacturers and consumers by showing the
company's products are beneficial.
''For children who are weaning, for instance, these two proteins have
enormous potential to help their development,'' Deeter said.
''Breast-fed babies are healthier and these two proteins are a big
reason why.''
9. WTO confirms ruling against EU GMO moratorium
GENEVA - The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has confirmed in a final ruling that a European Union moratorium on genetically-modified (GMO) foods was illegal, but Brussels said on Thursday the finding would not affect policy.
The verdict, which was widely expected, also condemned six member states -- Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg -- for applying their own bans on a number of GMO products previously approved by the European Commission.
"The substance of the ruling has not changed," said one diplomat with knowledge of the finding, which was issued late on Wednesday but not made public.
The WTO made a preliminary ruling in February.
The decision, in a case brought by the United States, Canada and Argentina, the world's biggest GMO producers, did not touch on the sensitive issue of whether GMOs are safe or whether they can be considered comparable to conventional products.
The EU, where consumers are suspicious of what are often called "Frankenfoods", said there was no need for a rule change because the six-year moratorium on approving GMOs ended in 2004.
Manufacturers have also withdrawn virtually all products covered by the individual state bans with the exception of a couple in Austria.
"The US and other complainants did not challenge the EU's regulatory framework on GMOs, which is rooted in science-based risk assessment. Nothing in this panel report will compel us to change that framework," a Commission spokesman said in Brussels.
"Europe will continue to set its own rules on the import and sale of GMO foods," spokesman Peter Power told a news briefing, adding it was not the case that the EU operated a moratorium on GM foods, noting it had approved nine products since last May.
BULLY OTHER COUNTRIES
A spokesman for the United States Trade Representative said that he could not comment because the report was confidential.
"When the report is made public, we expect WTO members to come into compliance and honour the rules-based trading system," said spokesman Stephen Norton.
But anti-GMO activists were adamant nothing had changed.
"It is clear that the US, Canada and Argentina will not be able to use this ruling to bully other countries to accept GMOs," said Eric Gall, political adviser to environmentalist group Greenpeace in Brussels.
The 1,000-page report, which will not be officially released for some six weeks, found that by not approving GMO products between 1998 and 2004, the EU was applying an effective moratorium. This constituted "undue delay" and therefore violated trade rules.
In addition it said the six countries had given no scientific evidence to justify their banning GMO products -- mainly maize and rapeseed -- which the EU had declared safe.
GMO-making companies such as Monsanto applauded the February ruling because they said it underlined the need for decisions affecting trade to be based on science.
"We are encouraged by the international trading community's support for science-based regulatory approvals," said Christian Verschueren, director-general of CropLife International, a global federation representing manufacturers.
The United States, which said its farmers lost US$300 million a year because of the EU action, also welcomed it. Washington says it could help overcome reservations about GMO crops in other parts of the world.
Both sides can appeal and it could be six months or more before the case is settled.
Story by Richard Waddington |