e-mailInternational News
2002-05-17 | permalink
EU suppresses GE study: GE crops add high costs, threaten organic
A secret European Union (EU) study leaked to Greenpeace states that all farmers would face high additional, in some cases unsustainable costs of production if genetically engineered (GE) crops were commercially grown on large scale in Europe. The study predicts that the situation would become particularly critical for organic farming of oilseed rape as well as for intensive production of conventional maize. It calculates additional costs between 5 and as much as 41 percent of the crop value.</p><p><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/">Greenpeace Press-release</a></p><p><a href="http://www.zs-l.de/gmo/downloads/jrc_eu_study.pdf">Download the EU`s JRC Coexistence Study</a>
2002-05-14 | permalink
Report raises farmer liability concerns over pharm corn pollen drift
The American Corn Growers Association warns US farmers about growing corn for pharmaceutical purposes: "Where does the liability lie if pollen drifts into another corn field, contaminates it with a pharmaceutical drug which ends up in corn products for human consumption, resulting in adverse health consequences?"<a href="http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=706">CropChoice.com News</a>
2002-05-13 | permalink
International Maize Research Centre discusses genetic contamination of local maize varieties
May 10th 2002, Mexico-City - After publication of evidence, that genetically engineered maize varieties have contaminated landraces of maize in Mexico, the Centre of Origin of maize world wide. CIMMYT organized a forum of eminent scientists to discuss the implications. The proceedings are now available on the web.</p><p><a href="http://www.cimmyt.org/abc/geneflow/geneflow_pdf_engl/contents.htm">Proceedings of a Forum. Gene Flow Among Maize Landraces, Improved Maize Varieties, and Teosinte: Implications for Transgenic Maize</a>
2002-05-04 | permalink
Canada Probe Draws Blank on GM-Tainted Seed
By Veronica Brown LONDON 05/03/2002 (Reuters)A Canadian inquiry has failed to reach any conclusion as to how rapeseed shipped to Europe two years ago became tainted with genetically modified material, a government report shows. In May 2000 Britain revealed that British and European farmers had sown thousands of acres with Canadian rapeseed that was contaminated with GM material -- banned under European Union regulations. The crops were later ripped up and the company that sold the seeds, Advanta Canada, compensated farmers.The seeds were correctly certified according to international trade standards agreed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) said in its report. But they did not meet the stricter European Union requirements, which ban the deliberate release of unapproved genetically modified material into the environment. "The CFIA was unable to determine the source of the adventitious trait (contamination) present in the seed lots in question," it concluded. Public opinion in Europe, bruised by food safety scares over mad cow disease and the chemical dioxin in recent years, is wary about GM foods and there is a three year defacto ban in place in Europe on approvals of new gene spliced varieties. Environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth (FoE) said the report was a whitewash. The CFIA said 77 percent of the samples contained GM material that met a one percent threshold in the form of "RT 73" produced by Monsanto.CROSS-POLLINATIONThe probe also concluded that there was "no evidence of any impropriety on the part of Advanta Canada, its third party processor or the Canada Seed Growers' Association that would require any regulatory action be taken." The CIFA said the issue was now closed but added that it would work with other governments to better understand and address the issues surrounding contaminated seeds.Friends of the Earth GM campaigner Pete Riley, calling the report a "whitewash" said, "Two years after thousands of acres of British countryside was planted with illegal GM crops, the authorities still don't know how it happened. What steps are the biotech industry and the governments of Canada and the UK taking to ensure it doesn't happen again - "It is likely that this contamination was caused by cross-pollination from neighboring GM crops. "As the nearest GM crops were at least 800 meters away this raises questions over the effectiveness of separation distances between GM and conventional crops -- particularly in the UK, where there are only 50 meters (decreed distance from GM crops) for rapeseed oil," he added. Britain has been under steady pressure from environmental groups, particularly over the distances between gene crops and other varieties, due to fears of cross-contamination. "The whole fiasco demonstrates once again the risk these crops pose to conventional and organic farmers, and provides yet more evidence for banning GM crops from being commercially grown in the UK."
2002-05-01 | permalink
Ecological and Agronomic Consequences of Gene Flow from Transgenic Crops to Wild Relatives
<strong><a href="http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~lspencer/gene_flow.htm">Scientific Methods Workshop, March 5 and 6, 2002 Columbus, Ohio</a></strong>See the<a href="http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~lspencer/agenda.htm">AGENDA</a> for information on specific speakers and topics.Select the<a href="http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~lspencer/Proceedings.pdf"> PROCEEDINGS</a> documentfor more complete summariesMeeting DescriptionGene flow from transgenic plants to wild relatives is one of the major research areas targeted by USDAs<a href="http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/biotechrisk/biotech.htm">Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants Program (BRARGP)</a> . We received funds for a two-day workshop that brought together researchers who study the prevalence and consequences of gene flow from transgenic crops to weeds and other wild relatives. On the first day, speakers discussed the general context for gene flow research, the information needs of USDA-APHIS, EPA, and the biotechnology industry, and case studies of specific crop-wild complexes, including cucurbits, brassicas, sunflower, sorghum, rice, wheat, maize, strawberry, poplar, and turfgrasses.On the second day, break-out groups discussed the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches for studying the occurrence of gene flow and various effects of gene flow (fitness effects of transgenes in wild relatives, effects on population dynamics, indirect community effects, and effects on the genetic diversity of wild relatives). The crops, wild relatives, and regulatory issues we discussed focused on the USA, but much of the workshop was also relevant to similar situations in other countries. Bridging the fields weed science and plant ecology, this workshop defined the most appropriate and rigorous empirical methods available for studying questions related to gene flow from transgenic crops to weedy and wild relatives.Steering CommitteeDr. Allison Snow (Chair and Co-PI), Ohio State UniversitDr. Carol Mallory-Smith (Co-PI), Oregon State UniversitDr. Norman Ellstrand, University of California at RiversideDr. Jodie Holt, University of California at RiversideDr. Hector Quemada, Crop Technology Consulting, Inc., Kalamazoo, MichiganLogistical Coordinator: Dr. Lawrence Spencer, Ohio State University
2002-04-30 | permalink
BELGIUM REFUSES LICENCE FOR AVENTIS GMO CROP TEST
April 29, 2002ReutersBRUSSELS- The Health Ministry was cited as saying on Monday that Belgium has refused to grant a licence to Aventis CropScience to conduct experimental field tests with a genetically modified herbicide resistant strain of oilseed rape on Belgian sites.Health Minister Magda Aelvoet was cited as telling a news conference there was too large a risk of the genetically modified crops spreading into the environment, adding, "A recent European Environmental Agency report states that pollen from oilseed can be transported by bees over a distance of fourkilometres and survive several days. The chance of transgenetic plants 'escaping' is therefore very real."The story also says that the Franco-German drugs company did however obtain a licence to experiment with insect-resistant maize in a greenhouse on one Belgian site to evaluate new insect-tolerant corn lines.Two other field experiments -- with viral disease resistant sugar beet and herbicide resistant chicory -- by other companies were also approved.A request for experiments with fungal disease resistant apple trees by a Dutch company was refused.
2002-04-29 | permalink
AUSTRALIA: "ZERO GM UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE"
April 25, 2002 Stock & Land Biotechnology supporters were cited as arguing last week that genetically modified crops can only exist alongside organic farming if organic farmers lower their standards. The story says that participants in an industry forum on the co-existence of GM and organic forms of production organised by the biotechnology lobby group Life Sciences Network, were cited as saying that zero tolerance threshold imposed by the organic industry on GM material was both unnecessary and unworkable. Keith Alcock, Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, said less than one per cent limit required by the ACCC if products were not to be labelled as containing GM material should be sufficient for organic farmers, adding, "Don_t just talk this rubbish about zero. They are totally ridiculous standards. (If they insist on that,) by definition co-existence is impossible._ Mr Alcock said Australian research (still to be published) carried out into cross pollination between crops of GM and conventional canola indicated very, very low levels of cross pollination. _Cross pollination is miniscule,_ he said Biological Farmers of Australia spokesman Scott Kinnear was cited as saying the organic industry had insisted on a zero tolerance to GMs in the first place as a precautionary principle and saw no reason to relax that standard, adding, "Our customers are saying that they don_t want it," and that zero tolerance did not require zero levels of GM, but did require zero detectable levels. Current testing capabilities would probably mean less than 0.1 pc. He agreed it was unlikely the two production forms could co-exist with open pollinated crops.
2002-04-28 | permalink
European Union in disarray over GM seeds
Nature BiotechnologyApril 2002 Volume 20 Number 4 pp 324 - 325By Anna Meldolesi, RomeThe European Union could be facing another chaotic season involving disputes over the adventitious presence of GM seeds in batches of conventional seeds to be sown. While the European Commission waits for member states to agree on revisions to the seed directives setting clear rules on the matter, European countries are free to adopt their own approaches to imported seed lots, creating havoc for exporters, seed companies, and farmers.While the EC waits for member states to agree on revisions to the seed directives, European countries are free to adopt their own approaches to imported seeds containing traces of GMOs.The EU depends heavily on seed imports-70,000 tons of corn (21% of its needs), 15,000 tons of soy (68%), 4,000 tons of oilseed rape (20%), and 7,000 tons of cotton (58%) were imported in 2000. Having acknowledged that absolute segregation of types of seed is technically impossible, the EC is looking to revise current seed marketing directives, which were established before GM content became a commercial issue.The Commission has been trying to determine acceptable levels of GM seeds in batches of conventional seed since the spring of 2000, when many European countries discovered small amounts of GM seeds in conventional cotton, oilseed rape, and soybean seeds imported from the US and Canada. The resulting environmental protests, seed destruction, and re-exportation or exclusion of seeds from food use prompted most European countries to agree to an "Interim Action" proposed by the EU Scientific Committee on Plants to accept a 0.5% threshold and try to coordinate monitoring and testing of seed batches until the seed directives could be modified.The EC recently revised this level, taking into account possible sources of mixing, such as cross-pollination, volunteers (crops that persist without deliberate cultivation), harvesting, transport, and storage-some of which differ according to the crop. For example, in the case of maize, volunteers rarely cause a major problem and control of cross-pollination is more important; and for vegetative crops, such as potato, volunteers are likely to be the major source of transgenes in food-chain materials. As a result, the EC has set a 0.3% tolerance for swede rape and cotton, 0.5% for tomato, beet, chicory, maize, and potato, and 0.7% for soy; batches containing higher percentages of GM seed must be labeled as exceeding the threshold. (These figures have been calculated exactly to meet the 1% threshold established for food and food ingredients under Regulation 49/2000, to ensure that the final products derived from the harvest will not require labeling.)The EU Standing Committee on Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Seeds and Plants (comprising agricultural representatives of EU member states) discussed these proposals on February 28. One of the biggest concerns is the fate of seed batches exceeding these thresholds. Several countries say it is not enough to simply label them as containing GM seed. They want an upper threshold set, above which seeds cannot be sold commercially. The problem lies with crops like corn, beet, and cotton that have no precise varietal purity requirements for commercialization. In the case of soy, for example, a seed batch must comprise at least 99% of a specific variety in order to be certified; thus if the GM content exceeds 0.7%, then the batch must be labeled (according to adventitious presence rules), but if the GM content exceeds 1%, the batch cannot be sold (according to variety rules). A corn batch containing 10% GM seeds, however, must be labeled as exceeding the 0.5% GM threshold, but could nonetheless be sold.Until EU countries reach agreement, they are left to apply the Interim Action at their discretion. Germany, for instance, has rejected it, and tolerance levels for GM seeds now differ from state to state, whereas France has started a self-control system involving an agreement between all links in the chain to "minimize" mixing. Some countries even insist on a zero tolerance policy. Austria, for example, passed a law in January 2002 setting a threshold of 0.1% (effectively zero, as it is the limit of current detection methods), and apparently relies on self-certification from seed producers. Although it could be possible for a country as small as Austria to find enough GM-free seeds for its needs, it is impossible for larger countries.A case in point is Italy, which insists on an unworkable zero tolerance policy despite the implications for its farming and food industries. In 2001, then Italian agricultural minister Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio raised the zero tolerance flag, prompting environmental campaigns against imported conventional corn and soybeans (Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 603, 2001). On December 28, 2001, Italy`s new agricultural minister Gianni Alemanno, before setting an official threshold, commissioned the National Agency for Selected Seeds (overseen by the ministry of agriculture) to assess the availability of GM-free seeds on the market. The survey found that seed producers were able to declare as GM-free only 14% of corn and 6% of soybean seeds sold in Italy-not enough for Italian farmers' needs. ("GM-free" was not clearly defined in this study.) Despite these findings, Alemanno has verbally confirmed the zero tolerance threshold but has not actually set it by decree. As a result, monitoring and testing of seed lots is not standardized. The situation is further complicated by the August 2000 decree of the Italian government banning commercialization of products derived from the four most widespread GM corn varieties (Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 1137, 2000).Moreover, on July 23, 2001, a metastudy by the French food safety agency found that 7-41% of conventional lots of corn in 2001 contained GM seeds, even though the levels in individual samples were significantly lower than in 2000 thanks to the self-control system. (France is the biggest seed producer in the EU, exporting mainly to Germany, Italy, Belgium, and Holland.) "Based on the French data, we can expect adventitious presence of such GM corns in many lots sowed in Italy," says Norberto Pogna, director of genetics at the Experimental Institute for Cereal Research in Rome, "but if we should take literally the zero tolerance claim and the August 2000 decree, we would end up preventing the Italian food industry from using the national harvest."The Standing Committee is expected to prepare a revised text on which to vote. But negotiations could take several months, blocking the EC`s plan to have the new rules enforced by the end of the year.
2002-04-16 | permalink
Monsanto Says Crops May Contain Genetically-Modified Canola Seed
The St. Louis-based biotechnology company has yet to detect it in the seeds it has tested, but says trace amounts of the material were found last year in Canadian seed, leading it to believe the same is possible in the U.S. In conceding that for three years U.S. farmers have been planting canola seed that may contain certain genetic material that was never meant to leave the laboratory, Monsanto has become the latest example of the biotechnology industry failing to control plants whose genes it has altered.Monsanto, which is 85% owned by drug maker Pharmacia Corp., Peapack, N.J., insists that the canola seed in question is safe to consume. But genetically modified food is an emotional issue for many consumers. And Monsanto`s admission is sure to fuel consumer skepticism and inflame opponents of gene-altered crops, who object to the idea of tinkering with nature and who worry about cross-pollination with other crops.Clearly, Monsanto is hoping to avoid a repeat of the biotechnology industry`s most embarrassing and costly episode, in which a variety of genetically modified corn approved only for livestock consumption and industrial use found its way into the human food supply. Called StarLink, the corn was detected in more than 300 products with brand names such as Kraft and Taco Bell, resulting in enormous recalls in 2000.At least one group opposed to genetically modified food, having learned about Monsanto`s request, intends to fight it and to publicize its implications -- that the biotechnology industry can`t always control the spread of its own creations. ``This is genetic pollution,`` says Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group.The U.S. Department of Agriculture is leaning toward granting Monsanto`s unusual request, which the company made in a November letter, but hasn`t done so formally. The Food and Drug Administration is reviewing safety data from Monsanto.If Monsanto fails to receive federal approval for the altered organism, known as GT200, the discovery of its presence in U.S. canola wouldn`t necessarily mandate a food recall, as the laws don`t spell it out. But antibiotechnology groups would likely clamor for a recall. The situation is potentially a big headache for the U.S. food industry, because canola oil is a basic ingredient in hundreds of products. Canola`s popularity has increased because it is lower in saturated fats than other edible oils. About two-thirds of the canola crops in the U.S. are already genetically modified.A spokesman for ConAgra Foods Inc., maker of Wesson oil, says the company doesn`t screen its canola oil for genetically modified ingredients. He wouldn`t comment on what the company would do if GT200 is detected in its supplies. Monsanto created GT200 in the 1990s while trying to produce a seed capable of growing into a canola plant invulnerable to Roundup, a Monsanto weedkiller. Such a plant would enable farmers to liberally apply the herbicide without damaging their crop.Ultimately, Monsanto chose to develop and market canola seed that had been modified differently. Called RT73, it is also invulnerable to Roundup. Deciding that the second version performed better, Monsanto sought and received federal approval to market RT73 canola seed. Federal scrutiny is required of any plant containing a foreign gene. Monsanto inserted genes from microorganisms into both versions of its canola seed.But in the November letter to the USDA, Monsanto said that GT200 ``has the potential to be present in low, adventitious levels in commercial canola varieties.`` A majority of the 1.5 million acres of canola fields in the U.S. are believed to be planted with seed containing Monsanto`s federally cleared Roundup-tolerant gene.Last year, the GT200 version showed up in Canadian canola seed, forcing Monsanto to recall hundreds of tons of it. Although Monsanto had sought and received Canadian approval for GT200, the recall was necessary because Canada exports huge amounts of canola to Japan, which hadn`t approved GT200. Monsanto says it never sold the GT200 version commercially in Canada and isn`t sure why it wound up in canola seed there.In the corn-contamination case of two years ago, StarLink`s inventor, the cropscience division of French pharmaceutical giant Aventis SA, had to stop selling the seed and set aside Euros 100 million ($88 million) to compensate food companies and growers for their costs.The fallout was widespread. A market exploded for food products free of genetically modified ingredients. Some farmers got cold feet about jumping into the biotech era. Wheat growers, for example, are telling Monsanto to proceed slowly with plans to supply them with genetically modified seeds. The Aventis cropscience division is being sold to German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG. The biotechnology industry concedes the primary point of its opponents -- that crops mate too freely to keep genetically modified versions entirely separate. The wind and insects can carry the pollen of a genetically modified plant great distances to where it isn`t wanted: an organic farm, for instance. The pollen from a genetically modified corn plant can fertilize corn that wasn`t intended to be bioengineered.The problem extends to genetically modified crops that are legal but unwanted by a certain segment of consumers. A Wall Street Journal laboratory investigation last year of 20 products labeled as containing no genetically modified ingredients found evidence of the material in 16 of them.``As we see more and more varieties come out ... you might find trace amounts [of bioengineered ingredients] in food that didn`t go through the full regulatory measure,`` says Michael P. Phillips of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, an industry trade group.But rather than hysterical reactions, the industry argues that government and society should accept trace-level contaminations. Officials of Monsanto, Aventis and other crop biotech companies want a new policy from the White House that would allow for the accidental presence of trace amounts of some genetically modified materials in seed and food.But the Bush administration couldn`t do that without setting off protests from antibiotechnology groups. ``We don`t want the federal government to insulate the crop-biotechnology industry from liability,`` said Mr. Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety.
Typo3
