Fwd: More GE News for Friday, May 23, 2003

[Guest guest]

Fri, 23 May 2003 20:38:04 -0700

More GE News from The Campaign

More GE News for Friday, May 23, 2003

 

More GE News From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

------

 

More GE News for Friday, May 23, 2003

 

1) Monsanto Wages War on Consumers, Farmers and the Environment

2) FSAI wraps knuckles over mislabelling

3) UK May Allow GM Crops over Public Resistance

4) Brazil militants invade Monsanto biotech test farm

5) FDA takes steps to control genetic engineering research

6) Brazil's rules for modified food alarms Argentina

7) Genetically Modified Foods Becoming Staple in America's Diet

8) Study: Gene-Engineered Virus Kills Brain Tumors

9) South Korean wheat buyers warn US against biotech

10) Brazil labeling plan for GM foods draws criticism

11) India Harvests First Biotech Cotton Crop

 

***************************************************************

 

1) Greenpeace Press Release

 

Monsanto Wages War on Consumers, Farmers and the Environment

 

Thu 22 May 2003, Brussels, BELGIUM

 

Greenpeace activists today occupied the Monsanto's European/African

Headquarters in Brussels to hold the world's leading producer of

genetically modified (GM) crops responsible of spreading genetic

contamination, and waging a global war on people and the environment via

the World Trade Organisation. The US chemicals giant Monsanto,

responsible of over 90% of GM crops grown in the world, has aggressively

lobbied for no or little regulatory control for its GM products (1).

 

" We challenge Monsanto to step out of the shadows from where it is

calling the shots. Monsanto's crops are the major source of genetic

contamination in conventional and organic crops not only in Europe but

also in Brazil, Canada and India. With the WTO case, the US

administration is now openly fighting for Monsanto's interest and

defending the GMO industry, which is facing market rejection in several

continents, " said Eric Gall, GMO Policy Advisor for the Greenpeace

European Unit.

 

The EU agriculture ministers are set to meet in Brussels next week to

discuss genetic contamination on conventional and organic crops, the

so-called " co-existence " issue. The current proposal from the European

Commission fails to protect both the environment and the interests of

non-GM farmers and consumers. The EU commission proposal is at odds with

both the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle (2).

 

" The current European Commission co-existence proposal is utterly

unacceptable. It must be the GMO producers such as Monsanto - not

organic and conventional farmers or the European taxpayers - that should

bear the economic burden of genetic pollution and measures required to

prevent it. "

 

For four years now, the EU member states have blocked the approval of

all new GMOs until a complete and coherent legislation is in place.

Whilst rules on labelling and traceability are expected to be in place

by the end of this year - enabling consumers and farmers to identify

GMOs in food and animal feed - the European Commission still refuses to

introduce rules ensuring strict liability for costs associated with

genetic contamination. The rules are needed to try to prevent genetic

contamination in case GM crops are grown in Europe and to ensure that

non-GMO farmers will not bear the costs of avoiding contamination, which

is virtually unavoidable if GMOs are grown outdoors.

 

" We urge the EU governments to adequately address the regulatory

loopholes that would allow companies like Monsanto to contaminate

European agriculture and stand firm against the pressure of the USA and

the GE industry. The survival of uncontaminated conventional and organic

farming in Europe is at stake, " said Gall.

 

***************************************************************

 

2) FSAI wraps knuckles over mislabelling

 

FoodProductionDaily.com

 

May 20, 2003

 

Irish consumers concerned about the presence of GM ingredients will be

assured by the results of a recent survey commissioned by Food Safety

Authority of Ireland (FSAI) that to set out to identify foods containing

GM maize and/or soya ingredients and to check for compliance with EU

labelling regulations. All products sampled were within the law.

 

This was the third such survey undertaken by the FSAI in recent years,

in compliance with the European Commission's co-ordinated programme for

the Official Control of Foodstuffs for 2002.

 

The FSAI reports that a range of samples were taken for the survey

including breakfast cereals, baby foods, snack foods, dried soya

products, soya and maize flours and bakery products.

 

The results show that out of the 75 samples tested, 12 (16 per cent)

contained GM ingredients. Nine samples were shown to contain the

EU-authorised Roundup Ready soya, one contained Bt176 maize, again

authorised, and the remaining two were not identified.

 

Current European legislation dictates that a GM label is required on the

food packaging if the product contains more than 1 per cent GM material.

According to the FSAI survey, none of the GM-positive samples contained

more than this percentage.

 

On the flip side, six of the 12 foods containing GM material (50 per

cent) had labels indicating that they contained no GM ingredients, with

one of those also having an organic label.

 

Another food containing GM ingredients was labelled as organic even

though EU legislation governing organic foods stipulates that GM

material is not tolerated at any level in products certified as organic.

The survey also revealed that a total of 17 of the 75 foods purchased

had organic labels but two of those (12 per cent) were found to contain

some GM ingredients.

 

Further discrepancies found that although GM-free type labelling was

carried on 19 of the foods sampled, six of these products (32 per cent)

were found to contain some level of GM ingredient. These labels could be

considered to be in breach of the general European food labelling

Directive which prohibits labelling or methods of labelling that could

mislead the purchaser to a material degree.

 

So, despite the positive news on the 1 per cent threshold front, and the

fact that there were absolutely no concerns found for consumer health,

the FSAI warned food manufacturers that " the persistent inaccurate

labelling of certain food has serious implications for consumer choice

and must be addressed by the industry " .

 

The food authority stressed that it plans to use the results of this

survey for future GM food monitoring campaigns in an effort to restore

consumer confidence - with the Irish seemingly as cynical as their

British neighbours - in GM food labelling.

 

 

***************************************************************

 

3) UK May Allow GM Crops over Public Resistance

 

LONDON, England, May 22, 2003 (ENS) - Environment Minister Michael

Meacher has suggested that the UK government may allow genetically

modified crops to be grown commercially in the UK regardless of public

opinion. Speaking on the BBC radio program " Farming Today " on Monday the

minister said a ban on transgenic crops would be illegal unless there is

scientific proof that they harm people or the environment.

The government's public consultation on genetically modified (GM) crops

begins June 3, but Friends of the Earth UK did not wait for the formal

public comment period to express its reaction.

 

Pete Riley, the organization's campaigner on the issue, said, " The

public have made it perfectly clear that they do not want to eat GM

food. Allowing GM crops to be commercially grown would threaten our

food, farming and environment with GM pollution, and take away people's

right to say no to GMOs. There is genuine scientific uncertainty

surrounding the potential impacts these crops have on people, the

environment and the food chain. But this government is so pro-GM it

chooses to ignore them. "

 

In April, the largest independently owned market research company in

Great Britain, Market & Opinion Research International, released results

of a survey showing that 56 percent of those questioned opposed GM food,

and 14 percent supported it. Other polls conducted within the past year

came up with similar results.

 

But the UK government, like all European governments, is under pressure

from the United States to permit transgenic crops. Earlier this month

the United States filed a formal complaint against the European Union's

moratorium on GM crops at the World Trade Organization.

 

Major issues such as the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops and

liability for economic and environmental harm are still being debated in

Europe and the UK.

 

Wales, Devon, Dorset, Lancashire, Cornwall and South Gloucestershire

have recently taken action to go GM-free. This includes taking steps to

stop tenant farmers from growing GM crops, and banning GM food from

local food services such as school meals and residential homes.

 

Some local authorities have pledged to write to the UK government and to

the European Commission in Brussels applying, under new European laws,

to be excluded from growing certain GM crops.

 

Friends of the Earth says these actions are the result of its GM-Free

Britain campaign which was launched last year. On May 28 Friends of the

Earth Europe is organizing a conference on the subject of GM crops in

Brussels. More information is online at: http://www.gmfreebritain.com

 

" Next month, " said Riley, " the government is launching its public debate

on GM crops. But if it is to have any credibility, ministers must

guarantee beforehand that if the public say they don't want GM crops,

the government will not give them the commercial go-ahead. Without that

guarantee, there seems little point in debating the issue.''

 

The UK government's GM policy advisers, the Agriculture and Environment

Biotechnology Commission, has been conducting an investigation into

coexistence and liability for the past two years and is due to report

later in the summer.

 

***************************************************************

 

4) Brazil militants invade Monsanto biotech test farm

 

Reuters News Service

5/19/2003

 

SAO PAULO, Brazil - Reuters - Militants of the Landless Peasant Movement

(MST) in Brazil invaded a Monsanto Co. test farm last week in a bid " to

expel " the U.S. biotech giant and set up an organic farm on the site.

 

The incursion by some 80 members from the MST and other landless groups

onto an experimental farm in Ponta Grosso, Parana was aimed at stopping

Monsanto from using farming methods unpopular in the state, according to

the group.

 

" The government of Parana says it doesn't want transgenics and we

producers don't want it, " said MST leader Celio Rodrigues. " Thus, it is

not right for it (Monsanto) to have a technical center here. "

 

Parana is a large farm state in southern Brazil where Monsanto tests

conventional and genetically modified corn and soybeans.

 

Rodrigues said the objective of the occupation was " to expel " Monsanto

from the state and convert the 43 hectares (106 acre) farm to organic

production.

 

The commercial planting of GM crops in Brazil has been banned since

1998. But a thriving black market in Monsanto's trademark Roundup Ready

GM soy has developed in southern Brazil. The GM beans are thought to be

smuggled in Argentina and Paraguay were RR soy is widely planted.

 

As much as 30 percent of Brazil's total soy output was estimated to be

illegal GM, according to the seed producers association Abrasem, and

illegal planting in the south, where the climate is favorable to the

Argentine and Paraguayan varieties, is much more wide spread than in

other regions.

 

Monsanto said it has always condemned the illegal planting of GM soy in

Brazil.

 

Experimental GM planting, however, is legal and much of the company's

research is conducted jointly with the government crop research arm

Embrapa. Monsanto said test planting on its farms was in accordance with

Brazilian law.

 

Monsanto is one of Brazil's biggest producers and sellers of

conventional soy, corn and other crop seed stock, as well as farm

chemicals and fertilizers.

 

" They can go back to the United States, Argentina or Canada, where

transgenics are liberated, " said Rodrigues.

 

The Ponta Grossa farm was invaded on May 9 by 800 militants who

destroyed some laboratories and burned down corn fields.

 

Monsanto said it has asked authorities to prosecute those responsible

for " acts of violence against its staff, property and research and

development in Brazil. "

 

" We have big assets of biodiversity in Parana and Monsanto represents a

threat, " said Antonio Volochen from the Forum of Rural Workers in

Parana, that participated in the occupation.

 

Story by Inae Riveras

 

***************************************************************

 

5) FDA takes steps to control genetic engineering research

 

By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY

5/18/2003 7:22 PM

 

The government is flexing its oversight muscles with universities

involved in genetic engineering, responding to a controversy this year

in which investigators feared the offspring of transgenic pigs had

entered the food supply.

 

The Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to 70 university

presidents and chancellors last week, reminding them that scientists who

are genetically engineering animals that would otherwise be used for

food are required to inform the FDA and document plans for the disposal

of the animals when the research is done.

 

The letter appears to be a surprising acknowledgment that the agency

must do a better job of ensuring that those involved in this growing

field know what they're required to report. Critics have long accused

the FDA of failing to control this potentially dangerous area of

biotechnology. They worry that such animals, or products made from them,

may be harmful to humans, and they say testing to alleviate those fears

might not be possible.

 

Dated May 13, the letter refers to an " unfortunate situation, " first

reported in February, in which pigs involved in studies at the

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign may not have been properly

disposed of. The government was unable to track down several hundred

offspring of pigs that were genetically modified. The university said it

sold only piglets that did not have the altered genes.

 

The letter states that " the FDA is proactively informing other

universities of this incident and asking for your help to raise

awareness about your collective responsibilities. " It is signed by

Stephen Sund- lof, director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.

 

" This points to the need for greater clarity from the agencies that

regulate these issues, " says Mike Fernandez of the Pew Initiative on

Food and Biotechnology.

 

It is unlikely that the letter will mollify the FDA's critics. The

critics are apprehensive about the dramatic increase expected in genetic

research projects as scientists learn how to turn animals into living

factories that produce useful, expensive chemicals and drugs in their

blood, milk and even semen.

 

Groups concerned about genetic engineering have long expressed concern

that although the FDA claims authority to regulate under the new

animal-drug provision of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, there are no

clear, written guidelines for the regulation of research. Though the

agency has been working on a written policy for years, it has never been

released.

 

Instead, says Jean Halloran of Consumers Union, " they've just acted on

it, so it's like their secret policy. They said, 'We tell people when we

go to conferences,' so it's a kind of word-of-mouth policy. "

 

Says Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest:

" Although this letter is helpful in showing that FDA wants to regulate

these animals, there are still no guidances, regulations or official

pronouncements. " The FDA declined further comment.

 

The letter did not address the many small start-up companies engaged in

this kind of research.

 

***************************************************************

 

6) Brazil's rules for modified food alarms Argentina

 

By Karina Grazina

 

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, May 8 (Reuters) - Brazil's decision this week

to postpone the application of new rules requiring that labels identify

genetically modified goods failed to calm nervous exporters in

Argentina, where use of the products is extensive.

 

Brazil's new rules mandate the labeling of foods or ingredients of foods

with more than 1 percent genetically modified material.

 

The regulations sounded an alarm in Argentina's food industry, which has

pointed to what it calls the enormous cost and logistical challenge of

complying with the rules by separating genetically modified crops from

traditional ones.

 

Brazil is Argentina's main trading partner and some 13 percent of the

$11.4 billion of food Argentina exported last year went to Brazil,

according to the Organization of American States' agricultural

institute.

 

Major food exporter Argentina is second only to the United States in the

use of genetically modified products, but while proponents say they

increase efficiency, opponents say they could contain hidden health and

environmental risks.

 

Apart from applying to soy oil and corn oil, the new rules also affect

dairy products and meat of animals that may have been fed with

genetically modified grains.

 

Argentine producers say the rules are stricter than in Europe, where

resistance to genetically modified products is particularly high.

 

" They've gone too far in including animal products ... Argentine dairy

products would have to carry a label saying this product comes from

animals fed on GMOs, " said Roberto Domenech, undersecretary of food at

the agriculture department. " This hasn't been seen anywhere in the

world. "

 

Argentina does not require labeling of genetically modified products.

 

" We respect each country's decision on whether to introduce a labeling

system based on scientific criteria, but we think it is going to be

difficult to implement for both countries, " said Federico Ovejero, a

spokesman for the Argentine unit of U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto.

 

Brazil on Thursday forecast record grain crops this year and said it

will overtake the United States as the world's No.1 soy exporter.

 

CONFUSION

 

The new rules sparked surprise and confusion, prompting Argentina's

Foreign Minister Carlos Ruckauf to begin negotiations with his Brazilian

counterpart Celso Amorim that ended with an agreement to postpone the

measure.

 

" A time period has been opened up to study how the rules will be applied

to Mercosur (trade bloc) countries, " Argentine Deputy Foreign Minister

Martin Redrado said, without specifying how long the period would last.

 

Mercosur comprises Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

 

Argentine industry sources viewed the negotiations with skepticism. " I

don't see them having much success; they are just delaying things by a

little, " said a food company official who asked not to be identified.

 

Brazil has also authorized the sale of genetically modified soy to try

to end a large black market in illegal genetically modified soy

planting.

 

" First we have to see how Brazil deals with this domestically and then

how it deals with Argentina, because in Brazil there is also a high

percentage of GM soy, " said Victor Castro of the Argentine Association

of Seed Producers.

 

(Additional reporting by Nicolas Misculin)

 

05/08/03 16:11 ET

 

***************************************************************

 

7) Genetically Modified Foods Becoming Staple in America's Diet

 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

May 06, 2003

 

MILWAUKEE, Wis. - Once a tiny kink in the food chain, genetically

modified foods have become a staple in America's diet.

 

Almost one-third of all corn planted in Wisconsin this spring will come

from genetically altered varieties. Among soybeans, nearly 80 percent of

the crop will be genetically modified.

 

Nationwide, some 40 different crops are approved for commercial use,

according to the Council for Biotechnology Information.

 

These crops are increasingly becoming ingredients in everything from

soups to pizzas to soft drinks.

 

" We eat genetically modified foods every day, " said C. Neal Stewart, a

plant geneticist at the University of Tennessee. " If you have any

romantic notions about natural foods, lose them. "

 

Fifty years ago, it was unlikely that scientists James Watson and

Francis Crick were thinking about bio-engineered food when they

discovered the structure of DNA, and in so doing, unleashed generations

of scientific discovery.

 

By helping to unravel the mysteries of DNA, Watson's and Crick's work

has wended its way through science. In agriculture, it allowed

scientists to alter genes - adding a trait here, eliminating a trait

there - so the raw product in some foods was suddenly different.

 

With their ability to fight pests and weeds, biotech advocates say, the

new genetically altered crops have helped farmers increase productivity

and cut the use of farm chemicals. As an alternative to laboratories,

newer generations of genetically engineered crops are being used in

outdoor experiments to harness the powers of Mother Nature to

mass-produce drugs.

 

But as much as the technology creates a ray of sunshine for its

advocates, clouds continue to hang over it.

 

Some opponents are dead-set against it on principle and believe that

dickering with genes is wrong. Others say that the technology is another

way of exacerbating a trend toward large-scale farming.

 

Others worry about food safety and the long-term effects. What happens

to both animals and humans over a lifetime of eating gene-tweaked food?

Will insects become resistant to these brave new crops?

 

Another issue is how the integrity of organic food can be protected as

wind-blown seeds move from one field to another.

 

" My own personal feeling is that if scientists can create miracle drugs,

that is one thing, we can't pooh-pooh that, " said Theresa Marquez, chief

of marketing and sales at Organic Valley, a co-op in La Farge in western

Wisconsin.

 

" But to focus on food, it's not necessary. We're producing a glut of

food. Farmers are going out of business. "

 

Advocates are quick to note that three federal agencies are required to

approve the sale of genetically engineered crops. They point to reports

by both the American Medical Association and the National Academy of

Sciences, which concluded that the differences between genetically

modified foods and conventional foods are negligible.

 

But those two scientific groups also raised questions about the

long-term effects of the technology. The National Academy panel said

regulators should more closely scrutinize the environmental impact of

genetically altered plants and should monitor fields after approval for

unforeseen problems.

 

" Is it safe? " asked Brent McCown, a horticulturist at the University of

Wisconsin-Madison who uses the technology.

 

" I believe it is. This is an incredibly powerful science, and it is so

powerful that we will never put it back in the box. We have to accept

that it is here to stay. "

 

Stewart, author of " Living on a Genetically Modified Planet, " said that

genetic engineering only allows plant breeders to do more quickly what

they have always done: breed crops for desired characteristics.

 

" You are under much more risk from food-borne pathogens, " such as

salmonella and E. coli, than from genetically modified organisms,

Stewart said.

 

Jim Lange's 2,000 acres of farmland in the Town of Norway in northern

Racine County is increasingly being encroached on by urbanization. He

uses two gene-altered varieties of corn and soybeans that allow him to

cut down his use of pesticides - something he said that many of his

neighbors appreciate.

 

All of the soybeans he plants are so-called Roundup Ready - the trade

name for seeds that contain a gene that is resistant to the herbicide

Roundup. About 60 percent of his corn has a toxin-producing gene that

protects against the infestation of the European corn borer.

 

Roundup Ready soybeans let farmers spray the powerful herbicide on

soybeans without harming them. The result: He saves money, has fewer

weed problems and spends less time tilling the soil.

 

" They are a good risk-management tool for farmers, " Lange said.

 

But even some advocates have concerns.

 

McCown believes farmers are planting too much corn that has been

engineered to kill the corn borer.

 

" What that leads to is all kinds of things down the road, " he said.

" Insects will develop resistance. Ecologically that is stupid. "

 

Others worry about inadequate controls.

 

In February, a Kraft Foods executive said the company would like to see

the practice of using food crops to make pharmaceuticals stopped for

fear they will get into the food supply.

 

That happened last year in Nebraska when the U.S. Department of

Agriculture pulled 500,000 bushels of soybeans off the market. The

soybeans had been engineered to produce an enzyme used in laboratories

to speed the production of insulin. The company, ProdiGene of College

Station, Texas, was involved in another case in Iowa, and last month

agreed to pay $250,000 and cleanup costs that could total more than $3

million in the two states.

 

Kraft supports the use of genetically modified crops approved by

regulators.

 

" Right now public acceptance of biotechnology in America is relatively

high, " Betsy Holden, Kraft's co-chief executive officer, told an

agriculture group in suburban Washington, D.C.

 

" But how many more times can we test the public's trust before we begin

to lose it? "

 

Europeans are already mistrustful of the technology. The European Union

bars genetically modified foods and seeds - costing U.S. biotech firms

about $200 million a year in lost corn exports alone.

 

While an outright ban on the technology seems unlikely in the U.S.,

consumer unease is evident.

 

Last fall, Oregon voters defeated a measure requiring the labeling of

genetically engineered foods - but only after support dwindled from

two-thirds of the voters to less than than 30 percent in the final three

weeks. Opponents spent $4.5 million on a last-minute ad blitz, according

to the Portland Oregonian.

 

Labeling measures have surfaced in Congress since 1999, and several

state legislatures are now mulling mandatory labeling laws. A poll

conducted in 2001 for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found

that 75 percent of people wanted to know whether their food contained

products that were genetically altered.

 

" I think a lot of our customers want a better connection with their

food, " said Lisa Malmarowski, marketing manager for Outpost Natural

Foods, which operates stores in Milwaukee and Wauwatosa, Wis.

 

" We are not anti-tech, we are not a lot of Luddites here. We just want

to know more about where our food comes from. "

 

A worldwide poll commissioned by the Discovery Channel for a program

titled " DNA: The Promise and the Price, " which aired last month, showed

that 62 percent of people in eight countries think that rules and

regulations are not keeping pace with genetic research. In the United

States, 70 percent held that sentiment.

 

This wariness shows up in the marketplace as well.

 

Organic farming and organic foods have been a hit with consumers.

 

While still a tiny percentage of overall farmland, crops planted on

certified organic land rose 74 percent to 2.3 million acres between 1995

and 2001, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. By law,

organic crops can't use genetically modified organisms.

 

Sales at Organic Valley in La Farge have jumped from $99.5 million in

2001 to a projected $155 million this year.

 

Organic Valley cannot attribute the growth directly to concerns about

genetically modified food, but customer surveys regularly point to

worries over the " Big Three, " said Marquez.

 

They are: antibiotics, pesticides and bovine growth hormones - a

genetically engineered product injected into dairy cattle for higher

milk production.

 

" Three years ago, we were 75 percent in small stores and whole foods

stores, and 25 percent in some of the select upscale stores, " Marquez

said. " Today we sell to Wal-Mart, and 70 percent of dairy is in the

grocery mass market channel. "

 

When it hit the market in 1994, Monsanto's Posilac - a bovine growth

hormone - was hailed as a way for farmers to get more milk out of their

cows. But it also riled consumer groups that were concerned about its

safety.

 

An estimated 17 percent of the nation's dairy cattle in 2002 were being

treated with the product, also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin,

according to a new report by a team of UW researchers.

 

" It seems safe to say now that (the product) will be remembered in the

historical annals of agricultural biotechnologies as the juggernaut that

was not, " the report said.

 

Lee Quarles, a Monsanto spokesman, said 13,000 dairy farmers use Posilac

and " are able to reduce their input costs because their cows are

producing more. "

 

Two other genetically altered foods that have taken a hit are potatoes

and cranberries.

 

Genetically altered potatoes, which were once raised in Wisconsin, are

no longer grown here because major buyers such as McDonald's are

steering clear of them, said McCown, the UW horticulturist.

 

Even in his own lab, he has felt the effects of a consumer backlash.

McCown used genetic engineering to develop cranberries that produce a

deeper, redder color in Wisconsin's short growing season. But he balked

at conducting field trials after growers expressed concerns. Growers

were worried about public acceptance.

 

" The juice business is enormously competitive, " McCown said. " No one

wants to take the risk. "

 

McCown, however, remains optimistic.

 

He believes the next generation of genetically modified foods will have

qualities that consumers want - rather than having attributes, such as

insect resistance, that appeal mostly to farmers.

 

" You'll see quality traits so food will store longer and taste better, "

he said. " These are things that the consumer can buy into. "

 

DID YOU KNOW?

 

- Nearly 80 percent of soybeans and one-third of corn in Wisconsin have

been genetically modified.

 

- Scientists inserted flounder genes into a strain of strawberries to

keep them from freezing.

 

- Since 1994, farmers in this country have grown 3.5 trillion

genetically manipulated plants.

 

- In 2002, an Israeli researcher announced that he had produced a

featherless chicken; no need for plucking or ventilation.

 

(Marilynn Marchione of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contributed to

this report.)

 

***************************************************************

 

8) Study: Gene-Engineered Virus Kills Brain Tumors

Tue May 06, 2003 04:02 PM ET

 

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A cold virus genetically engineered to help it

sneak into cancer cells can kill inoperable brain tumors in mice, U.S.

scientists reported on Tuesday.

 

The effects were so stunning that the National Cancer Institute and the

U.S. Food and Drug Administration are rushing to test the approach in

people with brain tumors.

 

If it works, it will be the first treatment for malignant glioma, the

deadliest form of brain cancer.

 

Brain tumors affect about 18,000 people in the United States every year,

killing 13,000. Gliomas are responsible for about half of all the cases.

 

" The bottom line of gliomas is that they are bad. Everyone dies within a

year, " said Dr. Frederick Lang of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson

Cancer Center in Houston.

 

Lang and colleagues used a genetically engineered form of a common cold

virus known as an adenovirus. They weakened it so it could not affect

healthy cells, then gave it an added genetic " key " to open the door into

cancer cells.

 

When they tested it in mice injected with human brain tumor cells of a

particularly nasty nature, called glioblastoma multiforme, it apparently

cured 60 percent of them.

 

" The animals lived 140 days -- we took the brains out at that point and

found no tumors there, " Lang said in a telephone interview. Normally,

mice injected with human brain tumor cells die within 20 days.

 

" We've never seen this kind of response before with any other treatment

tested in either animals or humans, " Dr. Juan Fueyo, who led the study,

said in a statement.

 

Writing in the May 7 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer

Institute, the researchers said the institute will work to produce a

drug-grade version of the therapy to test in humans, possibly by late

next year.

 

The researchers, who included a team at the Institut Catala d'Oncologia

in Barcelona, Spain and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, are

also working with the FDA, which will have to approve any human trials

of the new approach.

 

Scientists point out that it is often easy to cure lab mice of cancer,

in part because they are injected with human cancer cells. Human cancer

develops through complex processes.

 

But Lang thinks his team took this into account and said the tumors were

not affected by any other treatments.

 

" We used radiation, we used standard chemotherapy and we even used a lot

of novel chemotherapy, " he said. " Sometimes we extended survival but

eventually all the animals died. But with this particular agent, we

actually had what we thought were cures. "

 

Human adenoviruses are being studied for a range of medical uses, from

cancer therapy to gene therapy, because they are very good at infecting

human cells. One fear is that the immune system will recognize them and

either overreact, causing illness, or kill the virus before it can do

any good.

 

But Lang said because the viruses were injected directly into the brain

tumor, this should not happen.

 

He also said the team wants to find out why only 60 percent of the mice

were " cured. " " It could just be in those cases the tumor grew faster

than the virus could replicate, " he said. Or it could be the injection

was not done properly.

 

***************************************************************

 

9) South Korean wheat buyers warn US against biotech

 

By Richard Cowan

 

WASHINGTON, May 2 (Reuters) - South Korean wheat millers, major buyers

of American grain, delivered a blunt message this week that they would

boycott U.S. wheat if genetically-modified varieties are approved by the

Bush administration.

 

Officials of the Korea Flour Mills Industrial Association (KOFMIA), in

the United States to buy 208,800 tonnes of milling wheat, said they told

wheat producers and government officials in Montana and North Dakota

that use of biotech wheat in America would ruin their trade

relationship.

 

" If GM (genetically modified wheat) comes, consumers will boycott all

wheat, " predicted Hi Sang Lee, chairman of KOFMIA, which represents all

South Korean flour mills.

 

Currently, the United States supplies more than half of South Korea's

wheat import needs, with Australia getting about 40 percent and Canada

six percent.

 

Last year, South Korea imported 2.37 million tonnes of milling wheat

that is turned into noodles, bread, soy sauce and other products.

 

Monsanto Co. has been developing the world's first biotech wheat

and is seeking approval of the product from the U.S. and Canadian

governments. The " Roundup Ready " wheat is modified to withstand

application of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, possibly increasing yields

by more than 11 percent, according to the company.

 

Il Woong Kim, president of Shinhan Flour Mills Co. in Seoul, told

reporters that his company also turns corn into corn syrup. U.S.

approval of biotech corn for corn syrup, he said, caused South Korea to

stop buying the grain from the United States and switch to Chinese and

Brazilian suppliers.

 

STRONG CONSUMER OPPOSITION

 

He predicted a similar outcome if the United States approves biotech

wheat.

 

Eighty percent of South Korean consumers oppose biotech food, according

to recent surveys, and consumer groups are a well-organized force

against the technology.

 

The South Korean millers, fearing consumer backlash, went so far as to

ask North Dakota government officials this week to issue a statement

saying no hard red spring wheat now grown in the state is biotech.

 

North Dakota Agriculture Commission Roger Johnson told Reuters it will

be " easy enough " to provide such a letter to the South Korean milling

industry. He added it likely will be sent next week, but that it would

not address what could happen in the future with biotech plantings.

 

American wheat farmers are split over the controversy and industry

groups insist they would oppose planting biotech wheat until there is

broad consumer acceptance.

 

The Korean millers have several concerns about the possible arrival of

biotech wheat in major producing countries.

 

With rice a main staple, they fear consumers would simply abandon wheat

as part of their diet. The millers also worry that non-GMO wheat prices

could rise if biotech wheat is introduced, reflecting the cost of

separating the varieties.

 

Dong Jin Chung, president of Daehan Flour Mills in Seoul, said the topic

is such a hot-button issue that, " We want to talk silently, not openly "

about it. " In Korea, " he added, " We do not want to discuss " biotech

wheat.

 

05/02/03 17:50 ET

 

***************************************************************

 

10) Brazil labeling plan for GM foods draws criticism

 

SAO PAULO, Brazil - The Brazilian government decree ordering labels to

be put on all genetically modified foods drew criticism from both sides

of the GM debate who said the decree was either confusing or

insufficient.

 

Decree 4,680 published on Monday mandates the labeling of foods or

ingredients of foods with more than 1 percent genetically modified

material. The decree is part of the broader government measure 113 that

is aimed at ending Brazil's large black market in illegal GM soy

planting.

 

But Leila Oda, the president of the National Biosecurity Association

(ANBio), argued that the decree is unclear on what standards would be

used to determine levels of GM content.

 

" The decree manages to be very incoherent with the provisional measure

113, aside from being confusing, " Oda, said this week. She used to sit

as a representative on the National Commission on Biosecurity (CTNBio)

when it authorized the commercial planting of GM soy and corn in Brazil.

 

 

The GM planting has since been blocked by environmentalists such as

Greenpeace and local consumer groups such as the Institute of Consumer

Defense (Idec) in the courts.

 

" No labeling norm is rational, given the current scenario in the

country, if there is not certification of the (entire) production

chain, " said Oda.

 

Oda said there would be no way to detect GM in poultry or cattle that

had been fed transgenic corn or soy. She also said the processing of

grains into meal or oil will make it impossible to detect GM contents

because high temperatures and preservatives breakdown the tell-tale

genetic material.

 

The consumer watchdog Idec said the decree is a step toward informing

consumers but it remains doubtful of whether the government decree does

enough to protect consumers.

 

Idec said consumer will not know if food with less than 1 percent GM is

actually GM-free and no labeling is required if GM is undetectable after

processing, which destroys the traces of genetic alteration.

 

" This means all highly processed products (such as crackers, chocolates,

pastas) will not be labeled, by the simple fact of destroying the

protein making it impossible to detect GM, " the institute said in a

statement.

 

Story 5/1/2003

 

***************************************************************

 

11) India Harvests First Biotech Cotton Crop

Controversy Surrounds Policy Change

 

By Rama Lakshmi

Special to The Washington Post

Sunday, May 4, 2003; Page A27

 

WARANGAL, India -- In the early morning buzz of a busy market, hundreds

of cotton farmers arrive on tractors and bullock carts with sacks full

of their harvest of " white gold. " But this season, some crops are

attracting more attention than others.

 

Farmers have planted India's first approved crop of genetically

engineered cotton, known as Bt for the soil organism that is toxic to

some plant pests. The new seed, developed by St. Louis-based Monsanto

Co. and approved by the government after four years of bitter

opposition, is hailed by some as the solution to a vicious cycle of

devastation by pests, heavy pesticide use and soil depletion that has

trapped Indian farmers for decades.

 

" I heard it is a miracle seed that will free me from the bondage of

pesticide spraying, " said Lone Srinivas, 26, as he lounged atop his

neatly piled sacks of genetically modified cotton here in the southern

Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.

 

" Last season, every time I saw pests, I panicked, " Srinivas said. " I

sprayed pesticides on my cotton crop about 20 times. This season, with

the new seed, I sprayed only three times. "

 

About 55,000 farmers across seven states, roughly 2 percent of India's

cotton growers, sowed the genetically engineered Bollgard cotton seed,

which Monsanto describes as resistant to one of the most formidable

cotton pests, the bollworm. But anxiety about the long-term effects of

using modified seed -- the fear of " Frankencrops " -- and concern among

nationalists, who worry that Indian farmers could find themselves

beholden to Western companies, have slowed India's march toward biotech

farming.

 

" GM [genetically modified] crop is not a solution to pest attacks. New

pests will become active and resistant to Bt cotton, and Indian farmers

would again get into the same pesticide treadmill, " said Afsar Jafri of

the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, an advocacy

group that spearheads the anti-biotechnology campaign and encourages

organic farming. " A handful of Western companies want to control the

agricultural foundations of the Third World nations by robbing the

farmers economically. Indian farmers may lose their sovereignty. "

 

Of all the economic sectors, agriculture poses the biggest challenge for

policymakers seeking to make this nation of 1 billion people a player in

world markets. After three decades of the " green revolution " -- adopting

hybrid seeds and modern scientific farming -- that has made India

self-sufficient in grain production, more than two-thirds of Indians

depend on agriculture, making it politically sensitive in a democracy

steeped in populism and socialist rhetoric.

 

After pursuing a socialist model of central economic control since

independence in 1947, India tentatively began opening its economy in

1991 by dismantling restrictions on foreign investors. But agricultural

policy has remained virtually untouched, other than an occasional

reduction in fertilizer subsidies.

 

Cotton cultivation is woefully inefficient. India has more land under

cotton cultivation than any country in the world, yet ranks lowest in

productivity, according to Agriculture Minister Ajit Singh.

 

A recent World Bank report said the biggest obstacle to higher yields in

Indian cotton is the increasing frequency of pest attacks, leading to a

level of pesticide use that has depleted the soil and strained water

resources. Moreover, pests develop immunity to the chemicals.

 

Genetically modified cotton was proposed as a possible solution.

 

" India is an importer of cotton today, " said Sekhar Natarajan, head of

Monsanto India. " But with Bt cotton, like China, it can become a major

player in the international cotton market in the next five years. "

 

Opponents, however, compared Bollgard's entry into Indian agriculture to

colonization by the British East India Co. in the 17th century. Others

claimed that the environmental impact of genetically modified crops

amounted to " bioterrorism. " Ecologists said altered genes may enter the

food chain, as many Indian villagers use cottonseed oil in their

cooking.

 

Last year, India rejected a large American aid consignment of soy-corn

blend, imported by CARE and Catholic Relief Services, on the ground that

it may have contained the banned GM corn, StarLink.

 

Still others pointed out that Bollgard seeds cost four times as much as

regular seeds -- and suggested that the cotton harvested from them would

fetch a lower price.

 

" I got less money for my Bt cotton because the buyers at the market said

the staple fiber length was shorter, " Penta Lingamurthy, 33, a farmer in

Damera village in Andhra Pradesh, said after the first harvest in March.

" The yield also did not improve. The price of the seed is so high, now I

wonder if it was really worth it. "

 

On the contrary, said Monsanto's Natarajan, the first Bt cotton harvest

achieved a 30 percent increase in yield and a 65 percent reduction in

pesticide use. Nevertheless, the Andhra Pradesh state agriculture

minister assured farmers that the state will ask Monsanto to compensate

them for losses that are proved to be the company's fault.

 

In a major setback for supporters of GM seed technology, India recently

withheld approval for planting genetically modified mustard, citing

possible health risks. Fearing adverse impact on yield, the government

also rejected Monsanto's proposal to extend use of GM cotton to two of

India's most important agricultural states, Punjab and Haryana.

 

Until fact and fiction are sorted out over time, genetically modified

crops will remain controversial and India will exercise caution, said

Singh, the national agriculture minister.

 

" We would be foolish to turn away from biotechnology, " he said. " But the

stakes are much higher in this new science. So much is still unknown

about the effects of GM crop. We have to take one step at a time. "

 

***************************************************************

 

 

 

---------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.