Fwd: Lots of news to report

[Guest guest]

" News Update from The Campaign "

Lots of news to report

Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:07:36 -0600

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

There are lots of developments taking place with genetically engineered

foods this week. Posted below are five articles that cover a variety of

issues.

 

PHARMACEUTICAL RICE

 

The first article is titled " Biotech rice crop concerns growers. " It

discusses an attempt by a company named Ventria Bioscience to get

permission to grow rice in the Sacramento Valley that contains

pharmaceutical drugs. A meeting was held on Thursday by a review

committee of the California Rice Commission.

 

Organic rice farmers are particularly concerned about the potential for

contamination of their crops. Bryce Lundberg of Lundberg Family Farms

stated that Ventria's proposed protocol does not " adequately protect the

California rice industry from the legally required zero tolerance from

contamination. "

 

BIOTECH WHEAT

 

The wheat industry's annual convention was held last week in Atlanta.

Monsanto apparently used the occasion to attempt to force the wheat

industry to get behind their plans to move forward with genetically

engineered wheat.

 

Monsanto has applied for government approval of their genetically

engineered wheat in both the United States and Canada. But the company

had promised that even with approval they would not move forward with

the commercial introduction of this controversial crop until the wheat

industry agreed. Since Monsanto is expecting to get approval soon, they

apparently felt it was time to apply pressure to the wheat industry.

Monsanto indicated that if they did not get " full farmer support " that they

may switch their focus to other crops.

 

The second article below titled " Monsanto may drop GMO wheat without

grower backing " will provide further details. We hope that Monsanto's

power play does not work and that the wheat industry realizes it would

be a huge mistake to move forward with the introduction of genetically

engineered wheat.

 

MONSANTO'S rBGH PROBLEMS

 

In what could be the beginning of a major development, Monsanto has

announced that beginning March 1 they will only be able to supply 50

percent of the normal amount of their genetically engineered bovine

growth hormone called Posilac.

 

The third article below from The New York Times is titled " Maker Warns

of Scarcity of Hormone for Dairy Cows. " According to the article, the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that " more batches of hormone

than expected were failing the factory's quality control tests. "

 

There are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding this announcement.

But the FDA and Monsanto are not providing many details. As a result,

rumors are flying about what this all means and what the ramifications will

be. We will definitely be watching this story closely. You can also read

more about this matter at the DairyLine web site at:

http://www.dairyline.com/archives/2004/Jan2004.htm

 

MONSANTO'S POTATO FAILS TO PERFORM

 

Here is more bad news for Monsanto. The fourth article below is from a

newspaper in Kenya, Africa called the Daily Nation. In their weekly

magazine called the Horizon, they featured an article titled " GM

technology fails local potatoes. "

 

For nine years Monsanto has been developing a potato that has a virus

resistant protein coat. They sent the potato down to Africa three years

ago to test it further. As the article points out, the potato did not

function as expected. Both the genetically engineered and

non-genetically engineered potato were still attacked by the virus. And

the non-genetically engineered potato actually produced greater yields

than the biotech version.

 

DISAPPOINTING NEWS FROM SOUTH AFRICA

 

South Africa has announced labeling regulations for genetically

engineered foods that are very similar to the lousy ones we have here in

the United States. Under the new rules, biotech foods only need to be

labeled if they contain a known allergen or the nutrient content has

been changed significantly.

 

The fifth article below titled " Activists Slam New GM Food Regulations "

will provide more details.

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

Fax: 603-825-5841

E-mail: label

Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

 

Mission Statement: " To create a national grassroots consumer campaign

for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass

legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered

foods in the United States. "

 

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

 

Biotech rice crop concerns growers

 

Appeal-Democrat

January 30, 2004

 

By Ching Lee

 

A controversial proposal by a Sacramento biotechnology company to grow

genetically modified rice in the Sacramento Valley has many area rice

growers crying " StarLink. "

 

StarLink was the infamous genetically modified corn the biotech company

Aventis engineered to repel pests that was not approved for human

consumption. In 2000, that corn found itself in the food chain,

prompting the recall of hundreds of brands of taco shells and tortillas

in the United States.

 

Some California rice growers now fear what happened to corn might happen

to rice, and they want to make sure the California Rice Commission does

what it can to protect California's rice market.

 

More than 30 rice growers, consultants and representatives were present

Thursday as the Commission's review committee labored for more than

three hours over language in a draft protocol by Ventria Bioscience,

which hopes to grow commercial rice to produce therapeutic proteins for

pharmaceutical use.

 

The 12-page draft detailed guidelines on how Ventria plans to contain

its pharmaceutical rice to prevent a repeat of the corn industry's

StarLink debacle.

 

However, the session produced more questions than answers.

 

Ventria's plan is to grow rice so it can then extract the proteins

lactoferrin and lysozyme, which are found in mother's milk and thought

to have anti-infective, anti-inflammatory and iron binding properties.

 

Although Ventria officials say its rice is safe for human consumption,

it will not be used as food; therefore, the company is working with the

Commission on procedures to seclude it from food rice fields.

 

Growers are concerned that if Ventria's rice escapes into their fields,

they would have a product that would be considered adultered, and under

current labeling laws, their product would be unsalable.

 

Bryce Lundberg, a Butte County organic rice grower, was not satisfied

with Ventria's proposed protocol, noting that it does not " adequately

protect the California rice industry from the legally required zero

tolerance from contamination. "

 

In November, Ventria submitted a pre-market biotechnology notification

to the Food and Drug Administration and is currently waiting for the

agency to review its product for safety.

 

Stacey Roberts, Ventria's director of field productions, would not

specify when FDA is expected to complete its review but said, " We think

our status is pretty good. We believe we are on track for

commercialization. "

 

" We will be producing a pharmaceutical in a crop that's going to soon be

approved by the FDA, " she said.

 

Because the company is not seeking approval from FDA for its rice to be

used as food, Roberts said, " (FDA is) not going to establish a tolerance

for food, but if it is found in food, it's safe. "

 

Concerns the committee still has over the protocol include contamination

of food rice by insect pollination, prompting the suggestion for a

bee-free zone, which Roberts said would not be a problem.

 

She noted with the established buffer zones already specified in the

proposal, the risk of accidental insect pollination is already reduced

because rice is a self-pollinating crop.

 

The committee also suggested limiting transportation distances of the

pharmaceutical rice to reduce the risk of rice being inadvertently

distributed.

 

" We understand very deeply that transport is our riskiest task, " Roberts

said.

 

Tim Johnson, president of California Rice Commission, said the draft

protocol will now go to its scientific task force for further review.

The committee will then go over the task force's findings in its next

scheduled meeting, date to be determined.

 

" We're not going to move rapidly in an uninformed way, " said Johnson.

" But I'm optimistic we'll be able to answer some of these questions and

develop this program. "

 

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

 

Monsanto may drop GMO wheat without grower backing

Reuters, 01.24.04, 6:50 PM ET

 

By Carey Gillam

 

ATLANTA, Jan 24 (Reuters) - U.S. wheat industry leaders must fully

embrace Monsanto Co's planned genetically modified wheat and assist the

company in gaining market acceptance or the leading biotech developer

may abandon its wheat research efforts, a Monsanto official said on

Saturday.

 

" If full farmer support is not pledged, " that could be construed as

shifting our focus to other crops, " said Monsanto's director of wheat

industry affairs, Michael Doane.

 

" As we look at our business initiatives and our scarce resources ... we

need to understand the level of farmer support, " Doane said.

 

He made his comments at a meeting with top wheat industry players at the

industry's annual convention in Atlanta.

 

The request by Monsanto was also spelled out in a letter given to

officials of the farmer-controlled National Association of Wheat

Growers, and to U.S. Wheat Associates, which handles international

marketing for U.S. wheat.

 

The letter asks that for " public acknowledgment of your full support for

the timely de-regulation and commercialization of Roundup Ready wheat; "

" strong alignment " in support from " state and allied constituents; " and

asks that farm leaders develop and execute a strategic plan to

" satisfactorily address public acceptance issues " in the U.S. and

abroad.

 

Public acceptance for biotech wheat has been a hot-button issue as

Monsanto has moved forward with regulatory applications for what would

be the world's first genetically modified crop primarily used for human

food.

 

U.S. Wheat Associates officials have repeatedly warned that many top

foreign buyers of U.S. wheat have threatened to stop buying from the

United States if a biotech wheat is brought to market.

 

Opposition is particularly strong in the European Union, which bought

more than $220 million of U.S. wheat in 2002.

 

Domestic millers and other American users of U.S. wheat have also

expressed reservations about buying Monsanto's biotech wheat, which has

been genetically altered to resist applications of Monsanto's Roundup

herbicide.

 

" I understand where Monsanto is coming from. ... At some point you have

to decide whether or not you consider funding research, " said Lance

Hagen, executive director of North Dakota Grain Growers Association.

" But they have to understand where growers are coming from, too. "

 

Duane Grant, a member of a wheat industry biotech committee that has

been monitoring Monsanto's plans, said there were concerns that had to

be addressed before the industry could fully partner with Monsanto.

 

" I'm not comfortable saying I'm ready to go arm in arm with Monsanto, "

Grant said. " We have to be careful not to let our policies get dictated

around a specific product. "

 

Doane said the company was not asking growers to do anything more than

it had asked of soybean and corn growers when it introduced biotech

products to those producers.

 

" We have a pipeline that is very full right now and a lot of those

applications are in crops other than wheat, " Doane said. " We need a

timely response. "

 

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

 

Maker Warns of Scarcity of Hormone for Dairy Cows

By ANDREW POLLACK

 

The New York Times

January 27, 2004

 

A genetically engineered growth hormone for cows that is widely used to

increase milk production will be in severe short supply this year, its

manufacturer, Monsanto, has told dairy farmers.

 

In letters to farmers and a press release to dairy industry publications

Thursday, Monsanto said that customers would be allocated 50 percent of

the amount of the hormone that they had bought in the past. The

allocation, beginning March 1, is expected to last all year.

 

A Monsanto spokeswoman, Janice Armstrong, said the cutback came after a

Food and Drug Administration inspection in November of the factory at

which the product was made. The F.D.A. found that more batches of

hormone than expected were failing the factory's quality control tests,

she said.

 

Although those batches were not sold, Ms. Armstrong said, the factory,

which is in Austria and is owned by Sandoz, must make changes to correct

the problems, cutting into output.

 

The growth hormone, known as bovine somatotropin and sold under the name

Posilac, is used in 22 percent of the nation's dairy cows, according to

a 2002 survey by the Department of Agriculture. Injected once every two

weeks, the hormone can increase a cow's milk output by 10 percent to 15

percent, according to the company and to farmers.

 

The product, which has been sold in the United States since 1994, has

not been approved in Canada and Europe, primarily because it can cause

health problems in cows. The F.D.A. has said that milk from cows treated

with the hormone is indistinguishable from milk from untreated cows.

 

The shortage of growth hormone could tighten supplies of milk a bit, and

milk futures prices surged last week in response. Steven A. Larson,

managing editor of Hoard's Dairyman, a trade publication, said, however,

that the Posilac cutback " would be pretty far down the list " of factors

determining milk supply.

 

Lloyd Holterman, a dairy farmer in Watertown, Wis., said that although

the cutback would hurt his milk output, the rise in milk prices would

offset that. " We like the high price, so I can't be totally negative, "

he said.

 

Monsanto, which is the only supplier of the hormone, told customers in

December that it would cut supplies by 15 percent. But the company now

says the manufacturing changes will have a greater effect on output than

it initially thought.

 

Monsanto has shifted some production of the main ingredient to a new

$180 million factory in Augusta, Ga., but that factory has not received

approval to make the final product.

 

Monsanto, based in St. Louis, also told farmers last week that it was

increasing the price of Posilac by 9 percent. It said the increase, the

first for the product, was independent of the supply shortfall.

 

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a

Washington group that has tried to have the hormone removed from the

market, called the production cutbacks " good news for dairy cows and

good news for consumers, though obviously a body blow to Monsanto. "

 

But Kevin W. McCarthy, an analyst at Banc of America Securities, said

Monsanto would not be hurt much because Posilac, even before the

cutbacks, accounted for what he estimates at $250 million to $300

million in annual sales, or about 5 percent of the company's expected

total this year.

 

" I don't think this is a business investors are particularly focused on,

nor should they be, " said Mr. McCarthy, whose firm has done investment

banking for Monsanto. Monsanto does not break out sales of Posilac.

 

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

 

GM technology fails local potatoes

By Gatonye Gathura

 

Horizon/Daily Nation, Kenya, Africa

 

Trials to develop a virus resistance sweet potato through biotechnology

have failed.

 

US biotechnology, imported three years ago, has failed to improve

Kenya’s sweet potato. This has confirmed critic’s fears that

bio-engineered techniques tried elsewhere may not be replicated in

Africa with similar results.

 

The modified potato was launched in Kenya, in 2001 by US special envoy,

Dr Andrew Young, who had flown into the country for the occasion.

 

Investigations, on the transgenic crop, by KARI’s Biotechnology Centre,

say the technology has failed to produce a virus resistant strain.

" There is no demonstrated advantage arising from genetic transformation

using the initial gene construct, " says a report by researchers, Dr

Francis Nang’ayo, and Dr Ben Odhiambo.

 

The transgenic potato was imported from Monsanto in the US to Kenya for

tests. The initial genetic engineering work was done at the Monsanto

laboratories, using virus-resistant technologies.

 

In a nine-year study, Monsanto had developed a coat protein responsible

for virus resistance, and donated it to Kari, royalty free, to use in

its sweet potato improvement programme.

 

" The transgenic material did not quite withstand virus challenge in the

field, " says the report, doubting whether the gene expression was

adequate or it failed to address the diversity of virus in this region

or just that the gene construct was inappropriate.

 

Actually, the report indicates that during the trials non-transgenic

crops used as control yielded much more tuber compared to the

trangenics. " All lines tested were susceptible to viral attacks. "

 

The Kari results corresponded with an earlier study released by the

Third World Network Ð Africa. The study, titled " Genetically Modified

Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An

Assessment of Current Evidence " , by Aaron deGrassi, of the Institute of

Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, had warned that the GM

sweet potato introduced in Kenya did not address the crop's major

problem - weevils.

 

The study offered new evidence against claims of the miracle potential

of genetically modified crops for dealing with famine and poverty in

Africa. After examining the impact of three genetically modified crops,

sweet potato, maize and Bt cotton, on poverty alleviation in Africa it

concluded that biotechnology does not address the real causes of poverty

and hunger in Africa.

 

Now Kari’s research on sweet potatoes has reverted to working with

improved gene constructs based on Kenyan strain of virus. This questions

the suitability of wholesale importation of foreign technologies.

 

It was hoped that the technology would boast one of the country’s most

important tubers with the widest regional distribution. It seems much

more needs to be done.

 

Dr Young while launching the technology had said, " I don't believe that

we live in this world for our crops to be destroyed. We have been given

knowledge for the earth to make sense. "

 

He had then described the continent as being, on the verge of a

tremendous revolution. " With biotechnology, we are going to make a green

revolution in Africa. "

 

The sweet potato project had been approved by the Kenya Biosafety

Council and mock-trials initiated in Kakamega, Kisii, Muguga, Mtwapa and

Embu. But the Kari researchers say all is not lost because the

experiment proves that the country has the capacity to handle

transgenics in the field.

 

" It proved that KARI and Kenya by extension had the capacity to try the

suitability of sophisticated biotechnologies, " says Dr Odhiambo.

 

Unlike the more conventional Irish potato, the tuber is not only popular

among rural communities in Kenya, but also lasts much longer after

traditional processing. This makes the root tuber a more ideal crop for

storage for dry seasons.

 

The average harvest of the crop in Kenya, however, has remained low due

to a number of factors, including attacks by pests and the sweet potato

virus disease. The yield losses resulting from the viral diseases,

according to KARI, can be as high as 80 per cent.

 

Kenya's average sweet potato yield stands at six metric tons per hectare

less than half the world's average 14 metric tons per hectare.

 

Gene modification is a relatively new technique in Kenya. Other less

high-tech biotech processes such as tissue culture have been widely

commercialized in crops like bananas, macadamia nuts and strawberries.

 

The transgenic sweet potato is not the only food crop improvement

projects conducted between KARI and Monsanto. Other projects include

insect-resistant cotton, and maize resistant to striga - a parasitic

weed responsible for destroying up to half of yields in western and

coastal parts of Kenya.

 

KARI is the main institute of agricultural research and technology

transfer, in charge of providing such appropriate technology aimed at

boosting agricultural productivity and livestock production.

 

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

 

Activists Slam New GM Food Regulations

 

Business Day (Johannesburg) / AllAfrica Global Media

January 29, 2004

 

By Tamar Kahn

Cape Town

 

The health ministry has published new regulations on labelling

genetically modified food, drawing fire from industry as well as

activists who do not want genetically engineered food on their plates.

 

The regulations to the Foods, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, published

on January 16, state that food with genetically modified ingredients

requires labelling only if its composition, nutritional value, or mode

of storage or cooking is significantly different from conventional food.

Labels are also required if the food contains an allergen, such as

peanuts.

 

Only genetically modified maize and soybeans have been approved for

commercial use in SA.

 

Food containing these ingredients, such as cornflakes or mealie meal,

will not require labels

 

" We've tried to balance the consumer's right to know against peoples'

rights to affordable food, " said the health ministry's food director

Theo Van de Venter. He said that requiring producers of genetically

modified food to label their products would be " extremely costly " .

 

The regulations were slammed by SafeAge, a lobby group campaigning for a

freeze on the introduction of genetically modified crops. " They have

compromised to suit industry and not the consumer, " said Safeage

coordinator Glenn Ashton.

 

He said consumers who wanted genetically modified-free products would

ultimately be forced to pay a premium.

 

Industry lobby group Africabio said the regulations had not gone far

enough, and lacked crucial guidance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!