Permits for PharmCrops increase according to new report

[Guest guest]

" News Update from The Campaign "

Permits for " PharmCrops " increase according to new report

Wed, 2 Jun 2004 07:41:22 -0500

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

There has been a significant increase in applications to the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) from biotech companies requesting permission to grow

test fields of crops genetically engineered to contain pharmaceutical drugs.

 

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is releasing a report on

Wednesday about this increase. The report will apparently criticize the lax

government regulations in place overseeing these experimental crops.

 

In an attempt to offset some of the criticism, the USDA is promising to

disclose more information about these biopharm crops. However, these steps

from the USDA are totally inadequate.

 

If these risky crops are allowed to be planted commercially, it will be nearly

impossible to prevent the food supply from becoming contaminated by

genetically engineered pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals.

 

Posted below are articles from the Associated Press and The New York Times

on this growing controversy.

 

These so-called " PharmCrops " are an accident waiting to happen unless they

are confined to greenhouses or other indoor environments.

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods is fighting back

aggressively against these drug-containing genetically engineered crops. By

the end of June we plan to launch a companion web site at the domain address

www.pharmcrops.com. This new PharmCrops web site will contain both

educational materials and activist tools.

 

CAN YOU HELP OUR EFFORTS?

 

Those of you who receive our News Updates on a regular basis know that we do

not frequently ask you for donations. However, we are asking you now for

your financial support.

 

We recently invested thousands of dollars in developing new custom software

for our activist activities. You will soon get to use this software on the new

PharmCrops web site, along with the Save Organic Food and The Campaign

web sites. However, a couple corporate donations we anticipated receiving in

May did not come through as planned. Frankly our financial situation is as

tight now as it has ever been since we started The Campaign.

 

Don't worry, we are not closing our doors. Far from it, we have some very

ambitious plans for The Campaign, especially as we head into 2005 and

beyond. But it is essential that we increase our revenues in June. We are

asking you to help if possible.

 

Please consider making a donation online or by U.S. mail. To make a donation

online, you can do so on our secured server at:

http://www.thecampaign.org/donate.php

 

If you prefer to mail your donation, here is a link to a printable mail-in form:

http://www.thecampaign.org/donationform.pdf

 

Or you can simply send a check or money order to the address below.

 

Thanks for your continued activism and support!

 

Sincerely,

 

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. "

 

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

 

Splicing of human genes into plants regains steam

 

By Paul Elias, Associated Press

6/2/2004

 

SAN FRANCISCO - Biotechnology companies are quietly pushing to splice more

human genes into food crops after the practice was nearly abandoned last

year, a Washington-based advocacy group says.

 

The news comes some 18 months after College Station, Texas-based Prodigene

caused an uproar by accidentally mixing such crops with conventionally grown

plants in Nebraska. At the time, giant food manufacturers called for tighter

regulation of such experiments, and biotech titan Monsanto announced it was

pulling out of the field.

 

The number of federal regulatory approvals and applications for these

outdoor plantings - often called " biopharming " because the idea is to lower

drug-making costs by using plants as delivery agents - have nearly doubled

in the last 12 months when compared to the previous year, according to the

Washington D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest.

 

" The biopharming industry seems to be back in business, " the group concludes

in a report released Wednesday that is based on publicly available U.S.

Department of Agriculture data.

 

In fact, Prodigene is again growing genetically engineered corn in Nebraska

after the USDA approved a " pharmaceutical application " from the company in

April.

 

John Reiher, the company's chief executive since August, would not say what

was being spliced into the corn, how many acres were under cultivation or

where exactly it was growing.

 

Other companies with similar applications approved this year include

Hayward, Calif.-based Planet Biotechnology and Ventria BioScience of

Sacramento.

 

The USDA has approved seven of the 16 applications it received between May

2003 and April, with the nine pending applications all submitted in the last

four months, the report says. Its author, Greg Jaffe, says the USDA has

denied only two such applications since 2000.

 

Since 1995, the USDA has approved slightly more than 300 biopharming

plantings throughout the country. As late as June 2002, it approved about 25

annually before approvals fell.

 

No human drug made from genetically engineered crops has been approved for

commercial use and most applications are for small outdoor plots of less

than acre each, the USDA said.

 

Still, Jaffe and other critics complain that current USDA regulations are

too lax and not open enough to the public.

 

Most applications, for instance, don't specify how many acres are to be

cultivated and exactly where the pharmaceutical crops are to be grown,

making it impossible for conventional farmers to know whether biotech

varieties that could cross-pollinate with their harvest are growing nearby.

 

Behind the new plantings are small biotechnology companies and university

researchers who seek to create inexpensive human medicines such as insulin

and vaccines by splicing protein-producing human genes into crops that

include corn, rice and even tobacco.

 

The human genes coax the crops to produce proteins, which can be extracted

from the plants and turned into medicines.

 

At Stanford University, 16 lymphoma patients last year were treated with an

experimental cancer drug extracted from a genetically engineered tobacco

created by Large Scale Biology - the first human use of a pharmaceutical

derived from a plant.

 

This biotechnology niche had been growing steadily for a decade despite

continued attacks from genetic engineering foes who fear such work has not

been studied enough to ensure the safety of the nation's food supply if

accidental mixing occurs.

 

Pharming suffered a dramatic setback in late 2002 when the USDA fined

Prodigene $500,000 and ordered it to pay another $3 million to buy and

destroy conventionally grown soy contaminated with corn it had genetically

engineered to produce a pig vaccine.

 

The Grocery Manufactures of America, which supports biotech crops approved

for consumption and represents the Coca Cola, Nestle and dozens of others in

the $500 billion food industry, has called on the USDA to tighten regulation

of pharma crops and biotech companies to experiment exclusively with

non-food crops.

 

In April, California regulators denied Ventria's application to grow rice

with human genes after California rice growers said they feared

international customers would refuse to buy their conventionally grown crops

out of contamination fears.

 

In response to the growing concern, the USDA plans to unveil a revised

review process in the next three weeks that would make public more

information on pharma applications and, for the first time since 1998,

require detailed environmental assessments on large-scale projects near

commercialization, said Cindy Smith, the deputy administrator of biotech

regulation for the department.

 

Smith said Prodigene will be the first company to undergo the more stringent

environmental review on the two applications it has pending to grow

pharmaceutical corn in Texas this year.

 

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

 

U.S. to Divulge More About Modified Crops

 

The New York Times

By ANDREW POLLACK

June 2, 2004

 

Responding to criticism that a controversial farming practice is shrouded in

secrecy, the Department of Agriculture plans to disclose more information

about crops that are genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, an

official said yesterday.

 

The official, Cindy Smith, the deputy administrator for biotechnology

regulatory services, said in an interview that the department planned to

begin using its Web site to post its analysis of the risks and environmental

impacts of the crops that are being grown in field trials.

 

" We do agree that more transparency would reassure the public and the

stakeholders, " Ms. Smith said. " We want to be more transparent in advance of

this technology really scaling up. "

 

Biotechnology companies say that genetically modified crops could be a way

to produce certain pharmaceuticals inexpensively.

 

Food companies and environmental groups, however, have objected,

particularly to the use of food crops for this purpose. A commonly expressed

fear is that drugs might inadvertently end up in somebody's corn flakes.

 

Critics have also complained about the lack of information about the field

trials and the lack of public discussion before permits are granted.

 

The Department of Agriculture makes some information about field trials

available. But it usually leaves out what pharmaceutical is being produced,

the acreage involved, and the location other than the state, because such

data are usually classified as confidential business information by the

company conducting the trial.

 

The new policy seems likely to mollify critics, although not completely. It

would allow the public to comment before a permit is issued for field trials

deemed large or risky enough to require a formal environmental assessment.

But there would be no comment period, Ms. Smith said, for smaller, more

routine trials that receive a more abbreviated risk assessment.

 

The Agriculture Department would still not disclose information that

companies consider confidential, she said.

 

The new policy comes as the number of such field trials is on the rise after

a hiatus.

 

Companies applied for 13 permits and public research institutions for three,

in the 12 months that ended in April, according to a report being issued

today by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group.

 

That came after a sharp decline in trials that occurred after incidents in

2002 in which corn containing a pig vaccine became intermingled with food

crops, even though the authorities said the problems were caught before any

such food was eaten.

 

The company involved in those incidents, ProdiGene, was fined, regulations

were toughened and applications for field trials slowed.

 

From July 2002 to June 2003, the government approved only four trials, down

from 25 in the previous year, according to the consumer group's report,

which used data from the Web site listing trials of genetically engineered

crops.

 

The report said that 11 of the 16 applications involved a food crop and the

rest tobacco. Six applications were to grow corn in Iowa, Nebraska or Texas,

states that produce large amounts of corn for food and feed.

 

Some companies, including ProdiGene, are already selling products made in

genetically modified crops grown in the trials, the report said.

 

ProdiGene applied for four permits in the last year, according to the

report. Other applicants included Large Scale Biology, Chlorogen and

SemBioSys.

 

Ms. Smith said that field trial activity is still not back to the level it

was before the ProdiGene incidents. Many field trials being applied for now

are very small, she said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger