New report on pharmcrops raises major safety concerns

[Guest guest]

" News Update from The Campaign " <newsupdate

 

New report on pharmcrops raises major safety concerns

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:28:18 -0600

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report this week on the

dangers

posed to the human food supply from genetically engineered crops that

contain pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals.

 

The report titled " A Growing Concern: Protecting the Food Supply in an

Era

of Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crops " was written by six experts who

participated in a workshop convened in 2003 by the Union of Concerned

Scientists (UCS). However, the report was written and the policy

recommendations were made independent of the UCS. In releasing the

report,

the UCS added its own policy recommendations which are actually

stronger

than those from the authors.

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods agrees with the

strict

guidelines that are being proposed by the Union of Concerned

Scientists:

 

" The UCS recommends that the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)

halt the outdoor production of genetically engineered pharma and

industrial

crops immediately, until a system is put in place that can produce

drugs and

industrial substances without putting our food system and food industry

at

risk. UCS also recommends that the USDA explore the indoor cultivation

of

engineered food and feed crops to produce drugs and industrial

chemicals. "

 

The UCS makes additional recommendations that you can read about in the

Executive Summary and in the full 132-page report. The following link

will

autoforward you to the section on their web site where the report can

be

found along with related materials:

http://www.thecampaign.org/ucsgrow.htm

 

Posted below is the press release from the Union of Concerned

Scientists

about the report. Also posted are two articles on the report, one from

the

St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the other from the Washington Post.

 

We also invite you to visit The Campaign's PharmCrops web site we set

up a

few months ago to specifically address this issue:

http://www.pharmcrops.com

 

The USDA policy on PharmCrops is reckless, dangerous and must be

modified.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Union of Concerned Scientists

for

focusing attention on this serious threat to the human food supply.

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

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. "

 

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

 

Press Release from the Union of Concerned Scientists

 

December 15, 2004

 

Food Supply Vulnerable to Contamination by Drugs and Plastics from

Gene-Altered Crops

UCS Calls for Ban on Food Crops Genetically Engineered to Produce

Pharmaceuticals, Industrial Chemicals

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - For more than a decade, corn, soybeans, and other

food

crops genetically engineered to produce drugs, vaccines, and industrial

chemicals have been grown on American farms. But a new report by six

agricultural experts now warns that the food supply is vulnerable to

contamination by these " pharmaceutical crops " unless substantial

changes are

made in the ways and places such crops are grown and managed.

 

Based on the experts' findings, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)

today called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to

immediately ban

the field production of corn, soybeans, and other food crops engineered

to

produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals. UCS recommends that

the

USDA spearhead a major campaign to encourage and fund safer

alternatives

like non-food crops or growing pharmaceutical food crops indoors.

 

" Nobody wants drugs in their cornflakes, " said Dr. Margaret Mellon,

of the Food and Environment Program at UCS. " Consumers who discover

that

they have unwittingly ingested drugs in their cereal and taco shells

are

likely to direct their ire-and their lawsuits -against the companies

that

sold them the food. "

 

UCS convened the panel of experts to determine whether it is possible

to

produce pharmaceuticals in familiar food crops like corn or soybean

(the two

plants most often used for pharmaceutical production) without

contaminating

human food or animal feed. The panel-acting independently of

UCS-analyzed

the current system for growing food- and feed-grade corn and soybeans

and

identified many points where drugs and plastics could pass to the food

supply if pharmaceutical crops were grown under the same system. After

evaluating various approaches to blocking contamination at those

points, the

panel concluded that the current corn and soybean production system

cannot

be used for pharmaceutical corn and soybean in the United States while

ensuring virtually no contamination of the food and feed system.

 

" It is sobering that drugs and industrial chemicals could have so many

routes to the food supply, " said Dr. David Andow, editor of the

technical

report and a professor in the Department of Entomology at the

University of

Minnesota. " Pollen can be carried to fields with food crops by the wind

or

insects, seeds lodged in the crevices of harvesting equipment could

come

loose while harvesting food, and plants can come up as volunteers in

the

middle of a food crop. To protect the food supply, each potential route

has

to be blocked. "

 

The expert panel said it is theoretically possible for the government

to

create a new system that would allow corn or soybean to be safely used

as

pharmaceutical crops. Establishing that system, however, especially if

it

permits pharmaceutical crop production to continue within traditional

food-crop regions, would require new management systems, new oversight,

and

new uses of some equipment and technologies-all built from the ground

up.

The expert panel strongly encouraged development of this new system.

 

UCS doubts the USDA could establish, monitor, and ensure the successful

operation of a new system of this magnitude. Over the past few years,

the

federal government has put together a piecemeal system, which, while

moving

in the right direction, is not enough to protect the food supply. The

better

way to reap the benefits of pharmaceutical crops is to stop the use of

food

crops now and begin to explore other production methods, like non-food

crops

or plant cell cultures.

 

" Consumers and food companies alike will not accept a system that

allows

drugs to seep into the food supply-even at very low levels, " said Dr.

Jane

Rissler, Deputy Director of UCS's Food and Environment Program. " But

alternatives will not emerge overnight. That's why the USDA must embark

immediately on a major campaign to encourage and fund alternatives to

the

outdoor use of food and feed crops in pharmaceutical and industrial

crop

production. "

 

The technical report was written by scientists at Iowa Sate University,

University of Central Florida, University of California at Davis,

University

of Illinois, and University of Minnesota, and an agricultural

management

expert based in Hudson, Iowa. An introduction to the technical report

and

UCS conclusions and recommendations were written by Drs. Mellon and

Rissler.

The technical report and UCS conclusions and recommendations are being

released today as one document, A Growing Concern: Protecting the Food

Supply in an Era of Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crops.

 

A Growing Concern can be found on the web at www.ucsusa.org. Formed in

1969

at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, UCS is a nonprofit

partnership

of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis,

innovative policy development and effective citizen advocacy to achieve

practical environmental solutions.

 

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

 

Scientist group calls for tighter rules on biopharming

By Rachel Melcer

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Wednesday, Dec. 15 2004

 

Companies and researchers engaged in biopharming - genetically

modifying

crops to produce drugs and industrial chemicals - need to take a step

back

if the process is to safely move forward, according to a report

released

Wednesday.

 

The technology could lead to cheap and abundant production of

much-needed

vaccines and medical treatments, as well as valuable plastics and

polymers,

said a panel of six academic experts commissioned by the Union of

Concerned

Scientists, a Washington-based environmental advocacy group.

 

But unless regulations are tightened and new agricultural oversight

systems

put in place, the scientists fear that plant-made chemicals could turn

up in

consumers' corn flakes. The Union is calling for an immediate ban on

biopharming research and production in food crops in open fields, to

avoid

contamination of the food supply.

 

" Consumers have a right to safe food, " said Margaret Mellon, director

of the

Union's food and environment program. " As the system exists today, corn

and

soybeans cannot be used " for pharma production without undue risk.

 

Biopharming, which is still in an early and largely experimental phase,

uses

plants such as corn and soybeans to produce non-food chemicals and

proteins

that could be harmful if eaten. These valuable ingredients are

extracted,

purified and processed into drugs, vaccines or industrial enzymes; the

plants themselves are destroyed.

 

Monsanto Co. of Creve Coeur, the world's leading producer of

genetically

modified crops, has decided not to pursue biopharming. But some of its

corporate competitors, as well as small startup firms, are developing

it as

the potential underpinning of a lucrative new industry.

 

Chlorogen Inc., based at the Nidus Center for Scientific Enterprise in

Creve

Coeur, has genetically engineered and grown tobacco plants that contain

human blood plasma. Sigma-Aldrich Corp., headquartered downtown, is

developing expertise in extracting and purifying active ingredients

from

biopharm crops. Their efforts are welcomed by civic leaders working to

expand the local biotech economy.

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists doesn't want to halt this type of

progress, Mellon said. But it does not believe the U.S. Agriculture

Department is properly regulating it. The Union worries that biopharm

crops

will cross-pollinate with those meant for food production; or that

biopharm

seeds will inadvertently mix into the general-use supply.

 

" The USDA ... has failed to allay concerns. The (oversight) system,

despite

being headed in the right direction, is still a work in progress. The

piecemeal manner in which its provisions were issued make it unclear

whether

they are voluntary or mandatory, " the UCS report said.

 

Jim Rogers, a spokesman for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health

Inspection

Service, which regulates biotech crops, said the agency's requirements

" are

pretty stringent now " - and they are in the process of being revised to

keep

up with advances in technology.

 

Roger Beachy, president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in

Creve

Coeur, said scientists must be free to experiment in open fields if

they are

to understand and develop biopharming techniques. These experiments are

adequately controlled, and new genetic technology is increasing the

number

of ways in which crops can be produced without risk of

cross-pollination, he

said.

 

" A ban would significantly halt the technology of producing drugs more

cheaply in plants " than through current methods, Beachy said. And if

work on

biopharming to grow industrial chemicals were halted, " then you have

stopped

another kind of advance that we're looking for to give an economic

advantage

to our farmers. "

 

The Union's call for a ban goes further than the recommendations of the

scientists it empaneled. The academics - including Henry Daniell, who

developed the technology on which Chlorogen is based - simply say that

much

care must be taken. They present three possible paths, each with its

own

challenge:

 

Geographically isolate particular biopharm crops, corn or soybeans for

example, from those grown for food use - but there might not be enough

suitable land available.

 

Implement a biopharm production system entirely separate from commodity

agriculture, from seed development and sales through harvest,

distribution

and processing - though this would be very expensive.

 

Limit biopharming to non-food crops, such as tobacco, guayule (which is

used

in rubber production), or jojoba (which produces oil for industrial

purposes) -but much research would have to be done to understand and

genetically modify these plants.

 

" All three of these will require some additional work and regulatory

oversight in order to make sure that ... there is virtually zero

contamination of the food supply, " said David Andow, a University of

Minnesota entomologist and editor of the report.

 

Questions raised by the panel should be examined, Beachy said. " We need

criticism and caution to be presented - but then we should allow the

technology to respond appropriately and to meet the challenges (so)

this

whole area can move forward. "

 

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

 

Oversight on Bioengineered Crops Is Poor, Report Says

 

By Rick Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, December 16, 2004

 

Federal oversight of crops genetically engineered to produce

medications in

their seeds and leaves is inadequate to prevent unwanted contamination

of

food crops, according to an analysis released yesterday by a scientific

advocacy group. As a result, the report concludes, consumers are at

risk of

inadvertently dosing themselves with prescription drugs while eating a

morning bowl of cereal.

 

The report, which biotech executives and regulators denounced as

overwrought, is the latest to look at the small but rapidly growing

" pharma "

sector of agriculture, in which corn, soybeans and other plants are

being

designed to produce high-tech drugs or industrial compounds in their

tissues.

 

The approach has many advantages over traditional systems for

manufacturing

those products, including potential cost savings, the report concludes.

But

it also raises the specter of accidental contamination of the food

supply

with blood thinners, hormones or any of the scores of biologically

active

compounds being made experimentally in plants.

 

" No one -- not consumers, not food companies, not biotech companies --

wants

to discover drugs in our cornflakes, " said Margaret Mellon of the Union

of

Concerned Scientists (UCS), a group long critical of the federal

regulatory

scheme for agricultural biotechnology.

 

The group commissioned six independent experts in the fields of

agronomy,

entomology and ecology to conduct an analysis of the fledgling

industry,

which makes a few chemicals for industrial uses and an array of drugs,

none

of which is yet approved for marketing. The analysis concluded that

significant changes are needed in the way the Agriculture Department

oversees the cultivation of such plants if the risk of contamination is

to

be brought close to zero.

 

" Genes can move in pollen by wind or insects. Seeds can get stuck in

machinery or mixed in storage and transportation systems. There are

very

many routes of vulnerability, " panel chairman David Andow of the

University

of Minnesota said yesterday in a telephone news conference timed to

coincide

with release of the report, " A Growing Concern: Protecting the Food

Supply

in an Era of Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crops. "

 

The expert panel -- which Andow said operated independently of the UCS

--

recommended that any one of three approaches be taken: Grow pharma

crops in

geographically isolated parts of the country; set up a harvest, storage

and

processing system completely separate from the existing network of farm

equipment, silos and other facilities used to grow and store food

crops; or

ban all outdoor cultivation of food crops engineered to make

medications or

chemicals -- a move that would require companies to switch to less

familiar

plant species for their pharma experiments.

 

The UCS called for such a ban yesterday, saying it is unrealistic to

think

that any other system could prevent cross-contamination.

 

History shows that genetic isolation of crops is a challenge. In 2002,

for

example, ProdiGene Inc. botched efforts to contain a pig vaccine it was

developing in corn. With contamination of field corn and soybeans

suspected,

large quantities of those crops had to be burned, and the USDA began to

develop new rules.

 

In March 2003, those rules went into effect. They require larger buffer

zones around pharma fields to decrease the odds that gene-altered

pollen

will drift onto conventional crops; dedicated farm equipment to make

sure

altered seeds and other plant parts do not get mixed with food crops; a

sevenfold increase in federal inspections of experimental fields; and

other

restrictions.

 

Those safeguards are " absolutely " adequate, said Cindy J. Smith, deputy

administrator of biotechnology regulation for the USDA's Animal and

Plant

Health Inspection Service, which oversees pharma crops. Smith noted

there

were only 44 acres devoted to U.S. field trials of such crops this

year.

 

The guidelines are " very stringent " said Lisa Dry, a spokeswoman for

the

Biotechnology Industry Organization. " This is not some cavalier, 'Let's

grow

some duckweed and make some drugs!' "

 

Andrew Baum, president and chief executive of SemBioSys Genetics Inc.,

a

Calgary-based pharma crop company growing drugs in safflower, said food

crops are ideal for the new science because their biology is so well

understood. He said he opposes a ban but welcomes governmental

oversight, if

nothing else, to allay the emerging business sector's liability

concerns.

 

" We realize that if we screw this up, we're out of business, " Baum

said. " We

want regulation, and we want it visible. I mean, bring it on. "

 

 

 

------------