Franken Foods: Senate considers 'biopharm' crops ban/EPA PULLS PLUG ON UNETHICAL

[Guest guest]

GMW: Senate considers 'biopharm' crops ban/EPA PULLS PLUG ON

UNETHICAL STUDY

" GM WATCH " <info

 

 

Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:59:03 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

 

1.Senate considers 'biopharm' crops (temporary) ban

2.EPA PULLS PLUG ON UNETHICAL STUDY

 

Item 2 relates to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study, GM

Watch rs petitioned against, in which infants in participating

low income families were to be monitored for health impacts as they

underwent exposure to known toxic chemicals over the course of two years.

The study entitled Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study

(CHEERS) was to look at how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled or

absorbed

by children ranging from babies to 3 years old. For taking part in

these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a

T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation. (Of course, low income

American families are getting no rewards for feeding their kids

unlabelled

GMOs, nor is anyone bothering to monitor either the short or the

long-term effects of ingesting them.)

 

Behind the study were the American Chemistry Council whose members

include Bayer, Dow, DuPont

and Monsanto

 

excerpt: " The reason Stephen Johnson [the Acting Administrator for the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] clung so stubbornly to this

creepy CHEERS effort is that it served as the beacon to industry that EPA

would welcome similar experiments. Stephen Johnson has become the

pesticide industry's 'go-to-guy' at EPA. " (from item 2)

------

1.Senate considers 'biopharm' crops ban

Lawmakers mull temporary halt to growing biologically engineered

foodstuffs

By NIKI SULLIVAN

Associated Press

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/04/09/news/oregon/sat03.txt

 

SALEM - Lawmakers are considering a temporary ban on growing food crops

in Oregon that are biologically engineered to produce drugs or

chemicals, such as vaccines.

 

Supporters of the bill say it would protect Oregon farmers from

potentially harmful crop contamination. Opponents say the bill is an

attempt

to ban biologically engineered crops in general.

 

Oregon would become the first state to ban the crops, called

biopharmaceuticals or biopharms, under a bill that was brought up for

its first

hearing Friday in the Senate Environment and Land Use Committee.

 

Currently in Oregon, genetically modified bentgrass is grown in Central

Oregon and several varieties of insect-resistant corn are commercially

available for farmers to grow.

 

But biopharm crops are a different type of genetically modified

organism that represent a small percentage of U.S.-grown biologically

engineered plants.

 

To create the crops, genes from other organisms are spliced into the

plant - usually corn - that prompt it to produce the desired chemical

compound, such as an anticoagulant or vaccine.

 

None are currently grown in Oregon, but the ban would prevent

pharmaceutical companies from looking to put fields here.

 

" Plant species grown for use as food for humans or animals should not

be grown to produce drugs and industrial chemicals, " said Chris

Schreiner, quality control director for Oregon Tilth, Inc., a nonprofit

organization that certifies organic farms.

 

Schreiner compared biopharm crops to DDT, a chemical used more than 30

years ago because it was found to be toxic to humans and animals.

Schreiner said the effects of DDT could have been avoided if the chemical

wasn't " widely promoted and used prior to our full understanding of their

toxic effects. "

 

The bill would not ban growing other genetically modified organisms,

but some warned that biopharm crops could contaminate food crops and have

other unforeseen biological consequences that would tarnish the image

of Oregon-grown foods.

 

" There is too much potential for leakage of these genes into the human

food supply, " said Bitty Roy, a biology professor from Eugene.

 

Roy said the risks and benefits of such crops needs to be more

carefully studied before they are grown in the open air.

 

But others said the bill could cut off future economic benefits for

Oregon's farms and research facilities, and that the federal government

should create policy instead of a patchwork of state laws.

 

" This is a science discussion and these crops need to be grown under

the best management practices, " said Katie Fast of the Oregon Farm

Bureau, but she said there's no reason to ban the crops altogether.

 

She said the bill could negatively affect Oregon's research facilities

by prohibiting them from growing experimental crops that could be

medically beneficial.

 

Katie Coba, director of the Oregon Department of Agriculture, said the

agency has no official position on the bill, but that " it's important

to remember that biopharming is regulated in the U.S. by the federal

government, " and that new guidelines are expected in one to two years.

 

She also said biopharm crops are " not the scary stories that we've

heard, " and said an example could be genetically enhancing a tomato to

provide more health benefits.

------

2.News Releases

For Immediate Release: April 8, 2005

Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

 

EPA GRUDGINGLY PULLS PLUG ON QUESTIONABLE " CHEERS " STUDY — Other Human

Pesticide Dosing Studies Without Safeguards Can Continue

 

Washington, DC — In a defensively worded statement, Stephen Johnson,

Acting Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

announced the end of the CHEERS study in which parents were paid to spray

pesticides in the rooms occupied by their infant children under age 3.

Johnson did not admit any ethical problems with the study but concluded

without explanation that the study could not " go forward…in an atmosphere

absent of gross misrepresentation and controversy. " U.S. Senators

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) had previously announced that

they would hold Johnson's confirmation as EPA Administrator unless he

cancelled CHEERS.

 

While CHEERS (which stands for Children's Environmental Exposure

Research Study) will no go forward with EPA funding, the exact same

study can

proceed with private sponsors, according to Public Employees for

Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In fact, the American Chemistry

Council,

which represents 135 companies including pesticide manufacturers, had

already pledged $2 million toward the study's $9 million overall cost.

 

In February, EPA published a draft policy that opens the door for

accepting any experiments conducted by pesticide companies and chemical

manufacturers using human subjects without establishing safeguards to

ensure that the studies are conducted ethically and without harm to the

subjects. Under this policy, EPA indefinitely delays ethical rules and,

instead, relies on its political appointees to flag immoral or unsafe

practices on a " case-by-case " basis.

 

" The reason Stephen Johnson clung so stubbornly to this creepy CHEERS

effort is that it served as the beacon to industry that EPA would

welcome similar experiments, " stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch,

noting that the pesticide industry wants to use human testing to trump

animal studies so as to justify relaxed exposure limits. " Stephen Johnson

has become the pesticide industry's 'go-to-guy' at EPA. "

 

Under the overall human dosing policy advocated by Johnson, EPA will

have no protections for –

 

*Infants, neonates, pregnant women, and prisoners. By contrast, all

medical and drug testing overseen by the Department of Health and Human

Services has such safeguards; and

*Ensuring that companies have obtained informed consent or have not

paid undue inducements.

 

As evidenced by the CHEERS fiasco, EPA lacks any independent safety or

ethical review mechanism. In January, after the study had drawn

controversy, EPA published a special Federal Register notice looking for

experts in " ethical standards of research protocols and bioethics "

because

the agency lacked expertise in those areas.

 

To mask its lack of standards, during his confirmation hearing, Johnson

claimed that the Centers for Disease Control had approved CHEERS. But,

according to a January 18, 2005 letter from EPA to Representative Bart

Gordon (D-TN), CDC had not reviewed it.

 

" EPA should adopt the basic safeguards required by common decency

before they start using human dosing experiments, " Ruch added. " Canceling

CHEERS does not end the argument about the need for ethical standards in

human testing; it merely opens another round in that debate. "

 

###

 

Find out about EPA's open door policy on human dosing experiments

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=470

 

For more information about CHEERS and human testing

http://www.peer.org/campaigns/testing/index.php

 

Read the statement from Acting EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/083d68\

1b57e750dd85256fdd00639bc5!OpenDocument

 

 

 

 

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