Sat, 30 Jul 2005 . News Update From The Campaign

[Guest guest]

" News Update from The Campaign " <newsupdate

PharmRice, GE-Free Sonoma battle & Superweeds

Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:23:29 -0700

 

 

 

 

News Update From The Campaign

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

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Posted below are four articles covering three topics relating to

genetically

engineered foods.

 

The first two articles are from the August 1 edition of Business Week

magazine. The main article is titled " What's So Scary About Rice? " It

discusses the growing controversy regarding crops genetically

engineered to

contain pharmaceutical drugs. Both corn and rice are being targeted as

" factories " to create genetically engineered drugs.

 

As the article points out, while it might cost $125 million to create a

traditional biotech factory, the promoters of these " PharmCrops " think

they

can get the same output for about $4 million using genetically

engineered

rice. And they expect this to grow into a $2.2 billion-per-year

industry by

2011.

 

With that much money at stake, the battle over genetically engineered

PharmCrops is just starting to heat up. Yet if the biotech companies

push

ahead with this technology, PharmCrops are likely to become the " Three

Mile

Island " or " Chernobyl " of genetically engineered foods.

 

As you will recall, nuclear power plants were being built rapidly until

the

disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl occurred. Those events

brought

the development of nuclear power plants to a screeching halt. Since the

potential of pharmaceutical drugs to get into the food supply is so

likely

with these PharmCrops, it will not be a surprise after a few years to

see a

newspaper headline announcing that pharmaceutical drugs have been found

in

corn flakes.

 

It is well documented that corn pollen can travel great distances. Yet

the

current USDA " Proposed Rules " for pharmaceutical corn is to allow it to

be

grown only one mile from food corn. PharmCrops are an accident waiting

to

happen and are likely to be the " Achilles' heel " of the biotech

industry.

 

The second article posted below is a question and answer with Margaret

Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists. As always, Margaret Mellon

is

an excellent spokesperson to point out the shortcomings and concerns

over

genetic engineering.

 

The third article below titled " Gene Splitting " discusses the citizens'

initiative in Sonoma County that if passed in November will ban the

growing

of genetically engineered crops in that California county. To help the

folks

out with the GE-Free Sonoma battle, please visit their web site at:

http://www.gefreesonoma.org

 

The fourth article below is from the journal Nature. The article is

titled

" Transgenic crop may have bred with wild weed. " The article reports on

a

three-year study done in the United Kingdom (UK) on genetically

engineered

oilseed rape, otherwise known as canola.

 

The study shows what canola farmers in Canada have already discovered:

that

genetically engineered " superweeds " can be created. The biotech

industry

initially denied that such superweeds could ever be created. Now with

the

growing evidence that not only is it possible, it is actually

happening,

they continue to say that there is nothing to worry about and that we

should

not be concerned.

 

If there was not so much at stake, it would practically be comical to

watch

the biotech supporters try to defend what is going on. In the case of

this

UK study, we have a " wild plant, " otherwise known as a weed, that has

the

gene sequence of the biotech plant and the herbicide resistant property

of

the biotech plant.

 

In spite of this strong evidence, the biotech supporter interviewed in

this

Nature article argues that maybe some biotech pollen contaminated the

weed

creating the appearance of the biotech gene sequence and that " the

herbicide

resistance seen in the plant itself could have arisen naturally. "

 

Yes, I suppose that is possible. And it is also possible that I could

win

the lottery if I bought a lottery ticket. But neither are very likely.

 

Craig Winters

President

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

http://www.thecampaign.org

http://www.saveorganicfood.org

http://www.pharmcrops.com

 

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

 

What's So Scary About Rice?

Biotech crops can make drugs -- but they must be kept out of the food

chain

 

August 1, 2005

Business Week

Science & Technology

 

In the heart of America's rice industry, a fight has broken out between

the

King of Beers and a tiny biotech company. On one side is Anheuser-Busch

(BUD

), which uses Missouri-grown rice as an ingredient in beer. On the

other

side is Ventria Biosciences, which is moving to Missouri with plans to

cultivate transgenic rice containing human genes. The genes prompt the

plant

to make two proteins normally found in breast milk, tears, and saliva.

The

biotech company intends to turn the substances into therapeutic food

products to treat stomach disorders.

 

Anheuser-Busch executives seem to have been struck with indigestion at

the

thought that human proteins might conceivably crop up in bottles of

Bud.

Although highly unlikely, such a scenario isn't unheard of:

Bioengineered

seeds have often turned up in places they don't belong. So Busch vowed

to

boycott all Missouri rice last April, prompting Ventria to temporarily

shelve its plans in the state. " We want to make sure rice growers in

Missouri have a good relationship " with one of their biggest customers,

concedes Ventria CEO Scott Deeter. Meanwhile, on June 28 the U.S.

Agriculture Dept. approved Ventria's application to plant in North

Carolina

instead.

 

The strange saga of Ventria and its alien rice casts a pall on a

potentially

promising area in biotech. Stretched by unprecedented demand for new

drugs,

biotech companies have been searching for alternatives to traditional

manufacturing methods -- an expensive process of growing drugs in

delicate

hosts, such as cells from Chinese hamster ovaries. Plants such as rice

and

corn may be ideal substitutes because they naturally churn out proteins

by

the bushel. Getting them to make human varieties is simply a matter of

replacing pieces of their genetic code with human genes -- just as

technicians get hamster cells to produce protein drugs. Then, to

ratchet up

production, you just plant more acres.

 

The economic benefits are enticing, too. A traditional biotech factory

might

cost Ventria CEO Deeter $125 million. With rice, he can get the same

output

for $4 million -- and he intends to pass the savings to consumers.

Several

other biotech startups are experimenting with drugs grown in plants,

and

giant Dow Chemical Co. (DOW ) is mulling the idea as well. Consulting

firm

Frost & Sullivan Inc. predicts the first plant-manufactured drugs will

hit

the market next year and sprout into a $2.2 billion-per-year industry

by

2011.

 

That's if fears about food safety don't cause plant-grown

pharmaceuticals to

die on the vine. Consumer and environmental advocates worry that pollen

from

genetically engineered plants could drift into fields containing food

crops

and produce contaminated hybrids. But that's not a worry with rice,

Deeter

insists, because the plant is self-pollinating -- each seed contains

everything it needs to produce another plant, so there is no risk of

transplanted genes leaking to other plants. Still, environmentalists

say,

there's nothing to prevent a bird from gobbling up the bioengineered

seeds

and then depositing them, intact, in a field hundreds of miles away.

" It's

virtually certain this stuff will make it into food-grade rice, " says

Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program for the

Union

of Concerned Scientists in Washington.

 

OVERSEAS QUEASINESS

Such certainty is backed up by one particularly horrifying breach that

still

haunts the food industry. In 2002 drug-producing corn made by ProdiGene

Inc.

somehow began sprouting in soybean fields near its Nebraska and Iowa

sites.

The USDA seized 500,000 bushels of soybeans and charged ProdiGene

nearly $3

million in fines and disposal costs. Any further gaffes could threaten

some

$1.3 billion in annual U.S. rice sales to foreign countries, many of

which

are still queasy about biotech crops -- even those tweaked to produce

tastier food.

 

What's needed, Ventria's critics argue, is a tighter regulatory

framework to

ensure pharma crops stay out of the food supply. As it stands, the USDA

is

the only federal agency that tightly regulates drug-producing plants

grown

in outdoor test sites. The Food & Drug Administration generally steps

in

later, when it's time to decide if the drugs themselves are suitable

for

human consumption.

 

Since part of the FDA's mandate is to protect food, critics blast the

agency

for failing to get involved in biotech plantings from the very

beginning.

" It's a convoluted process, " says Joseph Mendelson, legal director for

the

Center for Food Safety in Washington, one of many groups calling for

the FDA

to provide additional oversight on drugs made in plants. An FDA policy

adviser says several agencies are looking at whether the system should

be

changed.

 

Some biotech outfits have dodged the protesters by avoiding food crops

altogether. St. Louis-based Chlorogen Inc. is developing a way to make

drugs

in tobacco, which grows well in greenhouses, adding an extra barrier

against

genetic leaks. CEO David N. Duncan says he's not surprised that

ProdiGene's

mistake continues to reverberate, as Ventria and others manipulate

crops

that form the very staples of the human diet. " When you start messing

with

corn flakes and beer, you're going to get in trouble, " Duncan says.

 

Ventria can't seem to escape the controversy. Founded in 1997 in

Sacramento,

the company planted several small fields of pharma-rice in California.

Despite an endorsement from California regulators, some

environmentalists

and traditional rice farmers cried foul. Earlier this year, Ventria

decided

to uproot itself and move to the plant-science incubator at Northwest

Missouri State University. Deeter says he isn't being chased out of

California, but rather he feels Missouri offers more favorable

economics for

large-scale production.

 

It may be a while before Deeter can realize his dreams of amber waves

of

humanized grain. In April, Anheuser-Busch lifted its boycott threat

after

Ventria agreed to move its planned 200 acres from the southeast corner

of

Missouri to the northwest region of the state -- 120 miles away from

food-grade rice. " We believe Ventria is now sufficiently away from

commercial rice producers, " says Francine I. Katz, spokesperson for the

beer

giant. But by the time the compromise was reached, Ventria had missed

prime

planting season, forcing the company to wait until next year to apply

for a

USDA permit to plant there. Meanwhile, Ventria planted 75 acres of rice

in

North Carolina in June, despite threats from the Center for Food

Safety,

which is considering a lawsuit to curb the company.

 

Deeter is undeterred. " We fed the world with American agriculture, and

now

we want to improve the world's health with it, " he says. As for those

trying

to stop him: " They have yet to find a single stomachache as a result of

biotech. " Perhaps, but unless companies like Ventria and the agencies

that

regulate them work harder to allay the world's food-safety fears,

farmlands

won't be fertile ground for drugs.

 

By Arlene Weintraub in New York

 

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

 

Online Extra: The Side Effects of Drugged Crops

The Union of Concerned Scientists' Margaret Mellon explains the group's

concerns about the dangers genetically altered food poses

 

August 1, 2005

Business Week

Science & Technology

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists, founded in 1969 at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, has since grown into one of the most

influential

voices on Capitol Hill. Now based in Washington, D.C., the group

frequently

weighs in on issues related to the environment, energy, and

biotechnology.

 

Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program for the

group,

specializes in studying how biotech is used in agriculture and how it

might

affect food safety. In a recent interview with BusinessWeek's Arlene

Weintraub, Mellon outlined her views on the mission of Ventria

Biosciences

and other biotech companies that are genetically altering food crops to

produce human drugs. Edited excerpts from their conversation follow:

 

Q: Is the Union of Concerned Scientists opposed to genetically

engineering

plants to produce human drugs?

A: We're not opposed across the board. It's a technology that should be

examined. And we're enthusiastic about using genetic engineering for

drug

production. We're not so enthusiastic about outdoor applications of

genetic

engineering to crops.

 

Q: What exactly is your concern?

A: When you're genetically engineering bioactive molecules -- drugs --

into

crops and they're growing outdoors, you must be able to assure those

[engineered traits] don't move to food crops. Otherwise you're imposing

health and environmental risks.

 

Q: How might this affect trade with foreign countries?

A: Genetically engineered crops have uneven acceptance around the

world.

Some people don't want any genetic engineering in their food. If they

found

drugs in commodity crops, there would be a huge international brouhaha.

People around the world have choices -- they don't have to buy from the

U.S.

 

Q: Right now, the U.S. Agriculture Dept. oversees the growing of plants

for

pharmaceutical production. What are some of the questions that you

think

need to be answered when it comes to regulatory oversight?

A: We need to look at the ways both the USDA and the Food & Drug

Administration are involved. The FDA has authority to oversee drug

production. The question is: When does drug production begin here? Is

it

when the genetically engineered crop is delivered to the biotech

manufacturing facility? Or should the FDA's authority extend into the

field?

 

The FDA needs to get new authority from Congress to allow them to

regulate

genetically engineered organisms. There needs to be a pre-commercial

review

of the risks inherent in this type of production.

 

Q: Some companies are developing animals -- such as goats and cows --

that

might be able to produce human drugs in their milk. Why hasn't that

stirred

up the same amount of controversy as drug-producing plants have?

A: The chances of a [captive] goat passing along a drug-producing gene

to a

wild goat aren't very high. But even there, there are concerns.

 

We have to make sure the drugs don't carry viruses or other infectious

agents. We have to make sure we're not impeding the health and

well-being of

the animals. And there could be problems with human error -- someone

selling

one of these animals into the food supply, for example.

 

Q: It sounds like you're calling for big changes at the federal level.

A: The process we have now just isn't going to do it. People are

nervous

about genetic engineering. This is not a trivial issue.

 

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

 

Gene Splitting

 

Local farmers divided on ban of genetically modified organisms

 

By Joy Lanzendorfer

North Bay Bohemian - July 27-August 2, 2005 issue

 

'It's the single biggest threat to Sonoma County today, " begins a radio

commercial about the bill banning genetically modified organisms

(GMOs). It

goes on to say the ban will have a " crippling effect on agriculture,

the

backbone of our economy, " thereby " accelerating urban sprawl. " The ad

is

sponsored by the Sonoma County Family Farmers Alliance (FFA), a group

created by the Sonoma County Farm Bureau to defeat the measure.

 

In November, voters will decide whether to ban the planting of

genetically

engineered crops for the next 10 years. At this point, the campaigning

seems

to have settled on bringing the agricultural community over to one side

or

the other. But since the long-term effects of this largely untested

technology are unknown, farmers seem more divided on the issue than

ever

before.

 

Kathy Tresch of Tresch Family Dairy, for example, supports the ban

because,

as an organic dairy farmer, she is concerned GMOs might contaminate her

pastures. " Some GMOs actually say don't mow this lawn because it won't

grow

back, " she says. " If something like that cross-contaminated with our

pastures, it would void our pastureland. Is that going to happen?

Probably

not, but the chance of it happening would have a huge impact on us. "

 

On the other hand, Ed Grossi of Sweet Lane Nursery in Santa Rosa feels

the

ban could deny access to technological advances that might aid his

business.

" It would put us at a competitive disadvantage, " he says. " It could

keep us

from buying plant material that has been altered when other counties

can,

making an imbalance in the marketplace. "

 

Earlier this year, GE-Free Sonoma County collected a record 45,000

signatures to get the bill on the ballot. They claim that the FFA's

campaign

isn't as grassroots as the organization's name implies.

 

" We are concerned about the misleading statements by the so-called

Family

Farmers Alliance, which is really the Sonoma County Farm Bureau and

biotech

companies, " says campaign director Dave Henson.

 

When a GMO ban was placed on the March 2004 ballot in Mendocino County,

biotech lobbying groups such as CropLife America (a front group for

Monsanto

and other biotech corporations) spent more than $600,000 to defeat the

measure. The ban passed in part because Mendocino County residents

resented

outsiders telling them how to vote.

 

" With the Mendocino campaign, the biotech companies irritated voters, "

says

Henson. " So in other campaigns, they have been getting better at

concealing

contributions. It's hard to trace where the money comes from. "

 

But Lex McCorvey, executive director of both the Farm Bureau and FFA,

denies

that they are receiving funds from the biotech industry. " We get no

money

from Monsanto or any companies like that, " he says. " With this issue,

we

recognize the need to run a grassroots campaign. "

 

Along with a $50,000 donation from the Farm Bureau, the FFA has

received

endorsements from the Sonoma County Grape Growers Association,

Sonoma-Marin

Cattlemen's Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, and Western

United Dairymen, among others.

 

Although organic food is required by law to remain free of GMOs, the

FFA

says organic farmers should simply avoid planting GMO products to

protect

their label. Henson, however, calls this an " outrageous claim " because

it

ignores the threat of contamination.

 

" If you are contaminated by someone else's farm, you don't lose your

organic

certification, because that's blaming the victim, " he says. " But it

puts

pressure on organic growers to sell contaminated crops. They are also

not

allowed to save their seed for next year after contamination, which

could

put them out of business. "

 

McCorvey acknowledges that organic farmers can't use contaminated seed,

but

that doesn't matter in today's marketplace. " Virtually no one saves

seeds to

replant, " he says. " Farmers just don't do that--most buy the newest and

latest seeds. "

 

He adds that the ordinance could cost up to $250,000 per year to

enforce.

GE-Free claims that the only ones who will have to pay anything are

farmers

who violate the ban, since they will have to remove the illegal crops

and

pay a $1,000 fine.

 

Between eight and 12 ranchers grow genetically engineered corn in

Sonoma

County. Should the ban pass, they will have to plant non-GE corn next

year

instead.

 

The GMO initiative probably won't affect Sonoma County's biggest crop,

grapes. While a grapevine resistant to Pierce's disease is being

developed,

it may be 10 years or more before it will be available for sale.

 

Steve Dutton of Dutton Ranch Corp., which grows 1,300 acres of grapes

and

apples, is against the initiative. " I think it's poorly written, " he

says.

" It takes away our choices. If wine grapes were ever genetically

modified,

we couldn't plant them, and that business would go to Napa Valley

instead. "

 

On the other hand, George Davis of Porter Creek Vineyards feels that GE

grapevines could hurt trade, since many countries will not buy GE food.

 

" Big corporations like Monsanto are trying to shove these technologies

down

our throats, but that doesn't work too well with luxury items like

wine, " he

says. " Wine is often a matter of perception. Using GE grapevines could

cause

a negative perception in the way the world looks at California wine. "

 

The GE-Free initiative expires in 10 years and can be overridden by a

unanimous vote by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. For example,

if

Pierce's disease struck local vineyards and a GMO strain resistant to

the

disease was available, the supervisors could undo the ban.

 

The ban also permits medical research as long as it is conducted in a

contained environment. The problem for GMO proponents is that the

definition

of a " contained environment " is a level 3 laboratory. Most communities

only

require a level 1 laboratory.

 

" No biotech company would want to build a level 3 lab here when it is

not

required anywhere else in the world, " says McCorvey. " There's no way

they

would want to come here. "

 

Regardless, GE-Free Sonoma County insists that there needs to be more

emphasis on the costs of not passing the ban.

 

" The fact is, if we don't put a memorandum on GE crops, we will lose

our

organic label, GE salmon will overrun our wild salmon, and we will lose

our

ability to export our crops to many markets--our wonderful cheeses and

wines, " says Henson. " The time to decide about these issues is now. "

 

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

 

Transgenic crop may have bred with wild weed

Michael Hopkin

 

Nature

25 July 2005

 

Oilseed rape hybrid unlikely to become 'superweed', say researchers.

 

British researchers have found evidence that transgenic oilseed rape in

test

plots is interbreeding with related wild species, raising fears that

herbicide-tolerance could spread among weeds.

 

The government-funded research, carried out at the Centre for Ecology

and

Hydrology (CEH) in Dorset, UK, suggests that oilseed rape, Brassica

napus,

may have hybridized with charlock, Sinapis arvensis, a related weed

species.

 

Surprisingly, one of the suspected crosses appears to be a healthy,

fertile

plant. But, researchers add, concerns that 'superweeds' will take over

fields are unfounded.

 

Herbicide-tolerant weeds would mostly be a problem for farmers trying

to rid

their fields of unwanted plants, comments Les Firbank, a crop

researcher at

the CEH research station in Lancaster, who led Britain's previous

farm-scale

evaluations of the effects of transgenic crops on biodiversity. " It's a

management problem for farmers, not an environmental problem, " he says.

 

Mix and match

 

In the three-year study, researchers analysed weed species growing in

28

fields sown half with transgenic oilseed rape and half with

non-transgenic

crop. They identified two plants that seem to possess characteristics

of

both oilseed rape and charlock.

 

One fertile plant resembled charlock, but was not killed by the Liberty

herbicide that the oilseed rape had been engineered to be resistant

against.

When the researchers extracted and analysed its DNA, they identified

the

genetic sequence that confers this tolerance.

 

Another plant, found in the middle of a non-transgenic plot, seemed to

have

physical characteristics halfway between those of oilseed rape and

charlock,

showing that the two species can hybridize. This plant was infertile.

 

Some environmental groups are claiming this is evidence that transgenes

can

escape into the plant community at large. Emily Diamand, a spokesperson

for

campaign group Friends of the Earth, comments that " we're seeing the

real

possibility of superweeds being created " .

 

Natural selection

 

But the plants are not necessarily cause for worry, comments Brian

Johnson,

an ecological geneticist with English Nature, which advises the

government

on wildlife issues. " Quite frankly, this does not demonstrate the

creation

of anything resembling a superweed, " he told news.

 

Johnson points out that the herbicide-resistant wild plant identified

in the

study may not be a true hybrid. The technique used to identify the gene

sequence is very sensitive, and could simply have picked up

contamination

from oilseed-rape pollen, and the herbicide resistance seen in the

plant

itself could have arisen naturally, he argues.

 

Even if it were a true hybrid, the resistance to Liberty herbicide

would be

unlikely to confer a benefit outside that field, so the plant would not

be

expected to spread widely.

 

As for the hybrid plant found in the middle of the plot, Johnson says

" it's

one thing to be a robust plant, but that doesn't mean anything if

you're

firing blanks. "

 

One at a time

 

The finds are not entirely unexpected: oilseed rape has previously been

found to hybridize with wild turnip. However, in a comment attached to

the

report, the study's confidential reviewer says, " this unusual

occurrence

merits further study. "

 

Johnson remains confident that, with careful management, 'superweeds'

resistant to several herbicides will not arise. One tactic is not to

license

different crops with engineered resistance to different weedkillers.

They

should be made resistant to one weedkiller at a time, he suggests.

 

The discovery may be of interest in the United States, where

herbicide-tolerant crops are widely grown. " Farmers will have to pay

attention to how they manage their crops with herbicide, " Firbank says.

 

References

Daniels R., Boffey C., Mogg R., Bond J. & Clarke R. Report to DEFRA,

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/pdf/epg_1-5-151.pdf

(2005).

 

 

 

---------