Guest guest Posted July 31, 2005 Report Share Posted July 31, 2005 " 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). --------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.