EU adopts new GMO directive.
Brussels, 15 Feb 2001. Deliberate
release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The Council formally adopted
today, with the French and the Italian delegations abstaining, the Directive
repealing Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment
of GMOs. With the European Parlia-ment voting in favour of the joint text on 14
February 2001, the Directive is now definitively adopted. The provisions of the
Directive will have to be imple-mented by Member States 18 months after its
publication in the Official Journal. The Directive deals with experimental
releases of GMOs (for research and development purposes) as well as with the
placing on the market of GMOs.
In accordance with the precautionary principle, the new
Directive requires an environmental risk assessment to be carried out before
the authorisation procedure is initiated. It also provides for the phasing out
of GMOs containing genes expressing resistance to antibiotics used for medical
or veterinary treat-ment. Phasing out shall take place by the end of 2004 in
the case of GMOs placed on the market and by the end of 2008 in the case of
GMOs released for experi-mental purposes.
GMOs may only be deliberately released or placed on the market in conformity
with the procedures laid out in Part B of the Directive (release for purposes
other than for placing on the market) or Part C (placing on the market). Each
Part comprises a standard procedure at the end of which the lead competent
authority (i.e. the Member State having received the notification) gives its
consent for the deliberate release or the placing on the market. Whilst only
one national competent authority is responsible for granting a consent for the
standard procedure under Part B, all the competent authorities are involved for
the differentiated (simplified) procedure under Part B and the standard
procedure under Part C. Placing on the market involves all the Member States.
Consent is given only where possible objections have been answered, or a
decision has been taken by committee procedure and the lead competent authority
is not opposed to the proposal. Consent is given following extensive
consultation (public, scientific committees) and for a maximum period of 10
years for the initial consent. After 10 years a renewed application has to be
submitted, which, is subject to the same time-limitation, i.e. 10 years. The
consent specifies mandatory monitoring and labelling requirements.
Labelling, at all stages of the placing on the market, is mandatory and it must
be stated clearly that "this product contains genetically modified
organisms". Thresholds may be established for each product below which
adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of GMOs are not to be labelled.
Labelling requirements are complemented by provisions on the traceability of
GMOs, whereby competent authorities are to keep track of GMOs through the
various stages of their market life.
The Directive provides for a mandatory consultation of the
public under Part B and Part C both for standard and differentiated procedures.
Information on all Part B releases, including their location, shall be made
available to the public through public registers. Registers shall also be established
to record the location of GMOs grown following Part C authorisation.
Under Part B, the standard procedure is comp-lemented by a
differentiated one in terms of the information
requirements or time-periods whereby a committee defines differentiated
procedures which could subsequently apply to releases meeting certain safety
criteria where sufficient experience exists.
Additional procedures are foreseen for the renewal of consents, for the
handling of consents given under the old Directive, and for monitoring and
handling of new information and objections to GMOs which have already received
consents.
Part C requirements do not apply to products authorised by other Community
legislation which is "equivalent" to this Directive as regards risk
assessment, risk management, monitoring as appropriate, labelling, information
to the public and safeguard clause. A similar derogation from Part B
requirements is applicable to medicinal substances.
Genetically modified animal
feed: Replacing myth with fact. Siglinde Fischer (BioLinX). Feb 8, 2001
Some 200 participants attended the conference on "Genetically Modified
Animal Feed: Replacing Myth with Fact" at the Institute for Animal
Nutrition of the ETH Zürich on 8 Feb. 2001. The conference was organised by the
Institute in collaboration with Internutrition, the Swiss Task Force on
Research and Nutrition. Nine experts gave presentations on different facets of
the theme. The specific topics were:
·
public opinion regarding genetic engineering in
Switzerland,
·
the current situation in the Swiss feed industry,
methods of detecting the new genes,
·
the current state of genetic technology relating to
crop plants,
·
ideas on the ecology of transgenic plants,
·
what happens to DNA in the intestinal tract,
·
the recurring issue of "food allergies" and
·
the legal and political situation in Switzerland.
Listeners learned that the Swiss population can be divided
into "pessimists, pragmatists and optimists" and that these three
groups form their opinions on genetic engineering in very different ways. A
multi-year study covering the period 1996 - 1999 showed that the % of those who
neither accept genetic engineering wholeheartedly nor reject it categorically
has risen from 13% to 25%. During the same period, the proportion of those surveyed
who generally accept genetic engineering increased slightly from 25% to 29%,
while the % of people who expressed disapproval diminished over the three-year
period from 62% to 46%.
Speaker Claude Longchamp, GfS Research Institute Bern, sees
a potential future for GM goods in a niche market for specialised products.
Peter Tesdorpf, President of the Association of Swiss Grain Importers,
estimates that Switzerland will continue to procure most of its vegetable
protein feed (about 90%) on the world market, noting, for example, that 43% of
the soybean products available on that market this year are transgenic. In
addition, feeds comprising transgenic varieties of corn and rapeseed are also
to be found in European feed troughs. Presently, the only source of gene-tech-free
soy seems to be Brazil. However, it is possible to trace the origins of such
goods in Switzerland, since samples are taken at a number of different points
in the distribution chain, e.g. at ports of entry. It remains to be seen
whether this will actually guarantee gene-tech-free protein feed.
Ulrich Hübscher, Director, Inst. for Veterinary Biochemistry, Univ. of Zurich,
presented the DNA-based PCR method for detecting the presence of genetically
altered organisms. Beat Keller, Director, Inst. for Plant Biology, Univ. of
Zurich, provided an overview of the current state and the future of genetic
engineering in the field of plant breeding. The primary focus in the commercial
sector today is on the enhancement of quality in crop plants: more aromatic and
less perishable fruits are currently under development, as are plants
potentially capable of supplying basic substances for a variety of industries.
Klaus Ammann, Director, Botanical Garden, Univ. of Berne, emphasised that the
question of ecology must not only be addressed for transgenic plants but for
every other species and variety of crops as well. All of our crop plants are
products of breeding and thus genetically modified; many of them are not native
to our region, and many are grown in eco-logically dubious monocultures. Ammann
appealed directly to advocates and opponents of transgenic crop plants to work
together in developing sustainable and ecologically sounder agricultural
production methods.
The question of what happens to DNA in animals' bodies was the focus of the
presentation by Caspar Wenk, Director, Inst. for Farm Animal Research, ETH
Zürich. Scientists now know that genetic material is digested almost entirely
in the stomach and the small intestine. It is possible, however, that fragments
of DNA comprising tens to hundreds of genes are absorbed at least temporarily
by cells (primarily immune cells), where they are broken down in a prolonged
process. As this is a completely natural process, which applies to all DNA
ingested with food, there is no extraordinary risk associated with the
digestion of transgenic crop plants. In addition to the roughly 5 to 10 g of
DNA consumed by a dairy cow in the course of one day, the animal also digests
as much as 200 g of bacterial DNA from the rumen and intestines along with
several grams of its own DNA contained in abraded cells.
Karen Aulrich, Inst. for Animal Nutrition, Federal Inst. for Agricultural
Research, Braunschweig presented numerous feeding studies involving cattle,
hogs and poultry. According to the findings of this research, transgenic crop
plant varieties and their conventional parent varieties show fully comparable
nutritional-physiological properties - a clear indic-ation that the
introduction of new genes has produced no undesirable changes in the metabolism
of these transgenic varieties. Transgenic varieties of corn earned
significantly higher marks with respect to contamination with mycotoxins, with
levels as much as 90% lower than those of non-transgenic varieties. Absence of
tunnels bored by feeding caterpillars left little opportunity for fungal
growth.
The issue of food allergies was addressed by Beda Stadler, Inst. for Immunology
and Allerology, Inselspital, Bern. He showed that food allergies are actually
quite rare, and that the plant proteins which trigger them, are comprised
within a small group of thoroughly researched proteins. In his opinion, the GM
foods currently available on the market do not cause new allergic responses, as
humans have been in contact with all of the proteins introduced to these plants
for a long time. The proteins come from bacteria we routinely consume every
time we eat lettuce or radishes. None of these proteins exhibits such typical
allergenic features as high concentration in raw matter (e.g. Milk, eggs, soy
beans) and strong resistance to digestive action in the intestinal tract.
Jacques Morel, Vice-Director, Federal Agency for Agriculture, reported on the
current legal and political situation with regard to "GM feeds" in
Switzerland. The law requires that raw materials and single-component feeds
containing more than 3% of transgenic material and mixed feeds containing more
than 2% of such material must be labelled accord-ingly. Seed produced abroad,
e.g. for corn and soy-beans, may contain no more than 0.5% of transgenic
material. Negotiations on ways to close the remain-ing regulatory gaps are to
begin shortly. The concluding panel discussion was devoted to a several
remaining unresolved questions, such as why a Swiss farmer should plant
transgenic varieties. It became clear that only a few aspects of currently
available varieties are of interest under the conditions pre-vailing in
Switzerland, one of these being reduced mycotoxin contamination. Participants
generally agreed that future varieties, including plants capable of producing
precursors for the pharmaceutical, cosmetics and paint industries, could be of
interest. Klaus Amman repeated his warning against the "continued
ideological trench warfare" between the advocates and opponents of genetic
engineering.
At the end of this well-organised conference, participants were give an
opportunity to sample genetic variety in the form of colourful corn cobs and to
pursue further discussion during an evening snack.
Study Shows No
Increase in Pest Resistance to GM Cotton Nov 20, 2000 Susan McGinley, mcginley@ag.arizona.edu
Results of a new study published in the Nov. 21 issue of the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sci-ences may diminish fears about one of the potential
pitfalls of GM crops. Bt cotton has a gene transferred from the bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that lets plants
produce a natural insecticide, thus reduc-ing reliance on sprays of chemical
insecticides. A major concern is that pests could quickly evolve resistance to
the Bt toxin in GM cotton. This has not happened yet, according to the new
study.
Bt cotton was first grown commercially in the US in 1996 and has accounted for
more than half of the cotton acreage in Arizona since 1997. For several years,
a team of scientists in Arizona has tracked resistance to Bt cotton in pink
bollworm caterpillars, which attack bolls of cotton in the southwestern U. S.
The estimated frequency of a gene conferring resistance to the toxin in Bt cotton
was about 1 in 10 for pink bollworm caterpillars from 10 Arizona cotton fields
in 1997, which was was higher than expected. This is roughly 100 times higher
than estimates for other pests of Bt crops. Based on this relatively high
estimate and projections from com-puter models, rapid increases in resistance
were expected in subsequent years. Surprisingly, the estimated frequency of
resistance did not increase from 1997 to 1999 and Bt cotton remained effective
against pink bollworm.
"Bt cotton is working extremely well in Arizona," said Bruce
Tabashnik, UA entomology professor and lead author of the study.
"Resistance has not evolved as quickly as expected," said Tabashnik.
To help delay resistance, the EPA requires that farmers who grow Bt cotton must
also plant refuges of cotton without Bt toxin to allow survival of pests that
are not resistant.
To understand why resistance has not evolved as predicted, the scientists are
developing new models that incorporate the latest data and are expanding field monitoring
and research on resistance genetics and ecology. Recent results suggest that on
ordinary cotton resistant pests suffer a competitive disadvant-age relative to
non-resistant pests. Nonetheless, the scientists continue to prepare for
resistance problems in the future. "Bt cotton has helped to reduce
insect-icide use in Arizona cotton to the lowest levels in the past 20
years," said coauthor Larry Antilla of the grower-supported Arizona Cotton
Research and Protection Council. "This benefits the public, farm workers,
and the environment." (Tabashnik et al. Agricultural Sciences. Frequency of resistance to
Bacillus thuringiensis in field populations of pink bollworm. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, Vol. 97, Issue 24, 12980-12984, Nov 21, 2000)
Resistance management for Bt
crops in developing countries. Mike Cohen m.cohen@cgiar.org
Transgenic crop varieties with toxin genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) can be a valuable com-ponent of
integrated pest management, but these varieties must be carefully designed and
deployed so as to delay the increase of toxin resistance in pest populations.
The "high dose/refuge" resistant management strategy for Bt crops is
being enforced in the USA, Canada, and Australia (Ed: and South Africa). Under this strategy, farmers who grow a Bt
crop must also maintain a refuge consisting of non-Bt varieties of the same
crop. The question is often raised as to how to implement the high dose/refuge
strategy in developing countries, where there are many millions of small
farmers and where govern-ments have a limited capacity to influence farmer
practices. In a new review, "Bt rice: practical steps to sustainable
use", Fred Gould, J.S. Bentur and I make four recommendations about the
design and deploy-ment of Bt rice varieties in developing countries. The
review, published in International Rice Research Notes, is available online at http://www.cgiar.org /irri/irrn25-2.htm. We recommend four actions that seed
suppliers and governments can take to imple-ment a functional high dose/refuge
strategy in developing countries. The recommended actions do not require the
active cooperation of farmers. We hope
that our review will stimulate discussion on the problem of implementing
resistance management for Bt crops in developing countries, and that this
dis-cussion will lead to a widely accepted set of recommendations for seed
suppliers and gov-ernments.
Four practical recommendations for promoting the sustainable use of Bt rice can
be made, on the basis of our specific knowledge of the biology of rice stem
borers and the principles of resistance management:
1. Do not release Bt varieties that do not have a high dose of toxin. Toxin
titres of 2 ug/g of leaf fresh weight or 0.2% of soluble leaf protein are
attainable in rice, and have been shown to act as high doses against most pests
in other crops.
2. Release only Bt cultivars that have two Bt toxin genes. The genes should not
be closely related to each other, and both should be expressed at a high dose.
Two-toxin cultivars require smaller refuges to achieve successful resistance
management.
3. Do not release Bt-transformed versions of all popular rice varieties. Some
popular non-Bt varieties should remain available, to improve the chances that
some non-Bt rice fields (refuges) will exist in all villages. Sufficient seed
supplies of the non-Bt varieties should be maintained.
4. Implement a resistance monitoring program. Several methodologies can be used
to monitor pest populations for the evolution of resistance to Bt cultivars.
The use of "sentinel plots," in which insect damage is monitored in
unsprayed fields of Bt cultivars, is perhaps the most practical for
rice-growing areas. Resistance monitoring programs can serve as an early
warning system for governments and farmers, and provide valuable information
for improved deployment of future pest-resistant cultivars.
Genetically Modified Foods Are Safe, Says South
African Professor Prof
Jennifer Thomson, Univ of Cape Town, Feb. 2001. http://www.science inafrica.co.za
Humans have been meddling with nature since time immemorial. A chihuahua would
hardly compete with the wolves from which dogs were bred. Maize would not be
recognised by the ancient middle Americans who began breeding from its
progenitor, teosinte, some 7 500 years ago. And wheat would probably not be
passed by food regulatory authorities if it were introduced today because of
the numbers of people who are allergic to it. Breeding programmes that have
given us nearly all the food we eat today are inherently hit or miss affairs.
It takes two different varieties of a plant to breed. One
might have a high yield and the other might be resistant to an insect pest.
Breeders cross-pollinate these two varieties, obtain seeds and plant them. The plants that grow will be a random mix of
the genes from the parent plants. The breeders will select those plants that have
high yields and insect resistance – the desired characteristics.
Unfortunately, due to the randomness of the process, those plants might be
sensitive to a virus that was not a problem in either parental strain but, when
their genes were mixed, it became a problem. Therefore some selected plants
will have to be discarded and others selected. This is an extremely inexact
process and very time consuming. However, it works. Genetic engineering can be
used to speed up this process. It will never displace breeding - indeed genetic
engineers are heavily dependent on plant breeders to ensure any introduced gene
exists and operates in concert with the other genes of the plant.
Genetic engineering of plants enables scientists to take any gene from any
living being and introduce it into a plant. The resulting transformed, or
transgenic, plant is referred to as a genetically modified (GM) plant.
The genes that are introduced are very carefully studied – their entire DNA
sequence is determined. Therefore this part of the process, unlike breeding, is
extremely precise. What is not precise
is where the gene is introduced into the plant. Although scientists are working
on improving this aspect, at present genes are largely inserted into plant DNA
in a random fashion. Therefore, once the genes have been introduced, a great
deal of work is required to ensure that the inserted genes and the plant's own
genes work harmoniously together.
Critics of GM plants often cite this randomness of insertion as being totally
unacceptable. However, they omit to add that in nature genes jump all over the
place within living organisms. Indeed some of the plants in your garden,
especially those with varie-gated leaves, may well be the result of jumping
genes.
Most traits introduced into plants to date involve herbicide tolerance and
resistance to insects. These are called "input traits". They are
traits that improve the productivity of a crop and decrease dependency on
chemical pesticides and herbicides. They mainly benefit seed companies and
farmers, and this has led to much of the antagonism against GM crops - people
see the big corporations making fat profits and they see no gain for
themselves, the consumers.
However, let us not lose sight of the fact that in Africa farmers are often
also the consumers. A 2nd generation of GM crops are in the pipeline. These
contain the so-called "ouput traits" which will have more obvious
advantages to consumers. These include "golden rice" which will
increase vitamin A availability and
help prevent millions of Asian child-ren from going blind. They include potatoes with a higher starch
content that absorb less oil during the frying process; tomatoes that taste
better and rot less, and oils with more healthy unsaturated fats.
So why do newspaper headlines scream "Are you eating
Frankenstein foods?', "Beware of genetic pollution!" and
"Genetically modified foods reap a harvest of fears". Why don't we read headlines such as
"Genetically modified rice saves millions of Asian children from
blindness?' or "Genetically modified sweet potatoes save East African
crops from virus plague"?
Certainly bad news sells better than good news.
Let us look at safety of foods derived from GM crops for
human and animal consumption. First of all it is important to realize that
there is no such thing as safe food - there is only the safe use of food. You
or I could probably die, or at least become very ill, if we ate nothing but
eggs. However, GM plants are treated as
if they were toxins - the only plants (or foods derived from them) to be
treated in this way. They are subjected to a battery of toxicological tests,
including ones that can detect potential long-term effects on humans or
animals. Only then are they declared safe.
By comparison, when a new food is introduced into the market, not
derived by genetic modification, no such tests are required. Take for example
one of my very favourite foods, the peppadew. How long has that been on the
market and who has checked that it might not have any long-term adverse effects
on humans? Please don't misunderstand me - I am quite sure peppadews are
perfectly safe for human consumption - but the fact is they haven't been tested
in the way GM plants are.
Let us now look at how safe GM crops are for the environment. As most GM crops
are either resistant or tolerant to insects and herbicides, I will concentrate
on these. Can animals die from eating an insect resistant plant? No, the toxic
protein produced by the plant is specific to certain groups of insects and not
to animals. Can non-targeted insects be
killed by insect resistant crops? Insect resistant crops produce one extra
protein that causes the death of insects that feed on that plant. However,
insects that eat the pollen produced by the insect resistant crops could be
killed. There was an outcry in the media when a study showed that pollen from
insect resistant maize could kill Monarch butterfly larvae. "GM pollen that can mean a cloud of
death for butterflies" was one such headline. What wasn't disclosed was that
this was a laboratory study in which Monarch butterfly larvae were force-fed
leaves covered with the pollen. The press omitted to comment on the fact that
subsequently 20 or so field trials had shown that not only was there no effect
on Monarch butterfly larvae but that the larvae preferentially choose not to
eat leaves that contain pollen - whether genetically modified or not. In fact, since the widespread acceptance of
insect resistant crops in the USA, populations of Monarch butterflies have
increased, possibly due to the decrease in the use of insecticides.
What about herbicide resistance? Cynics say that this is a ploy by chemical
companies to force farmers to buy their herbicide. Certainly chemical companies
wish to make profits - that's what their shareholders require - but in the case
of the herbicide Roundup it is less harmful than many other weed killers as it
is readily biodegradable. The introduction of herbicide resistant crops has
caused a decrease in the number of times crops are sprayed, and as many
sprayings are from airplanes which spread the chemicals far and wide, that is
clearly beneficial to the environ-ment, and to the health of people on
neighbouring lands.
However, I am not saying that all GM crops are safe in all environments. Each
must be looked at carefully on a case by case basis. For instance, it would be
foolhardy to allow the release of a herbicide resistant plant if it could
cross-pollinate a potential weed.
Although such herbicide resistant weeds could potentially be eliminated by
other weed killers, it is still not a good idea. In South Africa we have a Genetically Modified Organisms Act
which is administered by the Department of Agriculture. They have the
responsibility of considering each applic-ation for a field trial or commercial
release on a case-by-case basis.
I am also not saying that the GM crops are the only answer to food shortages
in. It has been calculated that if we continue with current agricultural
practices Africa south of the Sahara will have a grain shortage of 88.7 million
tons by the year 2025. Clearly some-thing has to be done. Certainly there is
enough food produced in the world to feed everyone - but the problem is how to
get it to the people in need? Certainly we should stop wars, eliminate
corruption so that food gets to the right people, build roads and rails to
transport the food, but how long will that take? In the meantime, GM crops, that increase yields, are just one of
the ways in which we can tackle the problem. Just because Europe has enough food
and doesn’t want GM foods, should we allow them to dictate to us as to what is
best for Africa?
ICAC urges GM cotton
field trials in Zimbabwe. 13 FEB 2001 © 2001 PJB Publications
The International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) believes that field trials
of genetically modified (GM) cotton should be carried out in Zim-babwe in order
to ascertain their suitability to the region. The ICAC also suggests the
country's govern-ment should undertake a review of the current bio-technology
regulations. It should be established
whether bollworms and related insects are damaging enough to warrant the
introduction of GM cotton in Zimbabwe and eastern Africa, says ICAC executive
director Terry Townsend. The ICAC estimates that around 12% of the global
cotton area in 2000 was devoted to GM varieties and that in five years, GM
cotton will account for half of the world's production. The ICAC supports the
use of GM cotton, highlight-ing the "extraordinary benefits in terms of
reduced pesticide applications and improved quality".
Bad pesticides threaten health
in poor nations-FAO. Checkbiotek.org 02 Feb 2001, News
Release Reuters - Around 30 % of
pesticides marketed in developing countries, with an estimated market value of
$900 million annually, do not meet inter-nationally accepted quality standards,
the UN’s FAO said on Thursday. "They are posing a serious threat to human
health and the environment. These poor-quality pesticides frequently contain
hazardous sub-stances and impurities that have already been banned or severely
restricted elsewhere,'' said Gero Vaagt of Rome-based FAO's pesticide
management group. Such pesticides often contribute to the accumulation of
obsolete pesticide stocks in developing countries, he added. The global market value for pesticides is
estimated at $32 billion in 2000, with the share of developing countries around
$3 billion. In develop-ing countries, pesticides are mainly used for
agri-culture, but also for public health, such as insect-icides for controlling
insect spread of malaria. Possible causes of low quality of pesticides can
include poor production and formulation and the inadequate selection of
chemicals.
"In many pesticide products, the active ingredient concentrations are
outside internationally accepted tolerance limits,'' said David Heymann,
executive director of WHO's communicable disease activities. "In addition,
poor quality pesticides may be contam-inated with toxic substances or
impurities,'' he added. When the quality of labelling and packaging is also
taken into account, the proportion of poor-quality pesticide products in
developing countries is even higher. "The labelling, often written in
improper language, fails to provide data on the active ingred-ient,
application, date of manufacture and safe hand-ling of the chemical,'' the UN
agencies said. For the consumer, the label is often the only source of pro-duct
information that can guarantee safe and effect-ive use of the chemical. Falsely
declared products continue to find their way to markets for years without
quality control. FAO and WHO said that the problem of poor-quality pesticides
was particularly widespread in sub-Saharan Africa, where quality control was
generally weak.
Golden Rice - at what cost?
Hans R. Herren,
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, Kenya. From Klaus Amman, Feb 2001
The question here is: at what/whose cost will the Golden Rice (and for that
matter any biotech product /solution) be further developed? Given the shortage
of funding for research, capacity building and development (implementation), I
would like to suggest that should any further development in the biotech (read
GE for Golden rice, Bt maize, cotton etc.) continue, it must be from private
sector funds only. It must be additional to presently available funding for
development issues, and the private sector must match dollar for dollar costs
for in-dependent evaluation of new technologies/products and for all
environmental and health impact studies. None of this necessary research should
be funded from public funds, as at the end of the day it is the private sector
who will benefit from selling the technology, should it prove to be of social,
econo-mical and environmental value to humanity. We already know today that
most of the problems that are to be addressed via Golden Rice and other GMOs
can be resolved in matter of days, with the right political will. The problem
is not scientific, it is social and economic. It is of a nature that requires a
bit of courage from the political establishment, which unfortunately is totally
lacking. The public at large in the industrialized countries is also to blame:
to prefer short-term tax breaks and extra luxuries to few sacrifices for an
assurance of a sound world for all of its children. If our fathers had had as
little foresight as our own generation of (so called) leaders today, most of us
would not even be here today to lament over this state of affairs. The greed
that has brought us the pesticides that were marketed without proper testing,
BSE and now the new miracle crops, will bring more of the same disasters under
different incarnation. A good example for misguided invest-ment is in vaccine
research, malaria and others: millions die every year, with no hope for any
improvement, because the simple activity of reducing the source of the
infection, i.e., the mosquito, has been forgotten. The development of an
effective vaccine, just as the development of new miracle crop varieties, does
not automatically solve the problem, the social and economical constraints are
often far more difficult to overcome, and so need to be given far more
attention. No one seems to be learning from the past experiences, be it the
green revolution or the yellow fever vaccine, or untold others, all great
achievements at first glance, but with meager results, once all has been
considered. Sad indeed, and what have we learned? hherren@icipe.org (Ed: Can anyone clarify the failure of the yellow fever vaccine?)
Kenyan President Speaks on
Agricultural Production. FSN
Newswire. January 02, 2001
Nairobi – On Sunday, Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi
pleaded with local government officials to help assist farmers in the country
to boost current food expectations. Currently, food crop production is on the
decline in Nairobi. Moi’s remarks came
at the State House in Nakuru in central Kenya. He stated that Kenya was not an
industrialized country and that they must rely heavily on their agricultural
production for subsistence, and as the country’s economic support. Moi also
advised that more attention be placed on cotton cultivation, to further improve
the local textile industries. He added that the country's livestock production
was required to be further improved to get extra foreign exchange and pledged
the government's commitment to reviving the Kenyan Meat Commission. Moi gave
Botswana as an example which slaughters 8,500 cattle per day for export in the
European markets. At the same time, the president also called for the
conservation of forests, particularly in water basin areas.
Starlink Event Results in
Little Consumer Action Copyright © 2001 CountryRoads Network, AgJournal, Feb 10, 2001
Despite the media blitz on StarLink corn, most U.S. consumers have not altered
their food-buying behavior at all, continuing to place top priority on taste,
value, nutrition and convenience. That was the conclusion of a survey of a
representative sample of U.S. adults conducted days after the news broke of
Starlink corn, approved for animal feed but not human use, in taco shells, said
Dr. Thomas Hoban, the North Carolina State University sociologist who conducted
the survey on behalf of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
Sixty-seven % of consumers answering the survey said they would continue to
consume biotech products that had been engineered to resist insects, and only 3
% said biotechnology was their most serious concern about food safety.
"StarLink did not change U.S. consumer attitudes toward genetically
modified (GM) corn," Hoban told a
February 1, 2001, conference on genetically modified organisms at the Univ. of
Minnesota. "Although 53 % had heard about it [the StarLink incident], 95 %
took no action." Of the 5 % who did, in most cases the action was seeking
more information about GM food.
Survey interviewers were trained to try and draw out comments about
biotechnology without influencing the answers. Even so, the issue was seldom
mentioned, Hoban said. Interviewers were even instructed to treat any reference
to avoiding tacos or taco shells as evidence of the controversy's impact
without much measurable result.
"In response to the query, 'Biotechnology will benefit people like me
within the next five years,' the nations with the highest numbers of positive
responses were China, Thailand and the Philippines," Dr. Hoban said. He
compared the controversy over GM crops to similar controversies that greeted
other technological innovations. "When microwave ovens were first
introduced, some people wouldn't use them because they were afraid of
radiation," he said. "And there were all these signs warning people with
pacemakers of the presence of a microwave oven." At one time, Dr. Hoban
added, Massachussetts banned pasteuriz-ation of milk because pasteurization was
supposed to destroy important nutrients in the milk.
Meanwhile, a report from 13 of the nation's leading
agricultural and commodity organizations and the Council for Biotechnology
Information (CBI) indicates the recent
controversy that has swirled around StarLink corn has done little to dampen
farmers' enthusiasm for biotechnology. In an on-line survey by AgWeb.com,
conducted the week of November 17, 2000, farmers were asked how the recent
controversy surrounding biotechnology would affect their seed corn selections
for 2001. Results showed that 45 % would plant either the same or a greater
percentage of biotech corn for the coming year. In comparison, 29 % said they
would plant a reduced percentage or no biotech corn in 2001. "The
publicity surrounding StarLink hasn't shaken our confidence in thevalue of
biotechnology one bit," says Ron Heck, who grows corn and soybeans near
Perry, IA. "Our farm is located very close to the western Corn Belt, where
corn borers can be a real problem. Bt corn provides a safe, economical and
environmentally friendly option for controlling these pests." Seed company
sales figures confirm this trend.
"Our biotech products are an important part of our business," says David Thompson, director of marketing
communications with Stine Seed in Adel,
IA. "Our sales grew last year and we're anticipating they'll grow
again this year. Farmers have been very pleased with products of biotechnology
and that certainly has been reflected in our sales figures." Scott Beck,
vice president of Beck's Hybrids in Atlanta, IN, says sales of Roundup Ready
soybean seed are up 8 % over last year. Roundup Ready varieties, he adds,
account for 94.5 % of the company's soybean seed sales.
The adoption of biotech products in the cotton industry over the past few years
has been rapid and widespread. Annual USDA Cotton Varieties Planted Reports
show plantings of biotech varieties have increased from 13 % of total cotton
acreage in 1996 to 70 percent in 2000. "Looking ahead to the 2001 growing
season, we're again seeing increased
sales of biotech varieties," notes Steve M. Hawkins, president of
Delta and Pine Land Company.
America's Supermarket Guru
Warns: 'GMO Labeling - the FDA Isn't Listening' 16 Feb 2001. PR Newswire. Leading
the fight to convince the FDA that consumers want mandatory labeling of GM
foods, Phil Lempert, America's Supermarket Guru is going coast to coast with
his message. "There is no question that the American consumer has the
right to know if any of the foods we are consuming contain GM ingredients. To
insure that our government knows how strongly we feel about mandatory labeling
of these foods, we must band together to let the new administration and
Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman know how strongly we feel before
regulations are finalized on April 3, 2001.”
Through day-to-day contact with consumers Lempert has learned that, in
theory, Americans are pro-biotech. They know that in mapping the genome we have
the ability and the science to uncover and cure chronic diseases like cancers,
heart disease, diabetes and obesity, but they are also demanding full
disclosure of these foods, their benefits and any potential downsides.
On January 18, 2001, the FDA published its proposed ruling
concerning Bio Engineered Foods. Lempert calls this grace period "a call
to action for consumers who want their voices heard." "The American
consumer has the right to know if any of the foods we are consuming contain GM
ingredients. Over the past decade more consumers than ever have relied on the
ingredient panel and nutritional facts labeling to help guide them through the
maze of the supermarket. The American Supermarket Industry cannot afford to
loose consumer confidence," says Lempert.
He encourages consumers to log on to his SupermarketGuru.com website,
and have their opinions count with the FDA. Phil Lempert has been analyzing
consumer habits and food industry trends for the last 25 years. He is America's
Supermarket Guru: SupermarketGuru.com
Post-doctoral fellowships at Harvard University. Deadline
15 March 2001. The Science Technology and Innovation (STI) Program offers
post-doctoral fellowships in Science, Technology and Development under the
auspices of the Biotechnology and Globalization project supported by the
Rockefeller Foundation. The aim of the project is to provide research-based
information to policy-makers and the general public on the role of
biotechnology in the global economy with emphasis on its implications for
developing countries. Fellow-ships are offered for one year, with an option for
renewal. They seek applicants from developing countries in fields related to
the application of science and technology to development, with emphasis on
biotechnology and globalization. The STI Program offers 10-month stipends of
$31,000, for the period of September 2001 through May 2002. Each applicant
should submit: 1) a 3 to 5 page research proposal highlighting the relevance of
the candidate's research interests to the Biotechnology and Globalization
project <http://www.cid.harvard.
edu/cidbiotech/index.html>; 2) a Curriculum Vitae; 3) three letters of
recommendation submitted directly, by the referees, to the address below; 4) a
list of the names of the referees; and 5) a writing sample, preferably an
off-print of a published article, or a dissertation chapter. Mailing Address:
Program Coordinator, Science, Technology and Innovation Program, Center for
International Development at Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street,
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Meetings and Courses
2 - 6 April, Florence, Italy Workshop/Biosafety 2 "Advanced
Research in Risk Assessment and Management for the Environmental Release of
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Identification of Main Areas for Future
Investigation" E-mail: courses@icgeb.trieste.it
9 - 12 April. Trieste, Italy. Theoretical
Course "RNA Structure and Function" Organiser: Glauco
Tocchini-Valentini (Institute of Cell Biology/CNR, Italy) E-mail: courses@icgeb.trieste.it
23 April - 4 May. Trieste, Italy. The Third Borsellino College on Neurophysics "Evolution of
Intelligent Behaviour" E-mail: passarel@ictp.trieste.it
29 June - 6 July. Trieste, Italy. Practical
Course "Bioinformatics: Computer Methods in Molecular Biology"
E-mail: courses@icgeb.trieste.it
1 - 7 September, Florianapolis, Brazil. 19th International Papillomavirus
Conference E-mail: hpv2001@jz.com.br
11-13 September, Trieste, Italy. International
Conference on Globalization of Research
and Development: Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Countries. http://www.ictp.trieste.it
/TWAS/TWAS.html
8 - 10 September. Trieste, Italy. Final Meeting of the EULEISH Leishmania
major Genome Sequencing Project E-mail: bruschi@icgeb.trieste.it
9 - 15 September. Warsaw, Poland. Second International Conference "Inhibitors of Protein Kinases” (IPK-2001)
E-mail: ipk2001@icm.edu.pl
17-21 September. Trieste, Italy. Review
Lectures and Practical Course
"Universal Nucleotide Chips for Comparative Sequencing, SNP Genotyping and
Discovering Splice Variants" E-mail: courses@icgeb.trieste.it
1 - 12 October. Trieste, Italy. College on Biophysics "From Molecular Genetics to Structural
Biology"
E-mail: de_comelli@ictp.trieste.it
15 - 17 October. Trieste, Italy. Workshop "The Biology of the Post-Genomic Era" E-mail: lippolis@icgeb.trieste.it
29 October - 9
November. New Delhi, India Practical Course "High Level
Expression of Heterologous Proteins in Yeast". E-mail: chatterj@icgeb.res.in
4 - 13 November. Dhaka, Bangladesh. Practical Course "Novel Genetic
Markers for Crop Improvement" E-mail: baptc@bd.drik.net, hadi@bttb.net, botany@du.bangla.net
12 - 16 November. Caracas, Venezuela. Workshop/Biosafety 3 "Advanced Issues
on Biosafety: Risk Monitoring and Public Perception of Biotechnology" E-mail:
efra63@hotmail.com
19 November - 2
December. New Delhi, India. Practical Course "Plant Gene
Expression" E-mail: chatterj@icgeb.res.in
9 - 13 December. New Delhi, India. Symposium "Molecular Medicine" E-mail: chatterj@icgeb.res.in
15-17 October.
Egypt. Biotechnology and sustainable
development: voices of the South and the North. Dr. Ismail Serageldin,
Tel.: (+20-2) 572 4358/5725785/5735829 Fax: (+20-2) 572 8099 E-Mail: icarda-cairo@cgiar.org
May 31 - June 1,
UK. Seeds of Opportunity: the Role of
Biotechnology in Agriculture. The
Brunei Gallery, SOAS (central London).
This conference will bring together leading international figures in
agricultural biotechnology in order to demystify this technology and to discuss
its potential advantages and disadvantages. Two Nobel Laureates will speak at
the conference: Norman Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize Winner and "Father of
the Green Revolution" and Professor Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize Winner
in Chemistry. http://www.seedsofopportunity.com/
or email andrew.kendall@kendallspr.co.uk
We’re all transgenic! From Tony Jackson 13 Feb
2001, AgBioView
One of the more remarkable findings from the just published
human genome sequence is that several hundred human genes were apparently
derived from bacteria via horizontal gene transfer. It seems that each of us -
yea, even Lord Melchett - is a natural genetically modified organism. (http://www.nature.com/genomics/human/)
