Genetic Engineering Debate - San Francisco State University [PDF]

THE GENETIC ENGINEERING DEBATE (v0.32) compiled by Roberto Verzola email: [email protected] 0. MAJOR CHANGES 0.1. Arguments that are specific to particular GE traits like herbicide-tolerant crops, Bt crops, recombinant hormones, promoters, antibiotic-resistance markers, etc. have been marked appropriately (e.g., HT, BT, RBGH, CAMV, ARM, and so on). 0.2. Headers have been modified to reflect industry claims, which have been put under the following general headings: safety claims, scientific claims, economic claims, legal claims, moral claims, and quality claims. 1. ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT 1.1. This document aims to support the campaign against the risks of genetic engineering (GE). It will try to summarize all claims made by the proponents of GE, and the responses by the critics of GE. Supporting data and summaries of scientific studies will be included as much as possible. 1.2. I welcome suggestions, corrections, improvements and new information to this document. Most important are corrections to factual or argumentation errors/weaknesses. Style, syntax and grammar corrections are also welcome. My real role is to coordinate what will hopefully be a worldwide group effort. 1.3. Contributions we are most interested in are of two types: a) facts, together with the source or URL, preferably both; source can be an email posting or news item, but scientific publications are preferred; peer-reviewed articles are even better; b) arguments, whether for or against GE; we also want the strongest arguments of the other side, so we can research how they may be answered properly. 1.4. IMPORTANT: When sending me a suggested change or addition, please do not (repeat: DO NOT) send me back the full edited document. Send only the paragraph(s) you want to add/change, the version number of the document you have (e.g., v0.2), and the section heading of the paragraph (e.g., 1.4). 1.5. Updated versions of this document will be released regularly at the GENTECH ([email protected]) and BAN ([email protected]) mailing lists. You are welcome to post this document on any other mailing list or website, but please post it in its entirety. 1.6. Some conventions: + is an argument in favor; - is against; ++ or -- means this item is a new entry or is an edited version of its earlier counterpart; * is for useful data which is neither for or against GE. 2. SAFETY CLAIMS: GE-FOODS ARE SAFE + We have been doing biotech for thousands of years. - We have been doing traditional biotechnology (fermentation, conventional breeding, etc.) for a long time; but modern biotechnology or genetic engineering is a very recent development, and the first commercial products were released only in the early 1990s. If we look at our experience at DDT and other toxic chemicals (produced by the more or less same firms now engaged in GE), it took some 20-30 years to determine they were bioaccumulating through the food chain and causing cancers and around 50 years to determine that they were mimicking some human hormones and disrupting our endocrine systems. + GE is just an extension of conventional breeding. - GE and conventional breeding are radically different. Conventional breeding works only within the same or closely related species (e.g., bacteria to bacteria, corn with corn, pigs with pigs, etc.) In contrast, GE involves mixing genes from very distantly related species that in nature will never breed with each other (e.g., bacteria to corn, or pig to human beings). - Actually GE is a new, experimental, very dangerous, AND radical technology. The process causes unnatural mutation and combination of the DNA in our food in a manner which excludes nature out of the process. This means we and our children are now eating lab-created, mutated and experimental "fake" food. They are experimenting, not only with us and with our children, but with the entire food chain. (From: [email protected]) - Whoever argues that GE is no different from conventional breeding is probably laying the groundwork for the concept of "substantial equivalence", that the products of genetic engineering are as safe as the products of conventional breeding. This dubious concept is often used as excuse to avoid thorough and rigorous testing. + Horizontal gene tranfer across distant species occurs in nature. Natural broad-species vectors exist; some do replicate in Gram- bacteria, others only in Gram+. There are also vectors which replicate in Gram- and Gram+ bacteria, and some organisms transfer DNA to plants (eg Agrobacterium tumefaciens, A. rhizogenes) - Where horizontal gene transfer occurs in nature, it is often in connection with the emergence of more virulent or new pathogens. GE is inherently risky because it uses the same mechanism to facilitate the insertion of foreign genes through bacterial or viral vectors. + GE is much more precise than conventional breeding. - GE is only precise in so far as the foreign genes which will be inserted into a target organism are known. But GE has no control where into the target organism's genome the foreign genes will be inserted. The insertion site is totally random and unpredictable. Since genes do not operate in isolation, but interact in a complicated way and change their behaviour in response to influences from nearby and even distant genes, the behaviour of the transformed target organism is also unpredictable. + There are techniques that ensure a precise integration into the genome (eg double recombination using a suicide gene or by using chimeraplasty which precisely changes an already existing gene) - The commercially-available GE-crops did not use these new experimental techniques, but random techniques like the "gene gun" or bioballistics. + Even with random methods, it is possible to determine the insertion site(s) afterward and choose clones accordingly. - Even after the insertion site has been determined, the interaction between the inserted promoter and miscellaneous foreign genes on the one hand and the neighboring genes on the other hand must still be determined. We know too little today about most target genomes to determine these interactions precisely. - There is no data documenting the stability of any transgenic line in gene expression, or in structure and location of the insert in the genome. Such data must include the level of gene expression, as well as a genetic map and DNA base sequence of the insert and its site of insertion in the host genome in each successive generation. No such information has been provided by industry, nor requested by regulatory authorities. (32) (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037) + Crop varieties developed through conventional breeding do not undergo feeding tests. Why should GE varieties? - GE destabilizes the target genome, so it involves inherently higher risks than conventional breeding. Thus we should assume that GE varieties are unsafe unless proven otherwise through thorough long-term testing. Traditional varieties of food crops have evolved with us for thousands of years, and can be assumed to be safe unless proven otherwise. Modern hybrids may or may not need to be rigorously tested depending on the situation. + Problems attributed to GE-crops may also occur with conventionally-bred hybrids especially when breeding with wild relatives. - GE-crops are inherently riskier, because the results of the random insertions are unpredictable. When we breed a natural corn variety that is safe to eat with another natural corn variety that is also safe to eat, we can reasonably assume that the result would also be safe to eat, unless proven otherwise. No foreign genes have been introduced. If we cause mutations through GE (or even through high-intensity radiation), we cannot reasonably assume that the mutant is safe to eat, without thorough testing. If we breed this presumably unsafe mutant with a natural corn variety, we cannot assume that the result is safe to eat either. - By 1992, there were already 7 known instances of unexpected results from GE. One can only imagine how many more there have been in the interim. (Bereano, Philip and Nachama Wilker, "Regulations for Genetically Engineered Foods," Science, Vol. 258, 4 Dec 1992, p. 1561-2) - An example of GE unpredictability: Bill Vencill of the Univ of Georgia examined the effects of heat on GE soya beans after Georgia farmers alerted him to unexpected crop losses, esp. during Georgia's two hottest springs since the beans were launched in 1996. "In the years we saw the problems, the soils were reaching 40 to 50 C," says Vencill. His team replicated these conditions in lab growth chambers, comparing the hardiness of the Monsanto plants with conventional strains. In soils that reached only 25 C during the day, the GM Monsanto beans grew as well as other beans. But in warmer soils, the GM plants appeared stunted. In soils reaching 45 C, the differences were marked. Vencill described the findings at a British Crop Protection Council meeting in Brighton this week. "We saw lower heights, yields and weights in the Monsanto beans," says Vencill. Worse, stems of nearly all the GE beans split open as the first leaves began to emerge compared with 50-70% of the other test plants. This had occurred on farms, but had been blamed on fungal disease. "Instead, we think the stem splits, and it exposes the plant to secondary infection," says Vencill. Vencill suspects the changes in plant physiology caused by the addition of GE resistance to glyphosate, the herbicide marketed as Roundup by Monsanto. These herbicide-resistant plants have been shown to produce up to 20 per cent more lignin, the tough, woody form of cellulose. "We think it might make the plants more brittle," says Vencill. (See: Andy Coghlan, New Scientist, 20 Nov 1999) 2.1. CLAIM: GE-FOODS ARE SAFE FOR HUMAN AND ANIMAL CONSUMPTION - Summary: we do not know enough yet; some studies justify certain concerns about human and environmental safety; more studies need to be done; meanwhile, based on the precautionary principle, we must assume that GE foods are not safe and take the necessary precautions. 2.1.1. CLAIM: GE- AND CONVENTIONAL FOODS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT + We have established the substantial equivalence between commercial GE foods and their conventional counterparts. Therefore, we can assume that GE foods are as safe as their conventional counterpart. + In September 1996, WHO and the FAO convened an expert consultation on GE-food safety in Rome, which adopted the same industry line that: 1) safety issues in GE-foods were "basically of the same nature" as in foods from conventional breeding; 2) the substantial equivalence concept can be used to show GE-food safety; and 3) once substantial equivalence is shown, "no further safety consideration is needed." (See: "Biotechnology and food safety: Report of a joint WHO/FAO consultation", Rome, Italy, 20 Sep - 4 Oct 1996) - The 1996 WHO/FAO report made clear that the participants were invited "in their individual capacities and not as representative of any organization, affiliation or government." So the report describes individual opinions and not official WHO or FAO position. (See: "Biotechnology and food safety: Report of a joint WHO/FAO consultation", Rome, Italy, 20 Sep - 4 Oct 1996, p.1) - Biotech firms often refer to this 1996 report to falsely claim that the "WHO/FAO have declared that Bt corn [or some other GE-product] is as safe as its conventional equivalent for animal and human consumption." Yet, the WHO and the FAO themselves have no such official position. + The U.S. FDA has declared that GE crops are as safe as their conventional counterpart. + On May 18, 1994, the US FDA announced that a GE tomato was as safe as conventional tomato. In a nutshell, the FDA position is that labeling isn't required unless a GE product "differs significantly from its conventional counterpart" - if it contains a new sweetener, for example - or if it introduces an allergen. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News) - Because the FDA accepted the concept of substantial equivalence, it did not require feeding and other rigorous tests that pharmaceuticals or food additives normally require. (See also "Revolving door" under "Government/Industry collusion") - Confidential documents made public in an on-going class action lawsuit have revealed that the FDAs own scientists do not agree with concept of "substantial equivalence between GE and normal seeds. - The U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act prescribes that additives like the foreign genes in GE foods can only be recognized as safe based on tests that have shown the foods are harmless. But no such tests exist for GM foods. So, although the GRAS exemption was meant for substances whose safety has already been shown through testing, the FDA is using it to avoid testing and to approve substances based largely on conjecture - one that is dubious in the eyes of its own and many other experts. (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods) + GE foods vary from non-GE foods only in the characteristic that has been modified. - The random insertion of foreign genes into the genetic material may cause unexpected changes in the functioning of other genes. Existing molecules may be manufactured in incorrect quantities, at the wrong times, or new molecules may be produced. GE foods and food products may therefore contain unexpected toxins or allergenic molecules that could harm our health or that of our offspring. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech on the SANET list) - A study published July 1, 1999 in the Journal of Medicinal Food presents new information about biologically active components in GM soybeans resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Dr. Marc Lappe, Director of the Center for Ethics and Toxics (CETOS) and principal investigator says, "Based on corporate representations, the phytoestrogen concentrations of Monsanto's Roundup Ready and conventional soybeans were supposed to be equivalent. But the initial industry studies were performed on unsprayed soybeans. We found significant differences when we examined herbicide-sprayed soybeans analogous to those used in foods. The study shows an overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14 percent in the genetically altered soybean strains. Most of this reduction was attributable to reductions in genistin and to a lesser extent daidzin levels, which were significantly lower in modified compared to conventional soybeans in both strains. The apparent differences found may be an important discovery because consumers tend to buy soy products for their naturally occurring phytoestrogens which are thought to protect against breast cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis. As GE strains replace conventional ones, any differences in phytoestrogen levels becomes increasingly important." (See: "Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans", Maryanne Liebert Publishers, J. of Medicinal Food, Vol. 1 No. 4, 1999) (6 Jul 1999) + FDA can demand extensive safety testing if the new gene "differs substantially" from those generally found in other food. - That's a hollow promise. All 44 crops that so far have gained FDA marketing approval have avoided scrutiny because FDA has accepted the industry's claims that they are "substantially equivalent" to conventional food. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) - Some scientists have questioned substantial equivalence as "a commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific... primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests." (See: Letter to Nature by Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner and Sue Mayer, 7 Oct 1999) (http:) - The Codex Alimentarius itself, the UN agency which WHO and the FAO defer to on food safety issues, has not adopted the concept for its food safety assessments. (See: ) (http:) - The British Medical Association rejected the notion that GM foods should be assumed to be safe when they are said to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, which is the basis of U.S. regulation of biotech foods. "This concept does not account for gene interaction of unexpected kinds, which may take place in GM foods," the BMA asserts. "The possibility that certain novel genes inserted into food may cause problems to humans is a real possibility, and 'substantial equivalence' is a rule which can be used to evade this biological fact." (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999) - In March 1998 a letter in the UK's Farmers Weekly reported that livestock on farms from Nebraska to Iowa were not grazing, as in the past, in fields of Bt corn. Unpalatability of the Bt stalks was suspected. One farm specialist from Dawson County, Nebraska, reportedly said: "At first we thought it was a joke, but I have heard it enough now that we are looking into what could be going on." (See: Farmers Weekly, UK, Mar 1998) - Animals reject "substantial equivalence"? After four months of hearing anecdotes from Kansas to Wisconsin, it is time to collect stories more thoroughly from farmers: About the hogs that wouldn't eat ration when GMO crops were included. About one farmer who said "if you want your cattle to go off their feed, just switch them out to a GMO silage." About another whose cattle broke through an old fence and ate down the non-GMO hybrids but wouldn't touch the Roundup Ready corn, though "they had to walk through the GMOs to get to the Pioneer 3477 on the other side." About the cattle whose weight-gain fell off when switched over to GMO sources. About the organic farmer with a terrible deer problem on his soybeans, who drives out at night, and sees 40 of them mowing down his tofu beans while across the road not one doe is eating on the Roundup Readies. About the raccoons romping by the dozen in the organic corn, while down the road not one ear has been touched in the Bt fields. Even the mice will move on down the line if given an alternative to these "crops". (See: ACRES USA Special Report, 18 Sep 1999 by Steven Sprinkel, Yankton, South Dakota) - Rodents reject "substantial equivalence"? Consider the Flavr Savr tomato, which was given a gene to delay its ripening. When scientists tried to feed rodents the tomatoes, however, the animals wouldn't eat them, recalled Roger Salquist, a scientist involved in creating the Flavr Savr. "I gotta tell you, you can be Chef Boyardee and mice are still not going to like them." They went so far as to force-feed the rodents through gastric tubes and stomach washes. This made the rodents sick, and revealed nothing about the tomato's safety. The tomato ultimately won approval from the FDA but failed in the market in part because it was so expensive. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) - Although these novel products are different enough to be patented, the biotech industry and U.S. regulatory agencies say they are no different from their natural counterparts. For this reason, the U.S. FDA requires no pre-market testing on animal or human subjects (as would be required of new drugs or food additives) nor any labeling. "There isn't any difference between a GM product and a natural food in terms of its impact on consumer health," says Jim Maryanski, biotech coordinator for FDA, which oversees the safety of fruits, vegetables and other GE food products. FDA only requires a label if a product contains a known allergen or is nutritionally different - for example if a GM orange had more or less vitamin C, he says. 2.1.2. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT CAUSE ALLERGIC REACTIONS - One GE product you won't find on the market is a soybean to which genes from a Brazil nut had been introduced. A New England Journal of Medicine article in early 1996 suggested the GM soybean could cause reactions in people allergic to Brazil nuts. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl of Johnson, Iowa - which had developed the soybean and later funded that allergy study - said it won't market the soybean because of the allergy potential. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News) * Pioneer Hi-Bred, the giant seed company, asked University of Nebraska scientist Steve Taylor in 1995 to study a new soybean they had invented. Pioneer had spliced a Brazil nut gene into soybean, to make it more protein-rich. Taylor was to check if the GM soybean would affect people allergic to Brazil nuts, a serious concern because such people wouldn't think to avoid soy. Just one of the nut's thousands of proteins was put into Pioneers' new soybean, and the odds of that one causing the nut's allergies were incredibly low, Taylor said. But one test, then another, and finally a third showed that the GE protein was indeed a major cause of Brazil nut allergies. In trying improve the soybean, Pioneer had made it potentially more deadly; it quickly halted the soybean project. Taylor's study is symbolic of all that is both scary and reassuring about GM food. It proved that GM food could cause an unexpected and potentially fatal reaction. But the problem was detected before the product was marketed. Symbolic because it was, and still is, one of the very few studies ever to look directly for any harm from a GE food or crop. That dearth of studies is the legacy of a U.S. policy that treats GM plants and food to be substantially the same as conventional ones. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) + This was a very predictable situation. The soya allergy was caused by the same protein that was responsible for allergic reactions to Brazil nuts. - If the allergy was predictable, why did Pioneer even attempt to create that GE-soya? + The fact that the soya with the Brazil nut gene was recalled and not commercialized shows that the regulatory system worked. - The system may have worked in that particular case. How about all the other cases of commercialized GE-soya? - A study by the York Nutritional Laboratory, Europe's leading specialists on food sensitivity, found that health complaints caused by soya - the ingredient most associated with GM foods - have increased by 50% in 1998. Researchers said their findings provide real evidence that GE food could have a tangible, harmful impact on the human body. It is the first time in 17 years of testing that soya has crept into the laboratory's top 10 foods to cause an allergic reaction in consumers. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said: "We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods because it is impossible to guarantee that the soya used in the tests was GM-free." (See: UK Daily Express, 12 March 1999) - FDA scientists warn that GE foods could "produce a new protein allergen" or "enhance the synthesis of existing plant food allergens." Without labeling, people with certain food allergies will not be able to know if they might be harmed by the food they're eating. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999) - BT: A new study of Ohio crop pickers and handlers finds that Bt can provoke immunological changes indicative of a developing allergy. With long-term exposure, affected individuals might develop asthma or other serious allergic reactions, notes study leader I. Leonard Bernstein of the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. (See: Science News Online, Vol 156 No 1, 3 Jul 1999). This means that people must avoid ingesting even "relatively safe" biopesticides like Bt. - BT: A health survey evaluated farm workers before the spraying of Bt pesticides and 1 and 4 months after the spraying. Two groups of low and medium exposure workers were also assessed. While there was no evidence of occupationally-related respiratory disease, positive skin prick tests were seen in exposed workers, with a significant increase in the number of positive tests to spores 1 to 4 months after exposure to Bt. The increase was more significant in high rather than low exposure workers. The study concluded that exposure to Bt may lead to allergic skin sensitisation and induction of IgE antibodies or IgG antibodies - or both. (Bernstein J L et al. 1999. Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives. 107 (7): 575-582) * BT: The EPA has been asked to approve a new kind of Bt corn toxin called cry9C, seen as a test case of the degree of risk the EPA is willing to accept. While other versions of Bt break down harmlessly in the human digestive tract, cry9C can survive digestion and remains stable in the human stomach. Thus, its potential to cause allergies is higher. The FDA demands extra allergy testing for new food with such stable proteins. AgrEvo, the German firm seeking cry9C approval, has conducted some more tests, including a comparison of cry9C's molecular structure with known allergy-causing proteins. So far, no similarities have been found. But as the EPA evaluates the corn for human ingestion, the reality is that there is no surefire way of testing new proteins like cry9C for their potential to trigger allergies. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) 2.1.3. CLAIM: GE-FOODS ARE NOT TOXIC - A case in which a GE-product might have resulted in toxic contaminants: a Japanese firm that makes the food supplement L-tryptophan changed its production process and switched to GE bacteria, at the same time removing some steps in their purification process. The new process resulted in a toxic contaminant that could have come from the GE-bacteria used in producing the L-tryptophan. Before the product could be recalled, it had killed 37 and hospitalized 1,500. - About 37 people died and some 1,500 became sick after Japanese company Showa Denko K.K. produced the amino acid tryptophan using GE - and inadvertently introduced a toxin. A Web site operated by survivors of the 1989 outbreak agrees with those basic facts, although one of the articles posted there lists only 28 deaths. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News) + The L-tryptophan contaminant came not from the GE-bacteria but from a non-GE source which was overlooked due to the change in the purification process, - A non-GE contaminant cannot be ruled out. Unfortunately, A mysterious fire destroyed all samples of the GE-bacteria used for the production process, making it impossible for investigators to conclusively determine the real cause. (See: ) - According to some FDA scientists, GE food may bring "some undesirable effects such as increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, increased capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment (e.g., pesticides or heavy metals), and undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients." In other words, scientists from the FDA itself suspect that GE could make foods toxic. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999) - Dr. Arpad Pusztai found that a diet of potatoes engineered to express the snowdrop lectin weakened rats' immune systems and adversely affected the kidney, thymus, spleen, gut and brain of the animals. If confirmed, Pusztai's conclusions will reinforce concerns that gene insertion itself may create new toxins; it will also implicate the toxin commonly used in other GE-crops - the Bt toxin which, Pusztai says, is also a lectin. + The Royal Society of London reviewed Pusztai's study and found it flawed and unworthy of publication. - After the Royal Society's review, however, Pusztai submitted the results of his study to The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journal, which decided to publish the study. (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999) * The UK's Royal Society has written to the Natural Law Party indicating that it has called for Dr Pusztai's work to be repeated because of the outstanding uncertainties it considers arise from it. (From: "NLP Wessex" , 19 Nov 1999) In a way, this is a recognition by the Royal Society that Pusztai's work deserves to be taken seriously, a reversal of their earlier condemnation of Pusztai's work. - The concern of pediatric neurologist Dr. Martha Herbert of the Council for Responsible Genetics is "the immature gut and immature body of infants." If introduced too early, even proteins that are normally part of our diet can lead to auto-immune and allergic reactions later on, she said. "If a substance harms adults, it may well harm babies, the sick and the elderly more severely, and after smaller exposures," Dr. Herbert warned in her June 1999 statement. (See: ) + BT: The Bt formulation has been in use as a biopesticide for decades and is not considered harmful to human beings. It is one of the few insecticides that organic farmers are allowed to use. - BT: The Bt biopesticide is relatively safe, compared to chemical pesticides, but it is not completely safe. The dried Bt spores, for instance, may be harmful to the human immune system. French scientists at le Bouchet army research labs found that the spores caused lung inflammation, internal bleeding and death in lab mice. Last year, French scientists isolated a Bt strain that destroyed tissue in the wounds of a French soldier in Bosnia. The strain, known as H34, also infected wounds in immuno-suppressed mice. Now the same team has found that H34 can kill mice with intact immune systems if they inhale the spores. Francoise Ramisse of le Bouchet and her colleagues found that healthy mice inhaling 108 spores of Bt H34 died within eight hours from internal bleeding and tissue damage. (See: New Scientist, 29 May 1999) + BT: Spores from mutants of the Bt H34 strain which did not produce the toxin were equally lethal to mice, suggesting that the Bt toxin was not to blame. Researchers think the symptoms are caused by other toxins. The bacterium's close cousin, Bacillus cereus, produces a toxin that ruptures cell membranes. And in 1991, Japanese researchers showed that B. thuringiensis produces the same toxin. (See: New Scientist, 29 May 1999) + BT: Since the natural Bt toxin is relatively safe, then the GE-toxin in corn is safe too. - BT: The Bt corn toxin is not identical to the natural toxin. The natural Bt gene which produces the toxin was substantially modified before it was transferred to corn. The toxin gene in Bt corn is a truncated version (at both 5' and 3' ends) of the Bt toxin and is the smallest fragment that still possesses toxicity to insects. (See: M. Vaeck et al. Nature 328, 33-37, 1987, as cited by Heine Deelstra). * BT: Why is it a bad thing if they are not identical? - BT: This means that, unlike the natural Bt toxin, the Bt corn toxin has never existed in nature, until Bt corn started synthesizing it. It is risky to put into our gut any substance which our gut has never seen before, because we have not evolved to handle such a substance. In our experience with synthetic chemicals, this has led to various long-term problems like cancers. + BT: The Bt natural gene produces a large, inactive pro-toxin that is about 1200 amino acids in length. This pro-toxin releases upon digestion by proteases (in the insects gut) an active 68,000 Dalton fragment. So the pro-toxins of plants and Bt may differ in length, while the active toxic fragment is exactly the same in size and mode of action. Truncation of sequences before and after the 'toxic fragment' might affect, due to folding differences, (1) the crystallisation properties and (2) the susceptibility to proteases of the pro-toxin. The occurrence of (1) and/or (2) are not known to me. (Heine J. Deelstra , on GENTECH list) - BT: The Bt corn toxin is up to 100 times more powerful than the natural toxin. This is part of the high-dose strategy which supposedly delays the development of resistance in corn borers. However, such high doses may also be riskier to non-target species, including human beings who ingest the toxin when they eat Bt corn. - BT: The expression of the full-length [Bt] toxin was too low to achieve pest resistance in plants other than tobacco (against the tobacco hornworm) and tomato plants. Toxin levels were so low that protection was not attained against less sensitive, but agronomically-important insect pests. Researchers then modified part of the Bt toxin coding sequence so that it was efficiently expressed (and translated) in plants. This was done by using a synthetic toxin gene for amino acids 1-453 (coding for the same amino acids as the natural Bt toxin gene but using codons preferred by plants) and fusing this with the (natural) gene fragment encoding for amino acids 454-615. The rest of the bacterial gene (amino acids 616-1178) was not used. Expression of this gene in cotton plants showed that Bt toxin levels were increased by 100 times and that Bt toxin constituted 0.02% of the protein in the plant. (See: Recombinant DNA, 2nd edition by James D. Watson et al. and Moleculaire Biologie van Schimmels en Planten (in Dutch), 1998 by Prof. J.G.H Wessels, as cited by Deelstra) - The genetically engineered sweetener Aspartame has caused thousands of documented disease cases worldwide. (From: [email protected]) 2.1.4. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT CAUSE CANCER - HT: Since herbicide-resistant GE-crops lead to greater herbicide use, cancer risk can also come from exposure to higher levels of herbicides like bromoxynil (Rhone-Poulenc's Buctril) and glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup). Authors Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey (Against the Grain, 1998) warn that bromoxynil bioaccumulates, because it is fat-soluble. Rat and rabbit studies have shown birth defects, other developmental disorders in fetuses, tumors, and carcinomas at levels ranging from 20 to 300 parts per million. (See: Lappe, Marc and Britt Bailey; Against the Grain, 1998) (http:) - HT: Glyphosate exposure, on the other hand, can triple the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, say cancer specialists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden's Orebro Hospital, in a study published in the American Cancer Society journal (See: Cancer, 3/15/99) (http:) - RBGH: U.S. food campaigner Robert Cohen warns about the hormone Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), identical versions of which occur in cows and humans. In 1994, Cohen says, the U.S. FDA approved the use of a GE-hormone (rBGH) in cows to stimulate milk production. Using rBGH raises IGF-1 levels in cows' milk by 80%. IGF-1, Cohen warns, is a key factor in prostrate cancer (Science, 1/98), breast cancer (The Lancet, 5/98), and lung cancer (Journal of the NCI, 1/99). Most recently, Cohen cites a report in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (10/99, p.1231), which found IGF-1 levels in the blood of milk drinkers 10% higher than in non-drinkers. The implication: GE-milk exposes its drinkers to higher cancer risks. (See: ) - RBGH: On December 15, 1998, the Center for Food Safety, on behalf of a broad coalition, filed a legal petition in Washington, D.C. against the FDA to have rBGH taken off the market. The CFS petition cites mounting evidence that the original testing of rBGH was flawed. In 1990 the FDA said BGH was "safe for human consumption." Part of its findings were based on 90-day rat feeding studies in which they reported "no toxicologically significant changes..." Based largely on this conclusion, FDA did not require human toxicological tests usually required for a veterinary drug. However in April 1998, researchers from Health Canada, the Canadian equivalent to FDA, issued a report contradicting FDA's findings. Canadian researchers found studies showing that rats were absorbing rBGH after all. In fact, between 20 and 30 percent of the rats were developing distinct immunological reactions. Additionally, cysts formed in the thyroid of some male rats and infiltrated the prostate - both warning signs for potential cancer hazards. - RBGH: Milk from cows injected with rBGH, which is not analogous to normal BGH (7), has elevated insulin-like growth factor that is implicated as a risk factor in human breast cancer (8,9). (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037) - RBGH: The EU Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on Animal Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin, rBST, (adopted March 10th 1999) has recommended that, due to foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions in dairy cows, rBST from an animal welfare and health point of view, should not be used. This is an important recommendation given the upcoming vote on rBST in International Trade. - RBGH: At the previous 22nd Codex session, the Codex Alimentarius Commission decided to suspend the consideration of Maximum Reside Limits for rBGH. The reason for the suspension was so that scientific data could be re-evaluated. Since then, there has been more evidence that rBGH is not safe. The 23rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was held in Rome, June 28 - July 3, 1999. Since the U.S. realized that they were not going to win on this issue, they essentially dropped it. + These examples are not due to the effect of GE but rather the use of the chemicals or hormones. - HT:/RBGH: But the higher cancer risks are the consequence of GE products (more herbicide residues in food, higher IGF-1 levels in milk, etc.). People would not have been exposed to these risks if HT crops or rBGH had not been developed. 2.1.5. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO PATHOGENS - "The evidence is now overwhelming that horizontal gene transfer has been responsible for both the rapid spread of antibiotic resistance and for the emergence of virulent strains of pathogens in recent years... One main contributing factor to the recent increase in the scope and frequency of horizontal gene transfers may be the deliberate acts of genetic engineers to break down species barriers. They do so by constructing a range of chimaeric vectors for cloning, and transferring genes... Thus, genetic engineering biotechnology has opened effectively opened up highways for horizontal gene transfer and recombination, where previously, there was only restricted access through narrow, tortuous footpaths." (See: Mae Wan-Ho, Terje Traavik, Orjan Olsvik, Tore Midtvedt, Beatrix Tappeser, C. Vyvyan Howard, Christine von Weizsaecker, and George C. McGavin; Gene Technology in the Etiology of Drug-resistant Diseases, 1998. + Their conclusion is unsupported by there data; no recent increase of transfer has been observed. - In May 1999, the British Medical Association, which counts some 80% or nearly 115,000 of Britain's medical doctors, issued an official statement in May 1999 expressing concern over the safety of GE-foods. The BMA recommended a moratorium on planting commercial GE-crops in the UK "until there is scientific consensus (or as close agreement as reasonably achievable) about the potential long-term environmental effects." The BMA also called for 1) segregation at source, "to enable identification and traceability" of GE-foods; 2) labelling GE-imports and banning unlabelled ones, if the industry refuses to segregate; and 3) more robust systems of disease surveillance, to deal with "potential emergence of new diseases associated with GM material which will be obscure and difficult to diagnose". (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999) - Mae Wan-Ho and Angela Ryan of the UK Open University warned last July 1999 that "no transgenic plant containing the CaMV promoter should be released," because the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter is "very likely to recombine with other DNA in the host genome, including dormant viral DNA, as well as with other viruses in the host cell." The problem covers practically all GE-plants released so far. These GE-plants, according to Ryan, "have the potential to create new viruses or other invasive genetic elements." (See: ) - There is potential for vector recombination to generate new virulent strains of viruses, especially in transgenic plants engineered for viral resistance with viral genes. In plants containing coat protein genes, there is a possibility that such genes will be taken up by unrelated viruses infecting the plant. In such situations, the foreign gene changes the coat structure of the viruses and may confer properties such as changed method of transmission between plants. The second potential risk is that recombination between RNA virus and a viral RNA inside the transgenic crop could produce a new pathogen leading to more severe disease problems. Some researchers have shown that recombination occurs in transgenic plants and that under certain conditions it produces a new viral strain with altered host range. (Steinbrecher, R.A. (1996) From Green to Gene Revolution: the environmental risks of genetically engineered crops. The Ecologist 26, 273-282. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) and HIV have interchangeable components, according to five researchers of the John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory (UK). (See John Innes Centre Annual Report, 1998/1999) If they meet in nature, they could recombine to form chimeric viruses with potentially devastating properties. ([email protected], 6 Nov 1999) This can happen, for instance, if pollen from a GE plant is inhaled by an HIV-positive or AIDS-stricken person. - The 1999 UK John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory Annual report specifically acknowledges that this particular viral promoter is prone to 'recombination' events (see http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/camv.htm for more information). - One must consider not only the "fate" of GMOs but also the genes and viruses or parts thereof, that have been inserted into them. Such "naked DNA", in the form of recombinant and modified nucleic acids, has been found capable of surviving and remaining functional longer after organisms' death than was assumed previously.(6,30) Furthermore, xenobiotics, especially dioxins and various agrichemicals, can act as mutagens (31), altering the structure and sequence of DNA and also increasing the permeability of cells and the incorporation of foreign DNA into living organisms. (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037) - The use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral promoter (CaMV) has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or create new viruses in all species to which it is transferred. CaMV is known to be found in practically all current transgenic crops released commercially or undergoing field trials. This transgenic instability increases the possibility of promotion of an inappropriate over-expression of genes to the transferred species. The development of cancer may be one consequence of such inappropriate over-expression of genes. The scientists behind the research "strongly recommend that all transgenic crops containing CaMV 35S or similar promoters which are recombinogenic should be immediately withdrawn from commercial production or open field trials. All products derived from such crops containing transgenic DNA should also be immediately withdrawn from sale and from use for human consumption or animal feed". (See: Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan, and Joseph Cummins, "Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promotor - A recipe for Disaster?", Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (Dec 1999). 2.1.6. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT CAUSE ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANCE - Many GE-foods contain antibiotic-resistance marker (ARM) genes. These genes can be acquired by harmful bacteria through horizontal gene transfer, making it more difficult to cure diseases. + There is very low probability that ARM genes in GE-plants can transfer to pathogenic bacteria. - In May 1999, The British Medical Association called for a "ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food, as the risk to human health from antibiotic resistance developing in micro-organisms is one of the major public health threats that will be faced in the 21st Century." (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999) (http:/) + Modified DNA quickly breaks down in the gut, so it cannot transfer antibiotic resistance - Using an "artificial gut", Dutch researchers showed that DNA remains intact for several minutes in the large intestine. If the GE bacteria were a type normally found in the gut, such as Enterococcus, the experiment showed each had a 1 in 10 million chance of passing DNA containing ARM genes to an native gut bacterium when they came in contact. There are normally around a thousand billion gut bacteria, suggesting that many would be transformed. If some normal gut bacteria were killed off - as in the guts of people or animals in antibiotics - the transfer rate from gut-type bacteria increased tenfold. (See: New Scientist, 30 Jan 1999) - Safer New Screen for GM Crops: Rockefeller University and University of Singapore researchers can now screen for GM crops without having to insert an ARM gene. The new method, described in Nature, uses a gene that enhances a plant's use of its own growth hormones. (Irish Times, 13 Sep 1999) If ARM genes are safe, why are so much research funds being spent looking for alternatives to these genes? + Because plants with ARM genes won't sell, that's why. - They won't sell because medical doctors, like members of the British Medical Association, have warned against their dangers. - Countries which have banned the use of ARM genes: Norway - Countries where a ban on the use of ARM genes has been proposed: Europe (See:) 2.1.7. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT AFFECT OUR IMMUNE SYSTEM - Twenty two leading scientists recently declared that animal test results linking GE foods to immuno-suppression are valid. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999) 2.1.10. OTHERS - HT: Lappe and Bailey also noted the "remarkably high estrogenic activity of soy isoflavones," elevated levels of which have been found in herbicide-treated GE-soya. "If ingested by nursing infants, these isoflavones can produce circulating levels equivalent to 13,000 to 22,000 times the normal plasma estradiol concentrations found in babies, with unknown and potentially dangerous secondary effects," they warned. Early exposure to estrogens, they wrote, is associated with sex organ dysfunctions and higher risks of vaginal adenocarcinoma and other tumors. (See: Lappe, Marc and Britt Bailey; Against the Grain, 1998) + HT: On the isoflavone statement reread http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1999/Jul-Aug/msg00200.html (From: "H J Deelstra" ) - The Scottish Crop Research Institute and the University of Dundee, reported that the snowdrop lectin (the same lectin Pusztai used in his GE-potato study) can bind with human white blood cells, raising questions about safety of the lectin itself. (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999) (http:) 2.2. CLAIM: GE-CROPS DON'T HARM THE ENVIRONMENT - Summary: Once released into the environment, live GE organisms will be practically impossible to recall and will be a permanent source of genetic contamination and pollution. We therefore oppose field releases, including field-testing, of live GE organisms. 2.2.1. CLAIM: GENETIC CONTAMINATION (ESCAPE AND SPREAD) CAN BE AVOIDED + Pollen does not travel very far. Isolation distances of 50-100 meters will prevent any genetic contamination. - Pollen can be carried by wind, bees and other insects, birds, and other pollinators. Animals can eat seeds and then travel long distances. Their droppings can contain viable seeds. People can inadvertently transport seeds hundreds or even thousands of kilometers from the source. - Studies in Denmark, Scotland and Lower Saxony in Germany have shown that GMO rapeseed can pass on its traits to, not only non-GMO rapeseed, but also weedy relatives up to 2.5 km away. This can lead to superweeds. - Research by the Scottish Crop Research Institute reported at the Gene Flow in Agriculture: Revelence for Transgeneic Crops Conference, Keele University April 1999 (British Crop Protection Council Symposium Proceedings No 72) reported oilseed rape pollen at 4km from a field of oilseed rape. - Scientists from the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Dundee have shown that as high as 7% of the natural rape plants in a field 400 meters away were pollinated by GM pollen. They said that oilseed rape pollen had been found 4 km away from the nearest source - further than it had been previously discovered. They said "bees may be important pollen vectors over a range of distances" and concluded that "the results suggest that farm-to-farm spread of OSR [oilseed rape] transgenes will be widespread." (See: New Scientist, April 1999) - The European Commission has formulated 5-point emergency plan if GE plants result in widespread illness or death of wildlife. The plan includes: 1) methods and procedures for controlling the GMOs in case of unexpected spread; 2) methods for decontamination of the areas affected and eradication of the GMOs; 3) methods for disposal or sanitation of plants, animals, soils, etc. exposed during and after the spread; 4) methods for isolating area affected by spread; and 5) plants for protecting human health and environment in case undesirable effects occur. (See: Independent, London, 4 Apr 1999) - Steve Jones (professor of genetics, University College, London): Those [transgenic] genes are going to get out into other plants. Everybody knows that. And we have no idea what is going to happen. (BBC, 12 Apr 1999) - Spontaneous hybrids and backcrosses occured between GE oilseed rape and its weedy relative, Brassica campestris, under field conditions (Jorgensen, R.B. and B. Andersen. 1994. Spontaneous hybridization between oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and weedy B. campestris (Brassicaceae): a risk of growing genetically modified oilseed rate. American Journal of Botany 81:1620-1626, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999). - HT: Transgenic, herbicide-tolerant weed-like plants, exhibiting high fertility and the same morphology and chromosome numbers as in the weedy relative, were produced in field experiments where GE herbicide-tolerant interspecific hybrids were grown together with the weedy relative. (Mikkelsen, T.R., Andersen, B. and R.B.Jorgensen. 1996. The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 380:31, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999) - HT: Arabidopsis thaliana, weed species often used for GE studies, was found to be more prolific and promiscuous when genetically modified. This implies that GE can substantially increase the probability of transgene escape, heightening the risk of producing weedy or pest populations of wild relatives. In field studies, herbicide-resistant Arabidopsis thaliana produced by gene transfer of a resistance allele outcrossed to wild relatives roughly 20 times more often than ordinary mutants expressing the same mutant allele as the transgenic plants. (Bergelson, J., Purrington, C.B. and G. Wichmann. 1998. Promiscuity in transgenic plants. Nature 395: 25, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999) - "This is only the latest in a long list of field trials showing that genetically engineered crops, once released, are totally uncontainable. They will become a nightmare for conventional farmers to control. For farmers who do not want to grow them, such as the organic sector, these crops will be almost impossible to avoid." (Dr. Michael Antoniou) - John Innes Centre, one of Europe's leading research institute on GM crops, carried out research commissioned by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They reported: GE crops will "inevitably" contaminate organic crops. Pollen and seed pollution by GE crops could not be avoided entirely and "acceptable levels" of contamination would have to be set. They estimated that 1% of organically-grown plants in any one field could become GM hybrids because of pollen spread. They concluded that contamination by seed or pollen cannot be entirely eliminated. (BBC, 17 Jun 1999) - Scientists have found GM pollen in beehives nearly 5km from an official trial site, Friends of the Earth said today. These are the first published monitoring results of GM pollen from a farm-scale trial site and show GM pollen travelling further than ever previously detected. It also reveals the scale of the threat the trials pose to non-GM and organic farmers, beekeepers and the wider environment, said Friends of the Earth. The government's rules for farm-scale trials require only a 50-metre separation between GM crops and other fields. (Amanda Brown, AAP, London, 30 Sep 1999) - Scientists have found GM oilseed rape pollen four and a half kilometres from a trial site. Friends of the Earth had contracted the National Pollen Research Unit at University College, Worcester to monitor airborne pollen on roads and public rights of way around the farm scale trial for spring oilseed rape at Model Farm, Pirton, Near Watlington, Oxfordshire in June and July 1999. Pollen traps were placed on six bee hives sited in the area. Two were 500 metres from the crop, two were 2.75 kilometres from the crop and two were 4.5 km. The pollen was collected and analysed by a bee and honey consultant, Sarah Brookes, of Evesham, Worcestershire. Six samples of airborne pollen and 6 of beehive pollen were sent to the laboratory of the Federal Environment Agency in Austria for DNA analysis. All six beehive samples were found to contain GM oilseed rape pollen from an AgrEvo variety and 2 out of 6 airborne samples. The Government's rules for the farm scale trials require only a 50 metre separation distance between GM crops and other fields. For seed crops and organic crops the recommended distance is 200m. The trial shows GM pollen at distances further than ever previously detected and shows the scale of the threat the trials pose to non-GM crops, beekeepers and the wider environment - HT: And scientists are finding that some GE crops, such as herbicide-resistant canola in Canada, are cross-pollinating with wild relatives more widely than had been predicted, creating hardy weeds that can survive herbicidal sprays. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) + HT: Gary Barton (Monsanto's director of biotechnology communications): "Resistance can develop" but superweeds - hybrid plants resistant to herbicide - were not an issue since they could always be sprayed with other weedkillers to which they were not resistant. (See: Independent, London, 25 Apr 1999) - HT: The potential transfer through gene flow of genes from herbicide resistant crops to wild or semidomesticated relatives can lead to the creation of superweeds. (Lutman, P.J.W. (ed.) (1999) Gene flow and agriculture: relevance for transgenic crops. British Crop Protection Council Symposium Proceedings No. 72. Stafordshire, England. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - HT: There is potential for HT varieties to become serious weeds in other crops (See: Duke l996, Holt and Le baron l990). (Duke, S.O. (1996) Herbicide resistant crops: agricultural, environmental, economic, regulatory, and technical aspects, p. 420. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton; See also: Holt, J.S. and H.M. Le Baron (1990) Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 4, 141-149. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - A scientific report, carried out for the British government in 1997 but not published until now, concluded that GE oilseed rape could breed with ordinary farmers' crops and make them inedible. The study, conducted by the prestigious Scottish Crops Institute for the Ministry of Environment, says that contamination of farmers' ordinary fields is "inevitable" under current farming practices. (UK Sunday Independent, 21 Feb 1999) - Genetic contamination and pollution can occur through live DNA fragments. - There is evidence that foreign DNA can enter the body via the gastrointestinal tract and cross the placenta (1,2). (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037) - STRAINS of farm-bred fish developed to grow fat quickly are threatening to drive Britain's majestic wild salmon into extinction. Millions of GM fish have escaped into the Atlantic from offshore farms in Europe and America. And the new strains are mating with wild salmon, polluting their gene pool and producing hybrids that can't survive in the open ocean. (Mail, 19 Sep 1999) - Although the ecological risks issue has received some discussion in government, international, and scientific circles, discussions have often been pursued from a narrow perspective that has downplayed the seriousness of the risks. (See: Kendall, H.W., R. Beachy, T. Eismer, F. Gould, R. Herdt, P.H. Ravon, J Schell and M.S. Swaminathan (1997) Bioengineering of crops. Report of the World Bank Panel on Transgenic Crops, World Bank, Washington, D.C. p. 30; See also: Royal Society (1998) Genetically modified plants for food use. Statement 2/98, p. 16. London. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) -- Dr. Norman Ellstrand (Professor of Genetics, University of California, one of the world's leading authorities in genetic engineering) on the economic implications for farmers of gene exchange between crops and weedy relatives: "We see this as a multi-million dollar problem. In Europe, there is already a big problem with gene flow between wild beet and cultivated beet. Oil-seed rape also has close relatives and is going to cause problems in the future. One would expect that the kind of genes that are now being engineered are going to be the ones that have a higher potentiality for causing trouble." (From: Protect Organic! Campaign [email protected] (617) 661-5609) 2.2.2. CLAIM: GE-CROPS REDUCE CHEMICAL USE + GE crops will reduce the use of herbicides, insecticides and other chemicals. + BT: Prakash of Tuskegee University points out that before Bt corn was introduced, farmers controlled the corn borer with conventional insecticide sprays that are toxic not only monarch butterfly larvae but also other desirable, non-target species like lady bugs. By cutting down on using these insecticides, Bt corn is a boon to beneficial species and the environment. "Ultimately the biggest benefit of biotech will be cultivating crops that use no herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers at all - and that even have nutrients and vaccines added, possibly at lower costs to consumers down the line," says Prakash. - BT: Corn farmers very seldom spray field corn for corn borers. Doing so will simply be a waste of money, because the borers are inside the corn stem, and can't be reached by the spray. Thus, using Bt corn does not really reduce chemical use. - HT: Crops engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides may encourage more liberal use of those herbicides. This has been anticipated by one manufacturer, who has applied to ANZFA (Australia-New Zealand Food Authority) to have the allowable residue of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in foods sold in New Zealand increased by 200 times. In areas of the USA where GE-crops that produce their own insecticide are grown, pesticide use has not decreased. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech on the SANET list) - The British Medical Association urged that: the risk that GM crops may increase the use of herbicides and pesticides in the environment needs to be comprehensively assessed to determine their full environmental impact. (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999) - Patent applications by Novartis of Basle, Switzerland imply the need for more pesticides to get the best out of GM plants. The applications (WO 99/35910 and WO 99/35913) were filed after Novartis scientists realised that a wide spectrum of insect pests was attacking Bt maize, its major GM crop. So they tried on the Bt maize different combinations of their pesticides. Their patent applications identify pesticide combinations that could raise maize yields by 20 per cent. The same pesticides appear to increase the yields of other GM plants, including herbicide- tolerant ones. So Novartis extended its patent applications to cover use of the pesticides on a long list of GM crops including maize, cereals, soya beans, potatoes, rice, cotton and mustard. Novartis' patent applications belie claims that GE crops will reduce pesticide use. (See: Andy Coghlan and Barry Fox, New Scientist, 18 December 1999) -- Section 1.5: "All materials and/or the products produced from genetically engineered/modified organisms (GEO/GMO) are not compatible with the principles of organic production (either the growing, manufacturing, or processing) and therefore are not accepted under these guidelines." (See: Codex Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods) 2.2.3. CLAIM: GE-CROPS DO NOT HARM DIVERSITY - HT: The use of HT crops undermine the possibilities of crop diversification thus reducing agrobiodiversity in time and space. (Altieri, M.A. (1994) Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems. Haworth Press, New York. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - Ecological theory predicts that the large-scale landscape homogenization with transgenic crops will exacerbate the ecological problems already associated with monoculture agriculture. Unquestioned expansion of this technology into developing countries may not be wise or desirable. There is strength in the agricultural diversity of many of these countries, and it should not be inhibited or reduced by extensive monoculture, especially when consequences of doing so results in serious social and environmental problems. (Altieri, M.A. (1996) Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - The trend to create broad international markets for single products, is simplifying cropping systems and creating genetic uniformity in rural landscapes. History has shown that a huge area planted to a single crop variety is very vulnerable to new matching strains of pathogens or insect pests. Furthermore, the widespread use of homogeneous transgenic varieties will unavoidably lead to "genetic erosion," as the local varieties used by thousands of farmers in the developing world are replaced by the new seeds. (Robinson, R.A. (1996) Return to Resistance:breeding crops to reduce pesticide resistance. AgAccess, Davis. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - A single GM fish released into the wild could wipe out local populations of the original species, biologists warn in the New Scientist (4 Dec 1999). William Muir and Richard Howard of Purdue University, Indiana, studied fish carrying the human growth hormone gene (hGH), which increases growth rate and final size. US and British biologists are doing similar experiments with GE salmon. Muir and Howard put hGH in embryos of Japanese medaka, a common aquarium fish, which then matured faster and produced more eggs than normal fish, rapidly spreading the new gene. But only 2/3 of the GE medaka survived to reproductive age, which led the population to dwindle. In a computer model, 60 GE fish in a wild population of 60,000 fish, caused extinction within 40 generations. Even a single GE animal could lead to extinction, they found, but it would take longer. "You have the very strange situation where the least fit individual in the population is getting all the matings - this is the reverse of Darwin's model," says Muir. The researchers say this is the first evidence that GMOs could have catastrophic consequences on their own species. (See: Environmental News Service, 2 Dec 1999) - An aquarium fish, Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes), modified with a growth gene hGH were more succesful in attracting mates. Thus the hGH gene spread rapidly through the population. However only 2/3 of the GE medaka survived to reproductive age compared with wild medakas. Thus the spread of the hGH gene could make populations dwindle and eventually become extinct. A computer model showed that releasing 60 GE fish into a wild population of 60,000 resulted in extinction in just 40 generations. Even a single modified fish could also result in extinction, though over a longer period. The work may also apply to salmon who have similar mating preferences. (See: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 96, p 13 853) 2.2.4. CLAIM: THE DEVELOPMENT OF BT RESISTANCE CAN BE CONTROLLED + BT: Resistance will be controlled by using a high-dose strategy to kill all corn borers, and requiring farmers to plant 20-40% of their fields with non-Bt corn, to provide susceptible pests who will mate with resistant pests - BT: Farmers find it ridiculous to be required to reserve 20-40% of their crops as feed for pests they want to eliminate in the first place. - BT: In the earliest days of the debate, the suggested refugia size was 5%. Later, it rose to 10%. Now, it is 20-40%. If the trend continues, they will be suggesting a 100% non-Bt field soon, which is what we've been arguing for in the first place. - BT: The high-dose/refugia strategy can only work resistance is recessive and: i) dose should be very toxic so that all heterozygotes for resistance are killed; ii) resistance alleles are very rare; and iii) susceptible insects are within mating distance of resistant insects. ECB have been found to exhibit resistance to Bt toxin in a dominant way, which will hasten instead of retard the spread of resistance. (See: Science 284: 965-967, 1999) - BT: F.Huang, L.L.Buschman (both with the Dept. of Entomology, Kansas State U) and W.H.McGaughey (USDA, Agric. Research Center Service, Grain Mktg & Prod. Research Center): ECB resistance to a Bt spray formulation (Dipel) appears to be inherited as an incompletely dominant autosomal gene. This contrasts with the resistance of other insects, which has been characterized as recessive. If it is not recessive, the usefulness of the high-dose/refugia strategy may be diminished. - BT: Dominant mutants conferring resistance to Bt toxin can be recovered from Corn Borers exposed to the toxin. Such mutants would spread like wildfire through corn fields with refuge plots because over half the off-springs of mating between mutant and wild type insects would be resistant to Bt toxin. The refuge would provide a rich breeding ground for spread of the dominant mutants. (See: "Inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Dipel ES) in the European Corn Borer"; Haung,F., Buschman,L., Higgins,R. and McGaugen,W., Science, 7 May 1999:965-967, as cited by Joseph Cummins) - BT: Bt resistance has emerged among pink bollworms, a major cotton pest, in Arizona cotton fields. (See: California Farmer Magazine, mid-January 1999) - BT: When Monsanto and other companies took the naturally occurring insecticide bacterium Bt and spliced its operating mechanism into crops, organic farmers were concerned that insects would quickly become resistant to Bt, removing a crucial tool of environmentally sound farming only to serve corporate interests. These concerns are being borne out in last year's cropping trials. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999) - BT: At the same time, recent studies have pointed to a variety of other problems that seem to be emerging from Bt corn. One report, for example, suggests that the EPA's primary strategy for preventing the emergence of Bt-resistant insects-a plan that calls for planting "refuges" of conventional corn in nearby fields-may be doomed to fail because Bt resistance genes in insects behave differently than scientists had thought. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) - BT: Another study showed that Bt can alter the time it takes an insect to reach adulthood. That could dash the EPA's hopes that Bt-resistant insects will mate with Bt-susceptible ones and give birth to offspring still vulnerable to the chemical. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) - BT: GM plants which produce their own insecticides closely follow the pesticide paradigm, which is itself rapidly failing due to pest resistance to pesticides. Instead of the failed "one pest-one chemical" model, GE emphasizes a "one pest-one gene" approach, shown over and over again in laboratory trials to fail, as pest species rapidly adapt and develop resistance to the pesticide present in the plant. (Alstad, D.N. and D.A. Andow (1995) Managing the Evolution of Insect Resistance to Transgenic Plants. Science 268, 1894-1896. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - BT: Not only will the new GM varieties fail over the short-to-medium term, despite so-called voluntary resistance management schemes (Mallet, J. and P. Porter (1992) Preventing insect adaptations to insect resistant crops: are seed mixtures or refugia the best strategy? Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. Biol. Sci. 250. 165-169 As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA), but in the process may render useless the natural pesticide "Bt," which is relied upon by organic farmers and others desiring to reduce chemical dependence. Bt crops violate the basic and widely accepted principle of "integrated pest management" (IPM), which is that reliance on any single pest management technology tends to trigger shifts in pest species or the evolution of resistance through one or more mechanisms (NRC l996). (National Research Council (1996) Ecologically Based Pest Management. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - BT: When the product is engineered into the plant itself, pest exposure leaps from minimal and occasional to massive and continuous exposure, dramatically accelerating resistance. (Gould, F. (1994) Potential and Problems with High- Dose Strategies for Pesticidal Engineered Crops. Biocontrol Science and Technology 4, 451-461. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - BT: Bt will rapidly become useless, both as a feature of the new seeds and as an old standby sprayed when needed by farmers that want out of the pesticide treadmill. (Pimentel, D., M.S. Hunter, J.A. LaGro, R.A. Efroymson, J.C. Landers, F.T. Mervis, C.A. McCarthy and A.E. Boyd (1989) Benefits and Risks of genetic Engineering in Agriculture.BioScience 39, 606-614. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) + BT: Resistance has already been observed in Hawaii where dusts containing Bt spores were repeatedly applied onto the same field (up to 15X in one year). So, resistance development is not unique to GE. - BT: Expressing the Bt toxin in the plant is the fastest way to develop resistance, because it releases the toxin 24 hours a day, in all parts of the plant, whether there is infestation or not. This is like spraying daily whether there is a pest or not, or taking antibiotics daily, whether you are sick or not. If true, the Hawaii case stresses the need to use insect control measures sparingly, only when they are really needed. 2.2.5. CLAIM: BT IS NOT HARMFUL TO NON-TARGET SPECIES + BT: The Bt toxin will not harm non-target species. - BT: Iowa researchers have found Bt corn pollen deadly to monarch butterflies. First, the Iowa study determined the amount of corn pollen deposited on A. syriaca leaves within and adjacent to a Bt corn field at 0 m, 1m, and 3m. The highest levels of pollen deposition was found on plants within the corn field, and lowest levels found at three meters from the edge of the corn field. Leaf samples taken from within and at the edge of the corn field were used to assess mortality of first instar monarch, D. plexippus exposed Bt and non-Bt corn pollen. Within 48 hours, there was 19% mortality in the Bt corn pollen treatment compared to 0% on non-Bt corn pollen exposed plants and 3% in the no pollen controls. (See: "Non-target effects of Bt corn pollen on the Monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae)" by L. Hansen, Iowa State University, Ames , IA 50011 and J. Obrycki, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011. (Contact e-mail: [email protected]) - BT: Cornell University researchers, in a letter to the journal Nature, May 20 issue, reported that pollen from Bt corn harmed monarch butterfly larvae in laboratory tests. In the Cornell study, one group of monarch (Danaus plexippus) caterpillars fed on milkweed (Asclepias curassavica) leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn, another group fed on milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from non-GE corn, and a third group fed on leaves without added pollen. The researchers found that the caterpillars that ate leaves with pollen from the Bt corn ate less, grew more slowly and died sooner. Results were similar to those reported earlier by Hansen and Obrycki (http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/d81.html) who used leaves collected in corn fields. The Cornell researchers (Losey, Rayor and Carter, who can be contacted at [email protected]) collected pollen and applied it to lab-raised milkweed leaves. (See: Losey, J.J.E., L.S. Rayor and M.E. Carter (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399: 214) - BT: Concerns over impact on birds that feed on insects targetted by Bt crops like the skylark, linnet and corn bunting in the UK. - BT: Bt crops have a negative effect on Chrysoperla carnea, a beneficial insect, based on three studies by A. Hilbeck, M. Baumgartner, et. al. of the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture. The green lacewings suffered reproductive problems and reduced longevity. (See: Hilbeck, A., Baumbartner, M., Fried, P.M. and F. Bigler, 1998. Effects of transgenic Bt corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 27:480-487, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999)) - BT: Still other studies suggest that Bt corn may be inadvertently killing beneficial insects such as ladybugs and lacewings, which eat insect pests. If true, then the insecticidal crops may be giving reprieves to as many insect pests as they are killing. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) - BT: Beneficial insects that feed on insect prey reared on transgenic insect-resistant crops exhibited increased mortality and reduced developmental time (See: Birch, A N.E., Geoghegan, I.E., Majerus, M.E.N., Hackett, C., and J. Allen. 1996/7, Interactions between plant resistance genes, pest aphid populations and beneficial aphid predators. Scottish Crop Research Institute Annual Report, 1996/7: 68-72, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999) Researchers led by Dr. Nicholas Birch of the Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee, fed GE GNA potato to aphids, which were in turn fed to ladybird beetles. The ladybirds' lives were shortened by up to half the expected life-span, and their fertility and egg-laying was significantly reduced. Females were apparently affected more seriously than males and a change of diet to aphids not exposed to GE plants seemed to reverse the process. Potato aphids were fed to adult two-spot ladybirds for 12 days, before switching back to non-GE diet. Female ladybirds fed with GE-affected aphids died on the average after 36 days, compared with the 74 days of those in a control group fed on aphids not exposed to a GE diet. The study was published in the scientific journal Molecular Breeding. (See: Guardian, London, 4 Mar 1999) * Butterfly populations are at an almost 30-year low in the Sacramento Valley, adjacent foothills and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, researchers say. Entomologists find the data particularly worrisome because the decline is so widespread and there is no clear reason for it. Some species that typically are very common - including orange sulphur butterflies - have been almost absent in the region this year. A few varieties were up in numbers, but the overall trend was way, way down. ``In all candor, I don't understand this,'' said Arthur Shapiro, an entomologist at the University of California at Davis. ``Many more species are down than up. If this were the stock market, investors would be worried.'' Monarchs, large orange-and-black migratory butterflies that are among the most easily identified of insects, also declined. At Natural Bridges State Beach in Aptos (Santa Cruz County), where Northern California monarchs winter, 14,000 butterflies were counted, down from an average of about 60,000. Shapiro said there is no evidence linking California monarch declines with GM crops. Shapiro said there is no apparent reason for the decline. ``Pesticide use patterns haven't really changed and recent habitat loss hasn't been sufficient to account for this,'' he said. ``Nothing has really changed that can explain these oddities, unless something subtle is going on that has finally reached a threshold level.'' (Glen Martin, San Francisco Chronicle, 22 December 1999) - Shapiro's response in the above case of crashing butterfly populations shows how some scientists can totally miss the obvious. Bt toxin kills lepidopterans, butterflies are lepidopterans. Since 1997, millions of acres of field have been planted with Bt corn. How can Shapiro say that "there is no evidence" linking these declines to GM crops, or that "nothing has really changed that can explain these oddities"? At least, he should point out the Bt crops are one possible cause, and this should be explored further. 2.2.6. CLAIM: GE-CROPS HAVE NO HARMFUL EFFECT ON SOIL ECOLOGY + BT: Bt toxin from GE-plants is very short-lived in soil (Eric Sachs of Monsanto, in response to a question re impacts of Bt corn on soil microbial community, 18 Jun 1999 EPA-USDA Bt corn workshop, as cited by Charles Benbrook) - BT: GE crops are building up Bt toxins in the soil, damaging the soil food web and harming beneficial insects. (Gene Exchange, Union of Concerned Scientsts, Fall/Winter 1998) - BT: New York University researchers found out that unlike natural Bt toxin, the active toxin produced by Bt crops do not disappear when added to soil, but become rapidly bound to soil particles, and are not broken down by soil microbes. The researchers contend that these GE Bt toxins can build up in the soil, killing Bt-sensitive soil organisms and increasing selection pressure for resistance to develop. In addition, a broader range of organisms is likely to be susceptible to the active, GE toxins. (See: Seedling, Mar 1999, Vol 16 No 1) - BT: "Bound humic acid-toxin complexes were toxic to larvae of the tobacco hornwork (Manduca sexta). The lethal concentration necessary to kill 50% of the larvae (LC50) of the bound toxin was comparable with that of the free toxin, indicating that the binding of the toxin to humic acids did not affect insecticidal activity... The result of these studies indicate that the toxins from B. thuringiensis introduced in transgenic plants and microbes could persist, accumulate, and remain insecticidal in soil as a result of binding to humic acids, as well as on clays, as previously described. This persistence could pose a hazard to non-target organisms and enhance the selection of toxin-resistant target species." (See: C.Crecchio and G.Stotzky 1998. Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki bound to humic acids from soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 463-470). See also: J. Koskella and G. Stotzky, "Microbial Utilization of Free and Clay-Bound Insecticidal Activity after Incubation with Microbes," Applied and Env. Microbiology, Sep 1997: 3561-3568. See further: H. Tapp and G. Stotzky, "Persistence of the Insecticidal Toxin from Bt subsp. Kurstaki in Soil," Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Vol 30 No 4 1998: 471-476.) - BT: Bt toxin present in crop foliage plowed under after harvest can adhere to soil colloids for up to 3 months, negatively affecting the soil invertebrate populations that break down organic matter and play other ecological roles. (See: Donnegan, K.K., C.J. Palm, V.J. Fieland, L.A. Porteous, L.M. Ganis, D.L. Scheller and R.J. Seidler (1995) Changes in levels, species, and DNA fingerprints of soil micro organisms associated with cotton expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki endotoxin. Applied Soil Ecology 2, 111-124. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) (See also: Palm, C.J., D.L. Schaller, K.K. Donegan and R.J. Seidler (1996) Persistence in Soil of Transgenic Plant Produced Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kustaki (-endotoxin. Canadian Journal of Microbiology (in press). As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - BT: DNA released from living and dead cells can persist in the environment and be transferred to other organisms. An organism may be dead, but its "naked" DNA released from decaying cells may remain biologically active for potentially thousands years, especially in certain soils and marine sediments. (30) Naked DNA (nucleic acids) ingested by mice can be transferred to offspring and be voided and spread in animals' feces. (2) (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037) - BT: Studies Note Risks of GM Plants: Dr. Guenther Stotzky, soil microbiologist at New York University, has found that Bt toxin in the soil, as it might be found after a crop is plowed under, can remain active for at least eight months. "We were surprised," Dr. Stotzky said. "I'm sure it hangs around longer. We just terminated the experiment after eight months." - Ethanol-producing GE microbes had adverse effects on wheat plants grown on sandy soil (Holmes, M.T., Ingham, E.R. Doyle, J.D. and C.W.Hendricks. 1998. Effects of Klebsiella planticola SDF20 on soil biota and wheat growth in sandy soil. Applied Soil Ecology 326:1-12, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999) - BT: The Dec. 2 issue of the scientific journal Nature describes a study which indicates that Bt toxins from GE crops are leaching into the soil through the plants' root systems, damaging or killing beneficial soil microorganisms, and disrupting the soil food web. The report also documents that Bt toxins bind with soil particles for up to 243 days and remain toxic to soil insects for long periods of time. This study comes in the aftermath of other research indicating a hazardous buildup of Bt toxins in the soil after Bt crops are plowed under. The Nature study fuels the fire of a growing movement to ban all Bt crops because of their documented damage to the environment and their threat to organic agriculture. Last February the Center for Food Safety, Greenpeace, and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements filed a lawsuit in US Federal Court to force all Bt crops off the market. See: (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999) - BT: Dr. Charles Benbrook (former member of the National Academy of Sciences and head of Benbrook Consulting Services): "What goes on underground in a field planted with today's Bt-corn varieties is largely a mystery. Enhance the toxin levels 100- to 1,000-fold and it becomes a mystery of some consequence and immediacy." (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999) 2.2.10. OTHERS 2.3. CLAIM: GE RISKS CAN BE MANAGED THROUGH USUAL RISK ASSESSMENT 2.3.1 CLAIM: WE HAVE ASSESSED THE RISKS FROM GE-CROPS AS MINIMAL - In fact methods for risk assessment of transgenic crops are not well developed. (Kjellsson, G and V. Simonsen (1994) Methods for risk assessment of transgenic plants, p. 214. Birkhauser Verlag, Basil. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - There is also justifiable concern that current field biosafety tests tell little about potential environmental risks associated with commercial-scale production of GE crops. (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999) + The benefits of GE outweigh the risks. - Assessing risk means to anticipate the various potentially harmful events that can occur, and totaling the probability of each event multiplied by the consequence of that event. This means an event of low probability can still be very risky if its consequences are very serious. For GE organisms, we still lack the knowledge to anticipate many of the harmful events, or to measure their probability or consequences. - Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics at Harvard University: "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another." (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech) - Funds for research on environmental risk assessment are very limited. For example, the USDA spends only 1% of the funds allocated to biotechnology research on risk assessment, about $1-2 million per year. Given the current level of deployment of GE plants, such resources are not enough to even discover the "tip of the iceberg". (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999) - Risks increase as the GE organisms that carry them multiply. Unlike oil spills, chemical releases or nuclear leaks, which eventually dissipate, living GE organisms reproduce and multiply, and they cannot be recalled once released. - The British Medical Association urged that: the precautionary principle should be applied in developing GM crops or foodstuffs, as we cannot at present know whether there are any serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in producing GM crops or consuming food products. (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999) + There is no such thing as zero risk or 100% safety. Everything involves some risk. - We are not looking for zero risk or 100% safety. But we must first objectively assess the actual risk from a GE product, so that the public or whoever will be at risk can decide for themselves if they want to be exposed to that risk or not. This decision cannot be made the scientists or experts alone. Risk is the product of the probability of an event and the cost of its consequences, if it occurs. Today, we do not know enough about the potentially harmful events that can occur from GE products, nor their probability of occuring or the cost of their occurence. We simply know very little today. This justifies holding off field releases until the public has enough information to decide. 2.3.2. CLAIM: GE IS LIKE ANY OTHER TOOL WHOSE RISKS CAN BE MANAGED - GE is not like any other tool. It is a technology of incredible power to disrupt the very basis of life on Earth. Most risk assessments assume well-intentioned genetic engineers. Very little public debate has occurred regarding the risks associated with GMOs that may be created by ill- or evil-intentioned technologists with access to typical university biotech labs. - Joseph Rotblat, the British physicist who won a 1995 Nobel Prize: "My worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of mass destruction, maybe more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible area, because of these dreadful developments that are taking place there." (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech on the SANET list) 2.3.10. OTHERS 2.10. OTHERS 3. SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS: GE TECHNOLOGIES ARE BASED ON SOUND SCIENCE 3.1. CLAIM: THERE IS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON THE SAFETY OF GE PRODUCTS - There is no scientific consensus at all. In fact, the scientific debate on various issues has intensified, with some scientists insisting that GE crops are safe, other scientists insisting that we do not know for sure at this time because of lack of scientific studies, and an increasing number of scientists insisting they are not safe. - Statement by scientists: We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products; for patents on life-forms and living processes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all. ... The hazards of GM crops and products to biodiversity and human and animal health are now becoming apparent, and some even acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments. In particular, the horizontal spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes from GM crops will compromise the treatment of life-threatening infectious diseases which have come back worldwide. New findings show that the horizontal spread of transgenic DNA can occur, not only by ingestion but via breathing in pollen and dust. The cauliflower mosaic viral promoter, widely used in GM crops, may enhance horizontal gene transfer and has the potential to generate new viruses that cause diseases. (Signed: 231 scientists from 31 countries, 14 Dec 1999) - Here are some highly respected scientists who have taken a position against GE and its risks: -- Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist, medical doctor, and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University has become one of the best-known figures of food science since his prediction of the BSE (mad cow disease) crisis, made more than seven years ago. Recently Professor Lacey has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods, because of the essentially unlimited health risks." "The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction." (From: Protect Organic! Campaign [email protected] (617) 661-5609) -- Professor Mae-Wan Ho of the UK Open University Department of Biology says, "Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as inside cells. These vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has' long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of the organism." (From: Protect Organic! Campaign [email protected] (617) 661-5609) -- Professor Dennis Parke of University of Surrey School of Biological Sciences, a former chief advisor on food safety to Unilever Corporation and British advisor to the US FDA on safety aspects of biotechnology writes: "In l98 hundreds of people in Spain died after consuming adulterated rapeseed (canola) oil. This adulterated rapeseed oil was not toxic to rats." Dr. Parke warns that current testing procedures for genetically altered foods including rodent tests- are not proving safety for humans. He has suggested a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered organisms, foods, and medicines. (From: Protect Organic! Campaign [email protected] (617) 661-5609) -- Dr. Peter Wills, theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes "Genes encode proteins involved in the control of virtually all biological processes. By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for eons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can, under certain circumstances, be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease."' (From: Protect Organic! Campaign [email protected] (617) 661-5609) -- Dr. Joseph Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario warns: "Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses -from such constructions'. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus meaning that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power." (From: Protect Organic! Campaign [email protected] (617) 661-5609) -- Dr. John Fagan, an award-winning microbiologist and cancer researcher, Professor of Microbiology at Maharishi University of Management, has renounced $3 million in US government research grants to publicize the dangers of misuse of biotechnology. He advocates a science-based precautionary approach requiring the labeling of all novel foods. He says "without labeling it will be very difficult for scientists to trace the source of new illness caused by genetically engineered food." (From: Protect Organic! Campaign [email protected] (617) 661-5609) 3.2. CLAIM: PRO-GE SCIENTISTS ARE OBJECTIVE AND MOTIVATED BY PURE SCIENCE - Some 90% of GE research is funded by the biotech industry. (Data from Terje Traavik, University of Tromso, Norway) 3.3. CLAIM: STUDIES WHICH HIGHLIGHT UNSAFE ASPECTS OF GE ARE FLAWED - An increasing number of researches, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, are raising concerns about the safety of GE crops. Instead of doing more scientific research to confirm these findings, the biotech industry is instead engaging in a dishonest media campaign to malign and discredit independent scientists. 3.3.1. CLAIM: PUSZTAI'S LECTIN POTATO STUDY IS FLAWED SO IT IS RIGHT TO SACK HIM - Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a world-reknowned expert on lectins, had began a #1.6-million study which indicated that a GE-potato diet weakened rats' immune systems and adversely affected the animals' internal organs. When he shared with the media (with his superior's permission) some of his concerns, Pusztai was promptly sacked from his research post. His papers were confiscated, he was prohibited from talking to the media, and his research team was closed down. - Some 20 scientists from 13 countries issued a statement deploring the harsh treatment by Scotland's Rowett Research Institute of world-renowned British researcher and lectin expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai and demanding his reinstatement. (See: ) - In April last year [1998], a scientist, Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely announced on television that experiments had shown intestinal changes in rats caused by eating GE potatoes. He said he would not eat such modified foods himself and that it was "very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guineapigs". A storm of publicity overtook Pusztai. He was removed from his job, a sacrifice that did not quell public alarm in the UK or in Europe. Last week (May 22, p1769 ) we reported that the Royal Society had reviewed what it could of Pusztai and colleagues' evidence and found it flawed, a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work. (See: The Lancet, Vol 353 No 9167, 29 May 1999, "Health risks of genetically modified foods") - Monsanto Funded the Rowett Research Institute: The Institute that sacked and alienated Arpad Pusztai over his GE research received a sum of PST 140 000 before the controversy blew up. Monsanto's media adviser claims the money was granted to the Institute's Dairy Business Group research. After initially supporting the findings disclosed by Pusztai on British television last year, the Institute sacked him and accused him of scientific inaccuracy and bumbling. (Source: Mail on Sunday, 13/2/99) - Despite the publication of Pusztai's research in the Oct 1999 issue of the Lancet, pro-biotech advocates continue to repeat the industry lie that his research as "flawed". - Thanks to the courageous example of Dr. Arpad Pusztai and other independent researchers, an increasing number of scientists are coming out with their research results, which are not necessarily favorable to the biotech industry. 3.3.2. CLAIM: HILBECK'S GREEN LACEWING STUDY IS FLAWED - Hilbeck's study was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. (See: Hilbeck, A., Baumbartner, M., Fried, P.M. and F. Bigler, 1998. Effects of transgenic Bt corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 27:480-487) 3.3.3. CLAIM: LOSEY'S MONARCH BUTTERFLY STUDY IS FLAWED - Losey's research was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Losey warned that their lab findings should not be automatically extrapolated to field conditions. This simply means that field studies must also be done. Why were these studies not done before millions of acres were planted with Bt corn? (See: Losey, J.J.E., L.S. Rayor and M.E. Carter (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399: 214) 3.3.4. CLAIM: STOTZKY'S BT TOXIN SOIL PERSISTENCE STUDY IS FLAWED -Stotzky's studies on the soil persistence of both the natural Bt toxin and the Bt corn toxin were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (See: C.Crecchio and G.Stotzky 1998. Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki bound to humic acids from soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 463-470). See also: J. Koskella and G. Stotzky, "Microbial Utilization of Free and Clay-Bound Insecticidal Activity after Incubation with Microbes," Applied and Env. Microbiology, Sep 1997: 3561-3568. See further: H. Tapp and G. Stotzky, "Persistence of the Insecticidal Toxin from Bt subsp. Kurstaki in Soil," Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Vol 30 No 4 1998: 471-476.) 3.3.5. CLAIM: MAE WAN HO'S ANTI-GE STAND IS UNSCIENTIFIC - Ho's warnings against the use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter and the danger of horizontal gene transfer have recently been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (See: Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan, and Joseph Cummins, "Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promotor - A recipe for Disaster?", Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (Dec 1999). - The biotech industry should stop maligning independent researchers simply because their results raise concerns about commercial products. 3.3.10. OTHERS 3.4. CLAIM: GE-FOODS HAVE UNDERGONE THOROUGH SCIENTIFIC TESTS + GE food is extensively tested and the GE food at present on our supermarket shelves is perfectly safe to eat. GE foods have been one of the most thoroughly tested foods in history. - The US FDA does not require testing, just assurances from the GE food manufacturer that the product is safe. Glickman acknowledged that none of the agencies responsible for the safety of GM foods - USDA, FDA or Environmental Protection Agency - had enough staff or resources to conduct such testing. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999) - While Glickman stressed that most studies had indicated that there were no known health risks to consumers, he said no long-term studies had been conducted - one of the central arguments made by Europeans. In the past few years members of the EU have refused to import many products that contain GE ingredients. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999) - No GE food testing is done in America. We rely almost entirely on the testing carried out by the GE biotech firms that have spent billions of dollars developing the food and intend to make a profit selling it to us. There are serious doubts about the adequacy of the testing and the validity of the conclusions drawn from the results. Independent long-term testing is required before we can be sure that GE food is safe to eat. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech on the SANET list) + In 1996, only one GE-food feeding test had been published - done by Monsanto (no harmful effects observed) (See: ) + BT: A feeding study on broiler chickens by a Novartis researcher was published 1998 (no harmful effects observed) Abstract: "A 38-d feeding study evaluated whether standard broiler diets prepared with transgenic Event 176-derived "Bt" corn (maize) grain had any adverse effects on male or female broiler chickens as compared to diets prepared with nontransgenic (isogenic) control corn grain. No statistically significant differences in survival or BW were observed between birds reared on mash or pelleted diets prepared with transgenic corn and similar diets prepared using control corn. Broilers raised on diets prepared from the transgenic corn exhibited significantly better feed conversion rations and improved yield of the Pectoralis minor breast muscle. Although it is not clear whether this enhanced performance was attributable to the transgenic corn per se, or due to possible slight differences in overall composition of the formulated diets, it was clear that the transgenic corn had no deleterious effects in this study." The authors also wrote that "to our knowledge, this is the first published large-scale feeding study of transgenic corn." (See: J.Brake (NCSU) and D.Vlachos (Novartis), "Evaluation of Transgenic Event 176 Bt corn in Broiler Chickens," 1998, Poultry Science 77:648-6??) + BT: The Bt toxin is safe to mammals, as confirmed by rat feeding experiments. Unlike the gut of target insects, the mammallian gut has no receptors which the toxin can bind to. - Pusztai's rat study on GE potatoes with the GNA lectin published October 1999 - the only independent study so far - observed some harmful effects (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999) (http:) - No feeding studies had been done on swine or cattle (major consumers of GE-corn and -soya), primates, or human volunteers - No study on the long-term effects of GE-food had been done - Studies of their effects in combination with other toxins or with conventional chemicals are non-existent (See:) (http:) + Millions of Americans are already buying GE food and nobody has gotten sick eating them. + Dr. Prakash adds that every aisle of the supermarket now has GM corn and soybean derived products, from soaps and baby foods to Coke, which contains GE high fructose corn syrup. And all the products have been widely consumed for about two years, with no apparent ill health effects reported. (Dr. C.S. Prakash, a geneticist and professor of biotechnology at Tuskegee University in Tuskegee, Ala.) - The feeding of GE-food to the American population is not a scientific experiment but a criminal act of doing uncontrolled experiments on human subjects without their knowledge or consent. It is not possible to determine from the uncontrolled feeding of unlabelled GE-foods to Americans how much foods have contributed to the greater incidence of allergies, emergence of new or more virulent pathogens, or higher cancer rates. 3.10. OTHERS 4. ECONOMIC CLAIMS: GE-CROPS ARE ECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE - Summary: Based on the actual experience after the 1999 harvests of U.S. farmers who planted GE crops, it is now clear that the market considers GE crops as undesirable contaminants. If mixed with a non-GE batch, that batch will be considered contaminated and cannot be sold in some markets or will fetch a lower price in other markets. Consumers want GE-free foods, more and more firms are going GE-free, and GE-imports are banned in some countries. Why plant an undesirable contaminant? Why let a neighbor plant an undesirable contaminant which can cross-pollinate and contaminate your own crops? 4.1. CLAIM: GE-CROPS WILL INCREASE YIELDS - On the whole, GE crops do not lead to higher yields and in many occasions, they have in fact produced lower yields. - Dr. Charles Benbrook presented evidence that farmers who use Monsanto's RoundUp Ready soybeans are getting lower yields than farmers using conventional soybeans. (See: Campaign on Food Safety News #20, 14 Jul 1999) - Some researchers have shown that none of the GE seeds significantly increase the yield of crops. Indeed, in more than 8,200 field trials, the Roundup Ready seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than similar natural varieties, according to a study by Dr. Charles Benbrook, the former director of the Board on Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences. (Peter Rosset, "World Hunger: Twelve Myths") - Recent experimental trials have shown that GE seeds do not increase the yield of crops. A recent study by the USDA Economic Research Service shows that in 1998 yields were not significantly different in GE versus non-GE crops in 12 of 18 crop/region combinations. In the six crop/region combinations were Bt crops or HRCs fared better, they exhibited increased yields between 5-30%. Glyphosphate tolerant cotton showed no significant yield increase in either region where it was surveyed. This was confirmed in another study examining more than 8,000 field trials, where it was found that Roundup Ready soybean seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than similar conventionally bred varieties (United States Department of Agriculture (1999) Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management. USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - Dr Will McCarty, University of Mississippi Extension Service Cotton specialist: "Before you plant transgenic varieties, be sure you need the value-added trait. Also evaluate the yields of varieties with the transgenic trait you desire, and study the risk and benefit ratio, if any. In other words, if you feel you need to plant Bt and the variety does not or has not yielded well for you or in your area, consider the risk of not using it and the potential cost of additional insect control versus potential yield loss to planting it. The same can be said for a transgenic variety for herbicide tolerance. Before you pay extra for the convenience of using a particular herbicide over-the-top, be sure the variety fits your farm and will yield well. .... Also, transgenic varieties may not perform as well as did their parents. Just because you have had good experience with a particular variety does not mean you will have the same results with a transgenic version." (Agronomy Notes, 5 Oct 1999) - Dr Alan Blaine, soya bean specialist, University of Mississippi extension service: "The vast majority of the problems soybean growers have encountered over the last couple of years have been on relatively new varieties. Instead of taking 6 to 8 generations for a variety to reach the market, we are seeing varieties blown up and put on the market in probably 3 to 4 generations. It is this trend that has caused many of you to experience poor performance from many new varieties. Steer away from planting a variety just because someone tells you how good it is. Prove it to yourself and this should be done with no less than 2 years of yield test data. Variations in growing conditions cause varietal differences to be expressed, and 1999 really exposed some potential weakness in several varieties." (Agronomy Notes, 5 Nov 1999) -- Studies at the Department of Entomology, Ohio State University by Hal Wilson indicate no yield difference between Bt and non-Bt lines. At their Northwestern Station, 3 non-Bt maize hybrids averaged corn borer injury of 1.08 cavities per plant compared to 0.55 the previous week at the Western Station. In 1997 trials at the Northwestern Station, injury in non-Bt maize averaged 1.66 cavities per plant, with no significant difference in yields between the Bt and the equivalent non-Bt maize. This is their third year of comparison trials. Over this 3-year period, corn borer injury per non-Bt plant has averaged 0.54 cavities at the Western Station and 0.74 at the Northwestern Station. The results accumulated to date raise questions about the economic benefits of Bt-maize hybrids if such technology must be purchased at premium prices. (AgBiotecNet Oct 99) 4.2. CLAIM: GE CROPS WILL REDUCE FARMERS' COSTS AND RAISE THEIR INCOME - GE seeds cost 20-30% higher than conventional seeds. + BT: Bt corn will result in lower pesticide costs. - BT: This is offset by the higher seed costs, by the need to maintain 20-40% of the field as sacrificial refugia for non-resistant corn borers, and the lower market price of GE corn. - Farmers incur higher costs to segregate GE from conventional crops. - Because of risks associated with GE crops insurance companies in the USA and UK are now reluctant to insure them. This can raise insurance costs. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech on the SANET list) - Surveyors warned yesterday that farmers who plant GM crops could see their land values fall, and that tenants of such land might face bills to make up the shortfall. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) called for the creation of a land register through which potential buyers, and banks, could find out if and when GM crops had been planted or grown on a particular holding. However, the RICS report, sent to the Government's Office of Science and Technology and other departments, warned that growing such crops might lower the value of the land. In the case of tenant farmers, a landlord could, in effect, sue for any shortfall in land value caused by the tenant growing GM crops. (INDEPENDENT, London, 12 Mar 1999) - Farmers growing GE crops have to sign binding contracts with the biotechnology producers. These commit them to using only the herbicides produced by that company and prohibit them from the traditional practice of saving seed for the next season. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech on the SANET list) - HT: The integration of the seed and chemical industries appears destined to accelerate increases in per acre expenditures for seeds plus chemicals, delivering significantly lower returns to growers. Companies developing herbicide tolerant crops are trying to shift as much per acre cost as possible from the herbicide onto the seed via seed costs and/or technology charges. Increasingly price reductions for herbicides will be limited to growers purchasing technology packages. In Illinois, the adoption of herbicide resistant crops makes for the most expensive soybean seed-plus-weed management system in modern history -between $40.00 and $60.00 per acre depending on rates, weed pressure, etc. Three years ago, the average seed-plus-weed control costs on Illinois farms was $26 per acre, and represented 23% of variable costs; today they represent 35-40% (Benbrook l999). (Benbrook, C. l999 World food system challenges and opportunities: GMOs, biodiversity and lessons from America's heartland (unpub. manuscript). As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) Many farmers are willing to pay for the simplicity and robustness of the new weed management system, but such advantages may be short-lived as ecological problems arise. -- The National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), consisting of farm, conservation and rural advocacy groups from 33 U.S. states, has launched a 9-point petition titled "Farmers' Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture." It identified the ff impacts of GE: increased economic uncertainty among farmers; loss of critical markets; loss of farmer independence due to corporate control of the seed supply; impure products due to genetic drift; social and economic disruption. In their 9-point petition, U.S. farmers demanded: a suspension of approval and releases of GE seeds and agriculture products until their comprehensive impacts are independently assessed; liability by corporate agribusiness for damages from GE crops and livestock; that GE firms bear the burden of proof of safety as well as bear the cost of an independent review. (Email: [email protected]) - Because consumers don't want GE-food, GE crops fetch a lower price in the market; some markets will even reject them. Non-GE crops now receive a premium and as more countries reject GE foods, the opportunities to sell GE produce overseas are diminishing. -- In summary, GE crops may in some cases increase yields slightly. However, in the case of Bt crops, 20-40% of the fields have to be sacrificed as refugia. Furthermore, the seeds will cost some 20-30% higher, and the harvest may have to be sold at a lower price as more and more companies try to keep their products GE-free in response to consumer demand. As Deutsche Bank said, GE crops are bound to be losers, economics-wise. 4.3. CLAIM: CONSUMERS WANT GE-FOODS - Opinion polls consistently show that more than 90% of Americans support the labeling of GE foods. A 1999 Time poll revealed that close to 60% would avoid such foods if they were labeled. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999) - "Ag Biotech: Thanks, But No Thanks?" - that was the title of a July 1999 report of investment analysts Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell of the Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, the largest investment firm in the world. The two said they were "willing to believe that GMO crops are safe," but they warned that the "no thanks" attitude "appears to be in the lead in Europe and could easily become the thought process in the United States as well." Earlier, three analysts from the same company had sent investors a report entitled "GMOs Are Dead," advising them to sell their Pioneer Hi-Bred stocks. - In Britain, for example, where GE food labeling is required, poll results last March [1999] showed that nine out of 10 shoppers would switch supermarkets and travel considerable distances to avoid such food. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999) - Some 86% of consumers questioned in a poll for Here's Health magazine said they would switch to a different supermarket if it banned all GE products. On top of this, 84% of the same sample of 1,030 shoppers said they would be willing to travel double the distance it normally takes to visit their supermarket if they could be sure of shopping in a GM-free environment. (The Press Association, 10 Mar 1999) - More than 100 chefs and food writers launched a campaign to oppose "freakish" GM food yesterday. Antonio Carluccio, Antony Worrall Thompson, Fay Maschler and Annie Bell, food writer for The Independent, were among those who pledged to secure a ban on the release of all GM organisms into the food chain. In a joint statement, they said: "As food professionals we object to the introduction of [GM] foods into the food chain. This is imposing a genetic experiment on the public, which could have unpredictable and irreversible adverse consequences. " In a recent Mori poll, 61 per cent of respondents said they would not be happy to eat GM food. (INDEPENDENT, London, 27 Jan 1999) - Washington, D.C.: Citing major deficiencies in the government's regulatory system, a coalition of environmentalists and scientists issued a document today calling for the suspension of all further releases of GMOs. The Pacific Declaration was first drafted at a national meeting on July 26-28, 1999 at the Commonweal Conference Center in Bolinas, California. The Declaration cites the failure of governmental agencies to review the long-term prospects for environmental and human harm stemming from GMOs. Among the groups endorsing the Declaration are the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the American Corn Growers Association, Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Council for Responsible Genetics, the Edmonds Institute, and the Center for Ethics and Toxics (CETOS). (CETOS press statement, 12 Oct 1999) - SEOUL, Sept 9 (Reuters) - The Korea Consumer Protection Board said last Thursday its survey had found that 94.7 percent of the total 526 survey respondents said labelling for GM foods was necessary - 71.5 percent said all the time and 23.2 percent in some cases. (Reuters, 9 Sep 1999) - The ff U.S. organizations have asked for the suspension of all further releases of GMOs: Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the American Corn Growers Association, Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Council for Responsible Genetics, the Edmonds Institute, and the Center for Ethics and Toxics (CETOS). (CETOS press release, 12 Oct 1999) - Australian farmers reject GE: "That the Federation oppose the release of 'Genetic Modification' of both livestock and other farm produce and that we continue to promote R&D of those products by natural means." (Western Australian Farmers Federation, Rural Press Report, 15 Sep 1999) - California Labeling Initiative: California volunteers are gathering signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would require GE foods labeling. The initiative would require labeling of "crops and livestock containing genetic material transferred from one species to another or other DNA modifications not commonly possible under natural conditions, such as cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, and induced sequence or encapsulation variations." To qualify for the Nov 2000 ballot, 413,000 valid California voter signatures are needed by February 20. If such initiative passes, implications for the rest of the country are huge. Food firms which are not GE-free would need to add labels if they wanted to do business in our most populated state. Legislation on GE foods is also being considered in New York, Vermont and Minnesota in the next year. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999) - U.S.: More than 30 farm groups in the U.S., representing tens of thousands of farmers, have warned their members they are risking their livelihoods if they plant GE crops, because these had become so unpopular with consumers. "Export markets in Europe and Asia are saying 'no' to foods produced from GM crops and farmers know they have to respond to consumer demand if they are to survive," Gary Goldberg, head of the American Corn Growers Assoc., said. He predicted that 25% fewer GM crops would be planted next year in US fields, based on talks with farmers and local seed company salesmen. "We believe that farmers in mass exodus are moving away from planting GM crops next year," he said. The farmers' main concern is that growing consumer demand for traditional seed varieties will create a two-tier market in which GM products will fall in price. Farmers have said they are concerned about paying premium prices for GM seeds and then finding they can't sell their crops. Grain dealer Jerry Bertrand said: "I can't tell them with certainty that I'll take their GM corn and soya next year because I don't know if there'll be a market for it." The farm groups also warned that inadequate testing of GM seeds could make farmers vulnerable to massive lawsuits if the seeds were later found to have negative environmental effects. Some European countries have banned American maize and soya shipments because US authorities cannot guarantee they only contain EU-approved varieties. The US says this has cost it approximately $200m in maize sales alone over the past two years, and will raise the issue with the WTO. (24 Nov 1999) 4.4. CLAIM: COMPANIES ARE SHIFTING TO GE-FOODS - With more and more major food retailers, restaurants, and processors in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Scandinavia, the UK, and other nations going "GE-free" a tremendous market now exists for certified "non-GE" and organic products. - GM-free feed cannot meet rising demand: Not enough non-GM soya or derived products are available on the international market to met growing demand for GM-free animal feed, according to [National Farmers Union]'s Dr Vernon Barber. (See The Farmer's Guardian, 15 Oct 1999, UK) - AUSTRALIA: Australian trade authorities announced Jan. 8, 1999, the largest shipment of canola (rapeseed) ever exported from Australia. The $16.5 million dollar shipment is bound for oilseed crushing plants in Europe. According to Graham Lawrence, managing director of the New South Wales Grains Board, "Europe has moved to become a major buyer this year because Australia is the only country to guarantee non-GM canola." - CANADA: The Canada press have noted continuing indecision among rapeseed (canola oil) farmers whether to plant GE rapeseed in the next growing season. Over one-half of Canada's canola crop this year is GE. Canada has lost almost a billion dollars in canola sales to Europe since the GE controversy erupted in 1997. If Japan (which is likely) and China cut back on canola purchases, Canada's rapeseed farmers will be facing economic disaster. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999) - Canada has lost $300-400 million in canola sales to Europe IN 1998 because authorities have followed the US model of co-mingling GE and non-GE grains. This year over 50% of Canada's 13.4 million acres of canola are GE. - U.S.: There have been virtually no corn exports from the US to the EU States because the GE corn cannot be separated from the rest of the crop, costing American farmers about $200 million a year. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999) - BRAZIL: Almost no US corn (nor Canadian canola oil) has being exported to the EU for the past two years because of consumer resistance. Meanwhile Brazil, where a GE ban is in effect, is exporting record-breaking amounts of soya to the EU; while Australia is exporting increasing amounts of non-GE canola to Japan. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) - U.S.: The National Corn Growers Association acknowledges that U.S. corn sales to Europe plunged from nearly 70 million bushels in 1997 to less than 3 million last year because the U.S. crop contained a small amount of GE corn. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999) - Last fall, testers in Europe detected traces of GE corn in organic corn chips made by elodi Nelson's company, Prima Terra Inc. of Hudson, Wis. Some of the corn supplied to Prima Terra from a certified organic supplier was contaminated, it turned out, with minuscule amounts of GE corn, perhaps because a few grains of GE pollen blew into the organic grower's fields from a neighboring farm. The positive test forced Prima Terra to recall 87,000 bags of chips valued at $147,000. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999) - Carlsberg to Avoid GM corn: Carlsberg AS said it will henceforth brew its beer only from malt and no longer use corn to reassure consumers of a GM-free product. (AFP, 12 Nov 1999) - The maker of Gerber baby food is dropping suppliers who use GE corn and soybean products, the company's CEO confirmed today. The move by Novartis follows a request from Greenpeace for information on the company's use of GE products. The company was evaluating their use before then, said Al Piergallini, president and CEO of its North American consumer health division, based in Summit. Novartis plans to drop some of the company's grain suppliers this summer in favor of producers who use non-GE corn and soybeans. Those ingredients account for less than 2 percent of Gerber's products, mainly dry cereal, Piergallini said. Novartis said it was turning to other suppliers anyway, and is taking its changes a step further by adding a new promise to try to use only organic - pesticide- and herbicide-free - ingredients in Gerber products. Two other baby-food makers, H.J. Heinz Co. of Pittsburgh and Poway, Calif.-based Healthy Time Natural Foods, have made similar product changes in response to Greenpeace concerns. Gerber is the nation's largest maker of baby food, producing 5.5 million jars per day and annual worldwide sales of $1 billion. (AP Online, 30 Jul 1999) - Dow Jones reported on October 5 that the Japanese futures market (where buyers pay in advance for future deliveries) for US soybeans which were harvested last year are "declining rapidly" because last year's soybeans "are mixed with large amounts of GM products." According to Dow Jones, "Japanese [grain] traders are rapidly switching to imports of GM-free soybeans." With giant importers in the EU, Japan, and other nations now demanding GE-free foods, more large transnational grain traders are expected to follow the example of Archer Daniels Midland, who announced in September they expect US farmers and grain elevators to start separating out and segregating GE from non-GE grains. Archer Daniels Midland purchases fully 1/3 of all corn, soybeans, and wheat produced in the US. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) - Europe's biggest bank has advised the world's largest investors to sell their shares in leading GMO makers because consumers do not want to buy their products. In a report sent to several thousand of the world's large institutional investors, including British pension funds, Deutsche Bank says that "growing negative sentiment" is creating problems for the leading companies, including Monsanto and Novartis. "More broadly speaking, it appears the food companies, retailers, grain processors, and governments are sending a signal to the seed producers that 'we are not ready for GMOs'." Since the report was circulated to investors, shares in companies named have fallen against a rising trend in stock markets generally and the frenzy to takeover seed companies has stopped. In the six months to yesterday Monsanto's stocks had fallen 11%, and Delta & Pine, a seed company that owns the terminator gene, which Monsanto is taking over, has lost 18% of its value. The Deutsche Bank's Washington analysts, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell, say it is nine months since they first voiced their concerns that the biotech industry was "going the way of the nuclear industry in this country, but we count ourselves surprised at how rapidly this forecast appears to be playing out. Deutsche Bank's first research report, dated May 21 and entitled GMOs Are Dead, said: "We predict that GMOs, once perceived as a bull case for this sector, will now be perceived as a pariah. "The message is a scary one - increasingly, GMOs are, or in our opinion, becoming a liability to farmers," it adds. Non-GMO grains were already gaining a premium price which would, if the trend continued, far outweigh any economic benefit in growing GMOs. GM grains would have to be sold at a discount. "Farmers who planted (Monsanto's) Roundup Ready soya could end up regretting it." It could become an "earnings nightmare" for Pioneer Hi-Bred (a company due to be taken over by the chemicals giant DuPont) and for Monsanto which is buying Delta & Pine, a stock, the bank says, not worth holding on to. The concerns of European consumers are real, concludes the report. "European consumers have recently been through the mad cow crisis, the French Aids-tainted blood crisis, the Dutch pig plague crisis, the Belgium chicken dioxin crisis, the Belgian Coca-Cola crisis, etc. Therefore hearing from unsophisticated Americans that their fears are unfounded may not be the best way of proceeding." (Paul Brown and John Vidal, GUARDIAN (London), 25 August 1999) - Monsanto, the beleaguered U.S. biotech firm, is coming under intense pressure from Wall Street analysts and professional investors in New York to dismember itself in the wake of the campaign against GM food. New York's financial community is now convinced that successful protests from consumers and environmental groups in Europe have hurt Monsanto's growth prospects and its stock market rating so badly that the only option to realise some value for investors would be some kind of sell-off. (The Guardian, 22 Oct 1999, London) - The following companies are part of the growing list of firms which have declared that they will not use GE-ingredients or sell GE-foods: - AUSTRALIA: Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd., Australia (AFX Asia, 2 Nov 1999); Sanitarium Health Food Company, Australia; Cadbury-Schweppes, Australia; Master Foods, Australia; Mars Confectionery, Australia; Wyeth, Australia; Heinz Watties Australasia - CANADA: McCain Foods, Canada's French-fries giant (Ottawa Citizen, 29 Nov 1999); - New Brunswick-based McCain Foods, the largest potato and frozen french fry processor in the world, announced they would no longer accept Monsanto's Bt potatoes for their brand-name products. The McCain decision comes in the wake of a recent highly-publicized petition by 200 scientists of Canada's own health department to Allan Rock, the Health Minister, saying they lacked sufficient staff and resources to examine potential health risks of GE foods. (Ottawa Citizen, 29 Nov 1999) - FRANCE: Carrefour (France's largest supermarket chain); - ITALY: Esselunga; - JAPAN: Nissin Food Products; Kirin Brewery; Itochu Corp, Japanese trading house; Itochu Feed Mills; Sapporo Breweries; Nippon Flour Mills; Fuji Oil Co.; Japan Tofu Association; - Major food and beverage companies in Japan have begun removing GE soybean and corn ingredients in their products. Kirin Brewery, Sapporo Breweries, Itochu Feed Mills, Nippon Flour Mills, Nissin, Fuji Oil Co., and the Japan Tofu Association, among others have decided to either ban GE ingredients completely or put a major marketing effort into sourcing and selling GE-free products. A division of Honda Motor Company announced they were building a soy-handling plant in Ohio to supply the sharply rising demand for non-GE soybeans in Japan. Interpress on Oct. 14 reported a similar move by Pioneer-Hibred Japan, who announced a major business venture to import non-GE soybeans from the US. In the same article Interpress called attention to a 1999 poll in Tokyo where "90% of those surveyed expressed deep concern over the growing trend toward biotechnology." Japan is the largest importer of food products and animal feeds in the world. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) -- Kibun Food Chemifa Co Ltd, Japan's largest soybean milk maker, said yesterday it will stop using GM ingredients in its soybean milk products by March 2000. A Kibun official said: The company will use rice bran oil instead of corn oil and sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), to remove consumer safety concerns. For soymilk, Kibun imports non-GM soybean from China. "We have decided to eliminate all the GM ingredients from soymilk products." Kibun holds 50% of Japan's soymilk market worth some 17 billion yen this year. (Reuters, 21 Dec 1999) -- Nisshin Flour Milling Co Ltd, Japan's largest flour miller, said yesterday it will stop using ingredients from GM corn and soybeans in its flour products for home use by the end of Feb 2000. A company spokesman said: The company will use wheat protein instead of soybean protein due to consumer concerns about GE food safety. "We found it difficult to secure a sufficient volume of ingredients made from non-GM corn and soybeans." Nisshin uses 2,000 tonnes of corn starch, soybean protein and soy powders annually in its flour products for home use. It is also talking to corporate clients about eliminating GM ingredients from its business-use flour products. (Reuters, 21 Dec 1999) -- Japanese corn snack maker Tohato Inc, which is now completely dependent on U.S. corn, plans to switch to corn grits made in France in order to avoid the GM label. A Tohato spokesman declined to say how much corn the company uses for corn snack production. But one trader at a Japanese trading house estimates Tohato needs 200 tonnes of corn a year. (Aya Takada, Reuters, 24 Aug 1999) - MEXICO: Grupo Maseca, Mexico's leading producer of corn flour; -- SOUTH AFRICA: Retail chain Woolworths said today it had decided to remove all known GM foods from its shelves until they were proven safe, making it the first South African retailer to take that stance. "The current situation with regard to GE food in South Africa is unsatisfactory," Woolworths said in a statement. "Woolworths have stated their intention to remove GE food from their shelves." (Reuters, 21 Dec 1999) - SWITZERLAND: Migros; - UK: Unilever, the world's largest food manufacturer (See: Independent, 28 Apr 1999); Tesco (Britains biggest supermarket chain, sales: #18.5bn) (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999); Asda, a major British supermarket chain (See: Independent, 27 Jan 1999); Kentucky Fried Chicken UK (See: Daily Mail, 23 Feb 1999); Iceland, a British frozen food specialist; Marks and Spencer, another British retail chain; Waitrose, UK; McDonald's, UK (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999); Burger King, UK (See: Daily Mail, 23 Feb 1999); United Biscuits, UK (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999); Sainsbury, UK; - U.S.: Gerber Baby Foods; Heinz; Burger King; -- U.S.: Whole Foods Market Inc. and Wild Oats Markets Inc., the two largest natural-food store chains in the U.S., plan to ban GM ingredients from their hundreds of private-label products. They would be the largest U.S. food retailers to ban GM ingredients. The Austin-based Whole Foods operates 103 stores in 22 states and Washington, D.C., and has more than 600 products carrying its brand name. Boulder, Colorado-based Wild Oats operates 110 stores in 22 states and British Columbia. It has about 700 products under its own brand. ``You're seeing more and more examples of this,'' said Frank Mitsch, an analyst with Deutsche Banc Alex Brown. (From: Brett Chase, Bloomberg/Newsroom, 30 Dec 1999) - GM food has been banned from the staff cafeteria at Monsanto Co.'s UK headquarters by the company's own caterer, Monsanto confirmed Tuesday. Granada Food Services, whose customers include Monsanto's High Wycombe office near London, recently told clients it would not supply food containing GM soya or maize due to customer concerns. Granada said the move was designed "to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve." http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2562764499-062 - Caterers at the House of Commons serve food that avoids GM ingredients "in response to the general unease about such foods expressed by significant numbers of our customers". At the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, caterers also have a policy of avoiding GM ingredients, and the European Parliament has banned them too. (Alex Kirby, BBC Online, 22 Dec 1999) 4.5. CLAIM: COUNTRIES ARE RAPIDLY ADOPTING GE-CROPS - AUSTRALIA: Australia's $14 billion farm export sector is shunning GE crops due to fears of "consumer backlash." Despite heavy biotech industry lobbying, the country has not allowed the commercialization of many GE products, including sugar cane, beer, and canola. The only GE crop grown on a large-scale in Australia is cotton. (Reuters, 15 Oct 1999) - AUSTRIA: A total ban on Bt corn, including field trials, has been imposed - BRAZIL: It grows 25% of the world's soybeans. Its Supreme Court ruled in June that Monsanto's GE soybeans (RRS) cannot be grown until the govt finalizes stringent regulations on biosafety and Monsanto completes an environmental impact statement. Farm and environment groups have made GE a major national issue. Monsanto reps admitted late-September that no RRS soybeans will be planted in 1999-2000 and that prospects for 2000-2001 planting are also in jeopardy. Analysts believe that if Brazil's ban continues for several more years (and sales to the EU of non-GE soya continue to grow), GE crops may never gain significance in the country. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) - Brazil's state of Rio Grande do Sul will launch what may be the world's first program aimed at weeding out GM crops, a state official said Tuesday. Treating GM soybeans like drug plants, the state will offer farmers a total of 10 million reals (US$5.37 million) in special low-interest loans if they rip out GM soy - illegal in Brazil - and replant normal varieties. "What we are telling them it is better to lose seedlings than lose their entire crop," said the state's agriculture secretary, Jose Hermeto Hoffmann. (Phil Stewart, Reuters, 7 Dec 1999) - EUROPE: Public opposition to GE foods is so strong that the European Union requires the labeling of all newly manufactured GE products from the U.S. The approval of new GE crops in the EU has ground to a halt. No new varieties have been approved in the last 15 months. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999) - INDIA: India's Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 23 to halt all field trials of Monsanto's Bt Cotton. The court said that no field trials can be permitted on a large scale unless the rules and guidelines are amended ensuring protection of the environment, biodiversity and human health. The court ruling was a response to the petition of Dr Vandana Shiva of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, which also calls for a 3-5 year moratorium on field releases. (See: Environmental News Service, February 23, 1999) - INDONESIA, PAKISTAN: Officials recently announced plans for more stringent safety-testing of GE imports. crops and imports. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) - ITALY: Farm Minister Paolo De Castro on Friday blocked 3 GM crops - maize, soya and chicory - that had completed testing and were ready to proceed to field planting... For the moment, De Castro has also halted all new GM testing programs. He said he wanted responsibility for the schemes to be shared by regional governments before giving the go-ahead. (Xinhua, 5 Nov 1999) - ITALY: The govt has temporarily suspended the use of 7 GM food products, a Health Ministry statement said Friday. "Following opinions from the Italian Health Institute and the Health Council, the Health Ministry will take a precautionary step, in conformity with EU regulations, to suspend temporarily the use of the substances," it said. The Health Council said the 7 GM products are maize Bt11, maize Mon 810, rapeseed oil Gt73, rapeseed oil MS1 RS1, rapeseed oil RF2 MS1, maize Mon 809 and maize T25. The ministry statement said the suspension followed complaints by environmental groups over allegedly irregular sales procedure, but the ministry gave no details and did not say how long the suspension could last. The Health Council said it was not possible to guarantee that genetic alteration of foods was safe. (Reuters World Report, 17 Dec 1999) - NORWAY, DENMARK: The governments have banned the commercialization of GM organisms and food - PARAGUAY: Its Biosafety Commission, supported by many NGOs, called on August 4 for GE-free production in Paraguay. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) -- PORTUGAL: The Agriculture Ministry suspended on 27 Dec 1999 all commercial growing of GE-corn in Portugal next season. There had been two approvals (Novartis and Monsanto varieties) and 15 more were expected. There was a single year of GE corn production in Portugal (1999), with a total area of about 1300 hectares (about 0.5% of all cultivated corn). This U-turn follows strong NGO pressure and rising consumer awareness in the last few weeks. Cited as reasons were the precautionary principle and the present inability to accurately and independently monitor the impacts of the releases. Growers had earlier voiced concern about the lower market value of GE or mixed corn production. (Margarida Silva, Quercus, Portugal, 28 Dec 1999) - RUSSIA: The sale to the population of foodstuffs and medicinal preparations, obtained from GM sources, without special marking on the package will be banned, starting from July 1, 2000. (TASS, 5 Oct 1999) - THAILAND: They will set up GMO-free agricultural zones to promote exports, a senior Thai official said. 'Agricultural products from GMO-free zones exported to foreign markets will be guaranteed by Thai authorities as GMO-free,' said Newin Chidchob, deputy agriculture minister... 'We have no policy of allowing trading in modified food in Thailand. GMO plants are banned from import, except for study and research, and we never produce and export such food,' Newin said. In certain areas, the govt will control the whole process of production from seed to harvest, he said, noting the zone will be expanded until the entire nation is GMO-free. (Kyodo, 27 Sep 1999) - THAILAND: The govt announced Oct. 18 it will ban imported GE seeds "pending clear scientific proof that they are safe." Fears reached new levels last week when a shipment of GE wheat from the U.S. mysteriously arrived in Thailand. EU warned that Thai rice may be rejected if shipments are found contaminated with GE rice being grown in Thailand. (AP, 18 Oct 1999) - US soybean exports to Europe have declined from $2.1 billion in 1996 to $1.1 billion in 1999, and will likely decline to zero over the next 12 months as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and other anti-biotech campaigners drive GE soy and corn-derived animal feeds off the market. As the same thing happens in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the rest of Asia-not to mention the US and Canada-GE grains, for all practical purposes, will be dead. Meanwhile exports of GE-free soybeans from Brazil to Europe are booming, with sales rising from 3.1 million tons to 5.4 million tons over the past year. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999) 4.6. CLAIM: SEGREGATING NON-GE CROPS IS IMPOSSIBLE OR VERY EXPENSIVE + Complicating the issue, GE DNA or proteins can disappear during processing, so products can test negative despite their GE origins. At the same time, even a sprinkling of GE cornmeal or soy flour from a previous shipment can make an entire grain silo or rail car of otherwise non-GE food test falsely positive as GE. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999) ** Traders estimate purchasing costs for U.S. corn by Japanese end-users could rise as much as 50 percent if they seek non-GM crops. As for U.S. soybeans, purchasing costs by Japanese users are expected to rise by about 30 percent. (Aya Takada, Reuters, 24 Aug 1999) - Multinational grain marketer Archer Daniels Midland recently announced that it will separately market non-GE soybeans and will reject any GE corn not accepted in Europe. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999) - The Korean Bean Processing Association and the Korea Soybean Food Association said Thursday that they want to cultivate non-GM beans through free contracts with farming groups in the U.S., Canada and Australia... Meanwhile the Korea Consumer Protection Board said Wednesday that a GM bean ingredient has been found in 18 tofu (bean curd) products out of 22 examined, or 81.8 percent, and many famous tofu makers were also found to have used GM beans imported from the U.S. (Asia Pulse, 4 Nov 1999) - Reuters news service reported on Oct. 29 Canadian Wheat Board chief, Greg Arason, saying that the giant Canadian grain exporting agency "must mobilize to identify and segregate GM wheat and barley from natural grain," to reassure consumers and safeguard Canada's multi-billion dollar wheat export market. Although GE wheat has not yet been commercialized, Monsanto and other companies hope to market GE wheat in a few years. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999) - Reuters news service in Paris reported on Dec. 1 that Minneapolis-based grain commodities giant Cargill is "studying whether to adopt a system that would segregate GM soybeans from non-GM organisms for the purpose of supplying European consumers." Apparently Archer Daniels Midland and other grain traders' booming sales of GE-free soybeans and corn are starting to cut in to Cargill's profit margins. Both Cargill, ADM, and the rest of the firms that make up the international grain cartel now see the writing on the wall. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999) - US-based Burger King told Farmers Weekly that although it has not banned GM foods, no GM ingredients are used in its products, including French fries. (Farmers Weekly, 3 Dec 1999) + Europe's banning of GE-foods is simply a protectionist move. It is a trade issue, not a health issue. - Even analysts from Deutsche Bank, the largest investment bank in the world, who were themselves willing to concede that GE-foods were safe, were telling their investors to sell their Pioneer stocks, because the health concerns of Europeans are real, not imagined. (http://www.dmg.com/central/ver40/index.html) In fact, not only Europeans but also Americans have called for a recall of GE-foods on the market. (See: anti-FDA lawsuit) + Segregation is going to be very expensive. The consumers will eventually realize that the cost of segregation is prohibitive and they will accept mixed foods. - No segregation costs will be incurred in countries and areas which have so far refused to commercialize or even field-test GE-crops. These areas will therefore enjoy a huge advantage compared to those who jumped early into the GE-crop bandwagon. Other countries should learn from this experience and stop even the field-testing of GE-crops until all the necessary studies in biologically confined laboratories have been done and there is widespread scientific consensus on the safety of a GE product to be released. 4.10. OTHERS 5. LEGAL CLAIMS: THE GE INDUSTRY IS STRICTLY REGULATED BY GOVERNMENTS - Summary: The collusion of corporations who are in a hurry to recover their investments in GE research and governments which are heavily targetted by corporate lobbyists is forcing GE crops on farmers and GE foods on consumers. - Lord Sainsbury, the UK Minister of Science, and member of the Supermarket chain family, was revealed to have had confidential discussions with Monsanto representatives at key points over the last months. Sainsbury was further shown to have strong personal business interests in the genetic engineering food industry. He is a shareholder and investor in GE companies. His own company, Diatech, is the patent holder of the cauliflower mosaic promoter, which is believed to be at the centre of the Pusztai/Rowett Institute controversy. Environmental groups have called for his resignation. (See: Guardian UK, 16 Feb 1999) 5.1. CLAIM: LABELLING IS NOT NECESSARY + One can always choose not to eat GE food. - Because GE food remains unlabeled, consumers cannot choose between GE and non-GE food. Should health problems arise, it will be difficult to trace their source. Lack of labels also helps shield firms that could be potentially liable. (Lappe, M and B. Bailey l998. Against the grain: biotechnology and the corporate takeover of food. Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) + "We strongly oppose efforts to have mandatory labelling or segregation of genetically engineered products." (US Sec of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Dec 1998) + Food processors, too, have lobbied against labeling these goods. In Maine, where labeling legislation was being considered, the Grocery Manufacturers of America testified recently that "the FDA has determined that biotechnology-enhanced foods are equivalent to foods developed through crossbreeding and traditional methods. Thus, compulsory labeling provides no significant or useful information to consumers. In fact, mandatory labeling of biotechnology products has the negative impact of misleading consumers to believe foods derived from biotechnology are harmful." + With European protests fresh in their minds, U.S. biotech firms made a plea to the U.S. government recently: Defend U.S. rules that keep GM foods unlabeled or risk a consumer backlash at home. "We said to them that we really needed their voice because we don't want this to spread to the United States," said Phillips of the Biotechnology Industrial Organization. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999) - U.S.: Glickman also said the administration was considering asking the food industry to do voluntary information labeling, a practice strongly opposed by the biotech industry but one that has been demanded by the Europeans and some American consumers. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999) - U.S.: The government said yesterday that labels were likely to be required on U.S. GE foods to give consumers more information. "Some type of informational labeling is likely to happen," Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said in a speech. (Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999) - U.S.: Nonprofit Mothers for Natural Law, of Fairfield, Iowa, submitted nearly 500,000 signatures to federal officials calling for mandatory labeling of GE foods at a June 17 event in Washington, D.C. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, 1999) - U.S.: Even Americans who do not necessarily oppose GE believe that such products should be labeled. In a survey by the European company Novartis, more than 90 percent called for labeling. In addition, more than 500,000 people signed a petition to the FDA demanding mandatory labeling of such foods. The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit against the FDA to reclassify genetic modification as an additive that would require labeling. When the Agriculture Department proposed organic food regulations, more than 280,000 people filed comments protesting the inclusion of GM foods as organic. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999) - U.S.: The Sierra Club declared with a flourish last week that it is joining the debate on GM food. The group's president, Carl Pope, wrote to President Clinton that the 550,000-member club wants mandatory labeling of GM products. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999) - U.S. Lawmakers seek labeling for GE food: Everybody who eats food made in America deserves to know what's in it, a bipartisan group of lawmakers said as they offered legislation to create special food labels. "Today's limited scientific knowledge warrants allowing consumers to make a better, more informed choice," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, leader of an effort to identify for the marketplace all GE food. (AP, 11 Nov 1999) -- Hironori Kijima, director-general of the Japan Tofu Association, expects GM labelling will create annual demand for 300,000 tonnes of non-GM soybeans from Japanese soybean curd makers. Japan imported 2.45 million tonnes of soybeans in the first half of 1999, of which imports from the U.S. accounted for 2.11 tonnes or 86.2 percent. In the same period Japan imported 9.13 million tonnes of corn, of which imports from the U.S. accounted for 8.82 million tonnes or 96.5 percent. "We want to avoid the GM label as it could hurt the image of our products. We plan to switch to non-GM soybeans," Kijima said. (Aya Takada, Reuters, 24 Aug 1999) - U.K.: In May 1999, the British Medical Association, which counts some 80% or nearly 115,000 of Britain's medical doctors, issued an official statement expressing concern over the safety of GE-foods. The BMA recommended a moratorium on planting commercial GE-crops in the UK "until there is scientific consensus (or as close agreement as reasonably achievable) about the potential long-term environmental effects." The BMA also called for 1) segregation at source, "to enable identification and traceability" of GE-foods; 2) labelling GE-imports and banning unlabelled ones, if the industry refuses to segregate (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999) - SOUTH KOREA: The Korea Consumer Protection Board said last Thursday its survey had found that 94.7 percent of the total 526 survey respondents said labelling for GM foods was necessary - 71.5 percent said all the time and 23.2 percent in some cases. (Reuters, Seoul, 9 Sep 1999) - ASIA: Despite biotech industry and US govt complaints, mounting public pressure has forced regulatory authorities in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan to begin to implement programs of mandatory labeling of GE foods. Although consumer and public interest groups in these countries have criticized proposed labeling rules as incomplete and riddled with loopholes, US trade officials are "concerned" about the possible loss of "billions of dollars" in US grain exports to the region, according to a Sep 1 Reuters story. Similar labeling demands are building in Malaysia and the Philippines, while farm and consumer groups in India have called for an outright ban on GE crops and imports. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) - The 15-country European Union, as well as Australia and New Zealand, has ordered the labeling of foods with modified DNA. The Japanese government has just published a list of 30 GM foods, including tofu, that soon must carry labels. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999) - E.U.: That problem of being able to back up a claim that a food either contains or does not contain GE ingredients has plagued regulators in the European Union, where a law went into effect in September saying all GM foods must be labeled. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999) - Last summer, two consumer groups sued the US FDA, claiming that the agency's failure to institute a labeling regimen for GM food is in violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The law demands that food additives not "generally recognized as safe" be labeled. This spring, activists gathered half-million signatures calling for labeling of GM food and submitted them to Congress and other officials. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999) - U.S.: The no-labels policy hinges on a decree by the FDA in 1992. The FDA rules that food from new plant varieties is "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) and that it is no different from conventional food in nutrition or in storage and handling needs. So, no special labeling is needed. That was 4 years before farmers, pushed by Monsanto and other biotech firms, began sowing millions of acres with GM soybeans and corn. Neither the FDA nor US food distributors anticipated the anti-GMO resistance abroad. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, with a strong debate over the adequacy of American food labeling. (See: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999) - Countries which have adopted mandatory labelling: UK, Australia-New Zealand Food Standards Council (Dec 1998), - The EU has issued a directive requiring the mandatory labelling of all GM crops and foods in the market - Countries which are considering mandatory labelling: Japan, South Africa, Philippines - In Japan, 2,300 out of 3,300 local governments have asked the national government to require mandatory labeling of GM food (See: "Wake-up Call for Biotech Foods," Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999) - Jusco Co Ltd said it will become the first major Japanese supermarket operator to label food products based on the genetic origin of the crops used. Jusco, which operates over 300 stores nationwide, said it has decided to start labelling GE food before the government's label requirements are implemented from 2001, because of requests from consumers. (Reuters, Tokyo, 8 Sep 1999) + Labelling is a form of trade discrimination. + Most food processors and retailers are opposed to labeling. They note that U.S. regulators have deemed GM food safe; they warn that labels could cost consumers millions of dollars. Mandatory labels, they say, would wrongly imply questions about the safety or nutritional value of these foods. "The concern," said Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, "is that a label would be seen as a stigma, like a skull and crossbones." The industry is also wary of labels saying "GE free," because such labels might imply superiority, as in "fat free." The Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) recently announced that it and other groups would initiate a $1 million advertising and educational campaign to counter the nascent U.S. anti-biotech and pro-labeling movements. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999) - Consumers have a right to know and to choose what they are eating. In the U.S., labelling falls under First Amendment freedoms to exchange information. (See: Philip Bereano, Seattle Times, Op Ed: "The Right to Know What We Eat," 11 Oct 1998) - RBGH: In 1993, Ben & Jerry's triggered a 3-year legal battle by labeling its milk products as free from rBGH, a hormone that boosts milk production. "People can say 'dolphin-free tuna' and 'stone-ground wheat,' " said Liz Bankowski, a senior director for the company in South Burlington, Vt. "We felt strongly that people have the right to know how their milk is produced." After tangling with federal and state regulators over the issue, Ben & Jerry's won the right to keep the label as long as it is accompanied by a disclaimer saying the FDA considers the milk equivalent to conventional milk, and that in any case there is no known way of testing milk to confirm whether it is really free of the offending hormone. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999) - Below is a list of processed foods that tested positive for GE ingredients (September 1999). These tests were not "safety" tests; they were only to establish the presence of unlabeled GE ingredients. (NYTimes full page ad October 18, 1999) - Frito-Lay Fritos Corn Chips * Bravos Tortilla Chips * Kellogg's Corn Flakes * General Mills Total Corn Flakes Cereal * Post Blueberry Morning Cereal * Heinz 2 Baby Cereal * Enfamil ProSobee Soy Formula * Similac Isomil Soy Formula * Nestle Carnation Alsoy Infant Formula * Quaker Chewy Granola Bars * Nabisco Snackwell's Granola Bars * Ball Park Franks * Duncan Hines Cake Mix * Quick Loaf Bread Mix * Ultra Slim Fast * Quaker Yellow Corn Meal * Light Life Gimme Lean * Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix * Alpo Dry Pet Food * Gardenburger * Boca Burger Chef Max's Favorite * Morning Star Farms Better'n Burgers * Green Giant Harvest Burgers (now called Morningstar Farms) * McDonald's McVeggie Burgers * Ovaltine Malt Powdered Beverage Mix * Betty Crocker Bac-Os Bacon Flavor Bits * Old El Paso Taco Shells * Jiffy Corn Muffin Mix [Sources: Genetic ID (an independent testing firm) and Consumer Reports (September 1999).] - List of GE-foods in the U.S.: * Canola (oilseed rape) * Chicory, red hearted (Radicchio) * Corn * Cotton * Papaya * Potato * Soybean * Squash * Tomato (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists) - A high percentage of the following ingredients have been made from GE plants, and are commonly found in processed foods: * Soy flour * Soy oil * Lecithin * Soy protein isolates and concentrates * Corn flour * Corn starch * Corn oil * Corn sweeteners & syrups * Cottonseed oil * Canola oil 5.2. CLAIM: THE U.S. HAS THE STRICTEST FOOD REGULATIONS IN THE WORLD + The U.S. FDA has determined that GE crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts. The U.S. has one of the most stringent food regulatory regimes in the world. - In February 1999, the Center for Food Safety sued the FDA to have all GE foods taken off the market on the grounds that they are neither properly labelled nor safety-tested, and that lack of mandatory labeling illegally restricts the freedom of choice of those who would choose - on religious or ethical grounds - to avoid GE foods. (http://www.icta.org) - In May 1998, a coalition of public interest groups, scientists, and religious leaders filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of all GE foods (Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et. al. v. Shalala). Nine eminent life scientists joined the coalition in order to emphasize the degree to which they think FDA policy is scientifically unsound and morally irresponsible. Now, the FDA's own files confirm how well-founded are their concerns. The FDA was required to deliver copies of these files-totaling over 44,000 pages-to the plaintiffs' attorneys. The FDA's records reveal it declared GE foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts-all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and (2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted the agency's current policy, which treats GE foods the same as natural ones. Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based, this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in allowing GE foods to be marketed without testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by qualified experts. The FDA admits it is operating under a directive "to foster" the U.S. biotech industry; and this directive advocates the premise that GE foods are essentially the same as others. However, the agency's attempts to bend its policy to conform with this premise met strong resistance from its own scientists, who repeatedly warned that genetic engineering differs from conventional practices and entails a unique set of risks. Numerous agency experts protested that drafts of the Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential for bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in a different manner and to a different degree than do conventional methods. Besides violating basic canons of ethics, the FDA's behavior flagrantly violates the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which mandates that new food additives be established safe through testing prior to marketing. While the FDA admits that GE organisms fall under this provision, it claims they are exempt from testing because they are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), even though it knows they are not recognized as safe even by its own scientists let alone by a consensus in the scientific community. (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods) - The FDA's records reveal it declared GE foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts - all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose that: 1) FDA scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts; and 2) this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted FDA's policy, to treat GE-foods the same as natural ones. (See: Statement by Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, lawsuit coordinator, in collaboration with the Legal Department of the Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C.). - FDA's own scientists repeatedly warned that genetic engineering differs from conventional practices and entails a unique set of risks. Numerous FDA experts protested that drafts of the Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential for bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in a different manner and to a different degree than do conventional methods. - Dr. Louis Priybl (FDA Microbiology Group): "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document." He added that several aspects of gene splicing "...may be more hazardous." (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods) - Dr. Linda Kahl (FDA compliance officer): The FDA was "...trying to fit a square peg into a round hole ... [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices." She said: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods) - Dr. Jim Maryanski (FDA Biotechnology Coordinator) acknowledged there is no consensus about the safety of GE foods in the scientific community at large, and FDA scientists advised they should undergo special testing, including toxicological tests. (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods) + Trust the scientists who have assured us that GE food is safe. - The money for scientific research on GE comes from either the biotechnology companies or the government. Both are committed to the promises of biotechnology. This means that even when scientists have concerns about the safety or commercial application of the technology, it is often hard for them to risk their careers by being openly critical. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by on the SANET list) - A "revolving door" exists between the biotech industry and U.S. regulatory bodies, seriously compromising the U.S. regulatory process. Many other countries rely on the U.S. process, so their approvals for GE field-testing or commercialization have been compromised too. - Monsanto's top dairy scientists Margaret Miller and Suzanne Sechen, were hired by the US FDA to review Monsanto's research in the process of approving rBGH. - Monsanto's lawyer Michael Taylor was hired by the US FDA to write the labelling laws governing rBGH. - Suzanne Wuerthele (BS in Biology, MA in Teaching Science, PhD in Pharmacology, 7 years of post-doctoral work, board-certified toxicologist, worked in a U.S. EPA regional office for 13 years, a national expert in toxicology and risk assessment): I was introduced to GE a few years back when I was shown the "risk assessment" for a GE nitrogen-fixing bacteria, Rhizobium meliloti... I learned some very disturbing things about regulation of GE: o EPA has an official position of "fostering" biotechnology; o There is no process - across all U.S. federal agencies - to evaluate the hazards of GE organisms (we have such a process for chemicals and it works pretty well). For GE, however, no formal risk assessment methodologies. No science policies... No conferences where scientific issues of GE are debated. No understanding of the full range of hazards from GE organisms. No discussion of or consultation with the public to determine what constitute "unacceptable risk". No method to even measure magnitude of risks. Etc. o When peer review panels are put together, they are not necessarily unbiased. They can be filled with GE proponents or confined to questions which avoid the important issues, so that a predetermined decision can be justified. ...we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences. In fact, we don't even know yet the full extent of what it can do to the environment and to our health. The few scientists in regulatory agencies who are concerned are ignored or their concerns are dismissed. Or they are told to be silent. Good risk assessment and good science, which if they were used rationally, would tell us that we're making a big mistake, is not being used or is being twisted. (Susan Wuerthele, toxicologist) - David W. Beier, former head of Government Affairs for Genentech, Inc., now chief domestic policy advisor to Al Gore, Vice President of the United States. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Linda J. Fisher, former Assistant Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, now Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto Corporation. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Michael A. Friedman, M.D., former acting commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Department of Health and Human Services, now senior vice-president for clinical affairs at G. D. Searle & Co., a pharmaceutical division of Monsanto Corporation. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - L. Val Giddings, former biotechnology regulator and (biosafety) negotiator at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA/APHIS), now Vice President for Food & Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Marcia Hale, former assistant to the President of the United States and director for intergovernmental affairs, now Director of International Government Affairs for Monsanto Corporation. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Michael (Mickey) Kantor, former Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce and former Trade Representative of the United States, now member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Josh King, former director of production for White House events, now director of global communication in the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Terry Medley, former administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, former chair and vice-chair of the United States Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Council, former member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food advisory committee, and now Director of Regulatory and External Affairs of Dupont Corporation's Agricultural Enterprise. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Margaret Miller, former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Michael Phillips, recently with the National Academy of Science Board on Agriculture, now head of regulatory affairs for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - William D. Ruckelshaus, former chief administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),,now (and for the past 12 years) a member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Michael Taylor, former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA, still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company, still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration, and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding., now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.* (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Lidia Watrud, former microbial biotechnology researcher at Monsanto Corporation in St. Louis, Missouri, now with the United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Jack Watson, former chief of staff to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, now a staff lawyer with Monsanto Corporation in Washington, D.C. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Clayton K. Yeutter, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, former U.S. Trade Representative (who led the U.S. team in negotiating the U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement and helped launch the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations), now a member of the board of directors of Mycogen Corporation, whose majority owner is Dow AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) - Larry Zeph, former biologist in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, now Regulatory Science Manager at Pioneer Hi-Bred International. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) 5.3 CLAIM: BIOTECH FIRMS FOLLOW THE REGULATIONS STRICTLY - Monsanto has been condemned for making 'wrong, unproven, misleading and confusing' claims in a #1m advertising campaign. The Advertising Standards Authority, the industry's official watchdog, criticised the firm for wrongly giving the impression that GE potatoes and tomatoes had been tested and approved for sale in Britain. ASA also dismissed Monsanto's assertion that GM crops were grown 'in a more environmentally sustainable way' than ordinary crops as unproven. (John Arlidge, Observer (London), 28 Feb 1999) - Almost 200 cotton farmers in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are suing Monsanto for damages after crop failures of Monsanto's Bt and Roundup Ready cotton seeds. In a separate lawsuit 25 cotton farmers in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Louisiana are suing Monsanto for fraud and misrepresentation - also in regard to Bt cotton crop failures. (See: Augusta Chronicle, Georgia, 25 Jan 1999) - Biotech giant Monsanto exported Canadian GE potatoes to Ukraine, ignoring the domestic laws which require environmental impact assessment, according to a Greenpeace report published today... Monsanto NewLeaf potatoes were exported to Ukraine in 1997 and 1998 with the help of Solanum-PEI, a joint venture company created by Monsanto and the government of PEI. (See: Canada Newswire, 17 Sep 1999) - Monsanto was fined #17,000 by magistrates in Lincolnshire for failing to maintain a 6-metre pollen boundary around a field trial of GE oilseed rape. The crops were all destroyed. Although Monsanto pleaded guilty, the company said that the mistake was entirely the responsibility of contractors. The seed producers for the trial, Perryfield Holdings, were fined #14,000 and ordered to pay #5,000 costs in a prosecution by the Health and Safety Inspectorate. (Source: The Guardian, February 18 1999) - The Senate Agriculture Committee is demanding that new studies of BST be carried out following allegations that BST files were stolen at Health Canada, and that scientists expressing doubts about Monsanto's safety tests have been pressurized to water down their comments. Health Canada refused to approve rBST in Canada in January 1999. Controversy has also erupted following evidence that a scientist representing Canada on the Jecfa panel was suggested by Monsanto. - John Hermann, chair of the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (Jecfa), which reports back to the Codex Commission, has admitted that an FDA official on the panel passed confidential EU documents to Monsanto. The official, Dr. Nick Weber, has been accused by Consumer's International of professional misconduct and 'breach of trust'. He was, however, defended by Hermann. It also appears that a former Monsanto rBST analyst participated in the Jecfa review and helped draft the Committee's report, although she did not take part in the actual vote approving rBGH. (Gregory Palast, UK Observer, 14 Mar 1999) -- Monsanto included false information about a GE crop in a safety assessment submitted to U.K. government advisers. The firm was forced to redo its research after it emerged last month that crucial information about the gene it proposed to put in a new strain of maize was incorrect. Monsanto was called "incompetent" by scientists of the U.K.'s influential Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment (Acre). The committee accused Monsanto of submitting sloppy research, "poor interpretation" and work far below required standards. The agro-chemical company misdefined the gene it planned to insert into the maize which was genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Minutes of Acre's meeting last month show that members were furious that Monsanto had asked them to approve a marketing application based on inaccurate information. Sources close to the meeting say Monsanto was called "incompetent" and that the standard of its work was "wholly unacceptable". Acre told Monsanto to do its research again after Monsanto scientists - asked for clarification about their research - realised that their "molecular data . did not support the conclusions". The minutes of the meeting, on 13 January 1999, deliver a sharp rebuke to Monsanto, saying that ". the molecular data submitted by the applicant did not support the conclusions regarding genomic organisation of the transgenes". The Monsanto application was last month approved by the UK after the company spent several months redoing its research and scientists concluded that the GM maize would not harm human or animal health. It will now be submitted to other European countries for assessment. But the decision to grant approval has proved controversial with other scientists who say that it casts doubt on other work carried out by Monsanto. "It's very worrying. This means that somebody somewhere in Monsanto is getting it wrong," said Janey White, a molecular biologist. The mistake also has international implications because Monsanto's maize is already grown in America and will soon be sold around the world. Monsanto has had to tell regulatory authorities in Japan and Europe, now considering an application to sell the GM maize, that its data is incorrect. The same GM maize is exported widely from America and is believed to be used in food sold in Britain. "It is our policy to advise all the relevant authorities of any new information," said Alistair Clemence, regulatory affairs manager for maize in Europe. "We haven't totally messed up, but there was a certain part of the gene sequence we hadn't defined properly." Licences to sell and plant GM crops in Britain are based on work done by the agrochemical companies themselves and not on independent tests carried out by the Government. (Marie Woolf, Sunday Independent, 21 Feb 1999) 5.10. OTHERS 6. MORAL CLAIMS: MORAL IMPERATIVES GUIDE GE TECHNOLOGIES 6.1. CLAIM: GE-CROPS WILL FEED THE WORLD'S HUNGRY + GE will make Third World agriculture more productive. - Most innovations in agricultural biotechnology have been profit-driven rather than need-driven. The real thrust of the GE industry is not to make third world agriculture more productive, but rather to generate profits (Busch, L., W.B. Lacey, J. Burkhardt and L. Lacey (1990) Plants, Power and Profit. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) This is illustrated by reviewing the principal technologies on the market today: a) herbicide resistant crops such as Monsanto's "Roundup Ready"soybeans, seeds that are tolerant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and b) Bt crops which are engineered to produce their own insecticide. In the first instance, the goal is to win a greater herbicide market-share for a proprietary product and in the second to boost seed sales at the cost of damaging the usefulness of a key pest management product (the Bt based microbial insecticide) relied upon by many farmers, including most organic farmers, as a powerful alternative to insecticides. - These technologies respond to the need of biotechnology companies to intensify farmers' dependence upon seeds protected by so-called" intellectual property rights," which conflict directly with the age-old rights of farmers to reproduce, share or store seeds. (Hobbelink, H. (1991) Biotechnology and the future of world agriculture. Zed Books, Ltd., London. p. 159. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) Whenever possible corporations will require farmers to buy company's brand of inputs and will forbid farmers from keeping or selling seed. By controlling germplasm from seed to sale, and by forcing farmers to pay inflated prices for seed-chemical packages, companies are determined to extract the most profit from their investment. (Krimsky, S. and R.P. Wrubel (1996) Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment: science, policy and social issues. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) + Without GE-crops, we cannot feed the world's rapidly increasing population. - GE crop yields are in general no better than conventional crops and in some instances are even worse. (See yield discussion under economic claims.) - There is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given country and its population. For every densely populated and hungry nation like Bangladesh or Haiti, there is a sparsely populated and hungry nation like Brazil and Indonesia. The world today produces more food per inhabitant than ever before. Enough is available to provide 4.3 pounds every person everyday: 2.5 pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits and vegetables. The real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access. Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available (but often poorly distributed) or lack the land and resources to grow it themselves (Lappe, Collins and Rosset l998). (Lappe, F.M., J. Collins and P. Rosset (1998). World Hunger: twelve myths, p. 270. Grove Press, NY. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) + GE crops will save the world from famine. - A major cause of famine is the unequal global distribution of food. Food mountains exist in much of the western world and food is regularly dumped. Poor people have limited ability to buy either GE or non-GE food. There is no evidence that GE crops produce higher yields than conventional crops or that GE products will be cheaper. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech on the SANET list) - Dr. Geoffrey Clements (physicist and leader of the Natural Law Party, UK): "Perfectly safe natural alternatives are readily available, and no one believes the propaganda that GE crops are essential to help feed the hungry or to secure food stocks for the future. In fact, if the GE revolution is not halted and if the balance of Nature continues to be disrupted, we would well see the worst famines and disease of all time." - The dramatic effects of rotations and intercropping on crop health and productivity, as well as of the use of biological control agents on pest regulation have been confirmed repeatedly by scientific research. The problem is that research at public institutions increasingly reflects the interests of private funders at the expense of public good research such as biological control, organic production systems and general agroecological techniques . Civil society must request for more research on alternatives to biotechnology by universities and other public organizations (Krimsky and Wrubel l996). - Much of the needed food can be produced by small farmers located throughout the world using agroecological technologies (Uphoff, N and Altieri, M.A. l999 Alternatives to conventional modern agriculture for meeting world food needs in the next century. Report of a Bellagio Conference. Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development. Ithaca, NY. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - New rural devt approaches and low-input technologies used by farmers and NGOs around the world are already making a significant contribution to food security at the household, national and regional levels in Africa, Asia and Latin America. (Pretty, J. Regenerating agriculture: Policies and practices for sustainability and self-relieance. Earthscan., London. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - Yield increases are being achieved by using approaches based on agroecological principles that stress diversity, synergy, recycling and integration; and social processes that stress community participation and empowerment. (Rosset, P. l999 The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture in the context of global trade negotiations. Institute for Food and Development Policy, Food First Policy Brief No.4. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - When such features are optimized, yield enhancement and stability of production are achieved, as well as a series of ecological services such conservation of biodiversity, soil and water restoration and conservation, improved natural pest regulation mechanisms, etc. (Altieri, M.A., P.Rosset and L.A. Thrupp. 1998 . The potential of agroecology to combat hunger in the developing world. 2020 Brief 55. International Food policy research Institute. Washington DC. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) - Far from being a solution to the world's hunger problem, the rapid introduction of GE crops may actually threaten agriculture and food security. First, widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant seeds may lead to greater use of chemicals that kill weeds. Yet, many noncrop plants are used by small farmers in the third world as supplemental food sources and as animal feed. In the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service has found that Roundup already threatens 74 endangered plant species. Biological pollution from GE organisms may be another problem. Monsanto is poised to acquire the rights to a genetic engineering technique that renders a crop's seeds sterile, insuring that farmers are dependent on Monsanto for new seed every year. Farming in the third world could be crippled if these genes contaminate other local crops that the poor depend on. And such genes could unintentionally sterilize other plants, according to a study by Martha Crouch, an associate professor of biology at Indiana University. Half the world's farmers rely on their own saved seed for each year's harvest. (Peter Rosset, "World Hunger: Twelve Myths") - The biotech industry's actual main motive is to create profit windfalls by increasing sales of their pesticides and dominating the entire food supply. For example, the patent on Monsanto's herbicide known as "Roundup" will expire soon. Monsanto has enticed farmers with their experimental GE crops to absorb and tolerate their chemical pesticides and their other crops which create their own pesticide internally. Monsanto, DuPont, and Novartis are also taking direct action to buy out and bring the world's largest seed companies under their control. (From: [email protected]) + There are no alternatives to GE crops - The alternative to GE is ecological agriculture, with organic farming at its core. Since 1969, more than 800,000 farms have disappeared from America's landscape, as large corporate operations consumed smaller family-owned farms. By 2000, the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that half of all U.S. farm production will come from only 1 percent of all farms. For those wanting to preserve the livelihood of the family farm, few options for survival remain. One of the most viable is organic and natural farming, most successfully performed on small plots rather than thousands of acres. It's estimated that organic products alone will be a $6 billion economy by 2001, with sales of organic food growing between 20 percent and 25 percent annually. A Food Marketing Institute study reports that organic and natural foods are available at approximately 73 percent of grocery stores and supermarkets. Of shoppers surveyed in FMI's study, more than 50 percent said they purchase organic or natural foods at least once a month; 35 percent said they actively seek out products that are labeled as "organic"; and 63 percent look for products labeled "natural." Purchase of organic products is highest among consumers between 18 and 29 (31 percent), with a heavier concentration of sales in the West (34 percent), according to the 1998 Fresh Trends Report published by The Packer. (John Fetto, American Demographics, August 1999) - The Rodale Institute of Kutztown, Penn., recently completed a 15-year study comparing organic farming methods to conventional methods, published in the November 11, 1998, issue of the journal Nature. It concluded that yields from organic farming equal conventional yields after four years. Experts have shown that using pesticides does not guarantee increased yields. According to David Pimentel, professor of insect ecology and agricultural sciences at Cornell University, ``Although pesticides are generally profitable, their use does not always decrease crop losses. For example, even with the 10-fold increase in insecticide use in the United States from 1945 to 1989, total crop losses from insect damage have nearly doubled from 7% to 13%''. (PRNewswire, 27 August 1999) - At the 12th (1999) annual Scientific Conference of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted unanimously against the use of GMOs in food production and agriculture. The delegates called on all governments and regulatory agencies to immediately ban GE in agriculture and food production since it involves: 1) Negative and irreversible environmental impacts; 2) Release of organisms which cannot be recalled; 3) Removal of the right of choice, both for farmers and consumers; 4) Violation of farmers' fundamental property rights and endangerment of their economic independence; 5) Practices which are incompatible with the principles of sustainable agriculture as defined by IFOAM; 6) Unacceptable threats to human health. (See: ) - US sales of organic foods have grown between 20 - 25% annually for the last 7 years, with overall sales of between $3.5 and $4.2 billion. 6.2 CLAIM: LIFE PATENTS ARE NEEDED TO REWARD INNOVATION + Patents on life are necessary to enable biotech firms to recover their investments in developing GMOs - GMO patents will illegalize the age-old farmer practice of saving and sharing seeds. - A year ago, Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser for illegally growing Monsanto's special GM canola, called "Roundup Ready." The 68-year-old Percy, who has been farming in Saskatchewan for 40 years, ushered me outside, walked to a hydro line, and showed me a growth of canary-yellow canola. "This is it," he said, then he took me to the north side of the building where another shoot of Roundup Ready GM canola was growing. "All over the place," he said. "It blows in the wind, cross-pollinates." He pulled off one of the flowers, popping open a pod of canola, displaying the freckle-sized, black seeds. "Little plant like this makes a minimum 4,000 seeds...maybe 10,000 seeds," he said. "Now they're not saying I stole their seed," Percy said. "Now they're saying it doesn't matter how the (Monsanto canola) gets into a farmer's field. Doesn't matter if it's blown onto the field or if it's by cross-pollination. They say it's their patent and if they find it on your field they'll take your crop, they'll sue you, they'll fine you." (Martin O'Malley, CBC News Online, 29 Sep 1999) - Edward Zielinski, a Saskatchewan farmer, is being charged with growing Monsanto GE canola without a licence. Zielinski claims that he unwittingly received and planted Monsanto canola from seed he swapped with another farmer in exchange for wheat. If found guilty, he could be forced to pay $29,000. He would also face a 3-year on-spot inspection of his fields by Monsanto patent enforcement and a gagging clause that would prevent him from disclosing the terms of the agreement. Zielinski's suit comes in the wake of a legal suit Monsanto has pinned on another Saskatchewan farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for allegedly growing Monsanto GE canola without a licence. Schmeiser, whose case comes before court in early autumn, maintains that the ReadyRoundUp canola pollinated his fields. (See: Sunday Independent, March 14 1999) - There is an urgent need to challenge the patent system and IPR intrinsic to the WTO which not only provide MNCs with the right to seize and patent genetic resources, but that will also accelerate the rate at which market forces already encourage monocultural cropping with genetically uniform GM varieties. Based on history and ecological theory, it is not difficult to predict the negative impacts of such environmental simplification on the health of modern agriculture (Altieri l996). (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999) - USDA spent $229,000 of US taxpayers' money to create the new "technology protection system" with Delta and Pine Land Company. The research was done, according to the inventor himself (Melvin Oliver), to improve the bottom lines of U.S. firms. - Monsanto announced in October 1999 that it was dropping its Terminator seed program, confirming the effectiveness of the global campaign against the technology sterile GE-seeds. - According to RAFI, every major seed and agrochemical firm is developing its own version of Terminator seeds. Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Monsanto are among the MNCs who have sterile seeds in the pipeline; others like Pioneer Hi-Bred, Rhone Poulenc, and DuPont have seed technologies that could easily be turned into Terminators. The patents uncovered by RAFI reveal that companies are developing "suicide" seeds whose genetic traits can be turned on and off by an external chemical "inducer" mixed with the company's patented agrochemicals. In the not-so-distant future, farmers may be planting seeds that will develop into productive (but sterile) crops only if sprayed with a carefully prescribed regimen that includes the company's proprietary pesticide, fertilizer or herbicide. The latest version of Monsanto's suicide seeds won't germinate unless exposed to a special chemical, while AstraZeneca's technologies outline how to engineer crops to become stunted or otherwise impaired if not regularly exposed to the company's chemicals. Ignoring potential impacts on farmers around the world, the seed and agrochemical industry argues that GE seed sterility is highly beneficial to the environment because it will eliminate the problem of horizontal gene transfer - it will prevent cross-pollination and thus the escape of GE genes from transgenic plants to nearby weeds or wild relatives. Suicide seeds could eliminate the possibility of genetic pollution and conveniently offers a "green" rationale for acceptance of genetic seed sterility. Industry also argues that they can't continue to develop new, more productive varieties for agriculture unless they get a fair return on their investment. A RAFI report "Traitor Technology" provides an in-depth analysis of the seed sterility patents. For this study and a detailed chart of patent claims, visit RAFI's homepage at -- Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. is seeking to enforce its corn patent by suing an Iowa farm-supply dealership. Farm Advantage of Belmont, Iowa sold Pioneer's patented corn seed last year without its permission. Pioneer has sued Farm Advantage for reselling its corn seeds, since Pioneer's patent grants exclusive control over the licensing of its product. President of Farm Advantage, Marvin Redenius is arguing that the US Patent and Trademark Office acted illegally when it granted patents on GM plants. Since the first patent on a life-form was awarded in 1980, an increasing number of scientists, environmental organizations, farm organizations, trade organizations, public health organizations, and other NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have opposed patents on the grounds that they are immoral and illegal. Pioneer is currently engaged in several other lawsuits, including a "germplasm misappropriation" suit against rival life science corporation Monsanto Co. "Pioneer has spent decades and billions of dollars developing the world's largest plant genetics library," claims Rick McConnell, Pioneer senior vice president for research and product development, in a February 1999 release. (Jon Akland, Research Director, Foundation on Economic Trends, 802-658-1472 phone 802-863-4665 fax) 6.3. CLAIM: GE TECHNOLOGIES WILL HELP THE INCURABLY SICK * According to New Scientist, US company GeneWorks of Michigan state has 50 to 60 GE birds. Some of these birds carry a gene enabling them to produce human growth factor in eggs, and others produce a human antibody which could be used to treat disease. Another US company. AviGenics, has birds which produce a cancer treating interferon. It says the gene - injected into bird embryos as a protein contained in a harmless virus - has already been passed on to further generations of birds, saving on repeating the process. (New Scientist, 13 Nov 1999) ** An intense effort to clone rhesus monkeys for medical research is underway in the U.S. Tanja Dominko at the Oregon Regional Primate Centre said: "We are working really hard to make it happen in any way we can." She said this would allow testing of new drugs and vaccines on genetically-identical animals, and success means a step nearer to human application. She admitted it may be years before they succeed in cloning monkeys, despite a narrow failure 3 years ago, when two monkeys were born after 166 nuclear transfer attempts. But they were not identical as the nuclei came from different sources. Also, the cells used came from embryos, not adults. Dominko's colleague, Don Wolf said: "If we can do this in monkeys, most people will see the significance of that to humans." Primates are preferred as lab animals because they are closely related to humans. Rhesus monkeys are not an endangered species and their reproductive organs function almost identically to those of humans. Female rhesus monkeys' menstrual cycle is even as long as that of humans. This similarity, and the similar scarcity of eggs, would mean that any cloning technique successful in rhesus monkeys would likely be applicable to humans. (BBC, "Multiple monkey cloning attempt," 9 Apr 1999) + GE insulin has saved the lives of thousands of diabetics - The high incidence of diabetes correlates closely with high consumption of refined sugars. A preventive approach to diabetes control will reduce, if not eliminate, the need for GE insulin. The alarming trend today is that, increasingly, as food companies, chemical companies and pharmaceutical companies merge, the same giant firms are now creating both the causes of disease as well as their cure. 6.4. CLAIM: GE IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR ETHICAL BELIEFS - Vegetarians try to avoid all animal food; but without labeling they can't be sure that animal genes have not been inserted into their vegetables. Jews and Muslims have rigid laws against eating certain animals, yet their tomatoes or lettuce may one day contain pig genes. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999) - Some orthodox rabbis, for example, say their strict dietary laws require them to know when a foreign gene - say, a pig gene - has been spliced into their food. No pig genes have been put into crops, but one has been experimentally engineered into salmon to accelerate growth. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999) - What of the suffering of genetically altered animals? One GE "super pig" was unable to walk or stand. A GE "super salmon" had a monster head and couldn't swim, eat, or breathe properly. There are hundreds of such outcomes. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999) - More than two dozen genes from human beings have already been engineered into various animals. If we eat them, can we call it cannibalism? (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999) 6.5. CLAIM: RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES APPROVE OF MOST GE TECHNOLOGIES + Vatican experts voiced a "prudent yes" to GE plants and animals, but restated Church objections to human cloning and the modification of the human genetic code. Members of the Pontifical Academy for Life presented on Oct. 12 two volumes of documents on ethics and genetic technology, after more than two years of discussion and study. "We are increasingly encouraged that the advantages of genetic engineering of plants and animals are greater than the risks. The risks should be carefully followed through openness, analysis and controls, but without a sense of alarm," said Bishop Elio Sgreccia, vice president of the pontifical academy. "We give it a prudent 'yes,'" he said. "We cannot agree with the position of some groups that say it is against the will of God to meddle with the genetic make-up of plants and animals." (CNS, 3 Nov 1999) - You cannot resort to authority on moral issues. This is a matter to be settled within every individual's conscience, taking into account the irreversibility of GE advances. 6.10. OTHERS 7. QUALITY CLAIMS: THE QUALITY OF GE-FOODS IS BETTER 7.1. CLAIM: GE FOODS ARE HEALTHIER AND MORE NUTRITIOUS - No GE food commercialized to date has been shown to be more nutritious than non-GE food. Most GE crops are only designed to be resistant to specific herbicides, to produce their own insecticides or to have an increased shelf life. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech on the SANET list) - 71% of GE acreage is for HT-soya, which encourages farmers to use more herbicides. Another 25+% is for Bt crops, which puts a toxin in the food itself. - RBGH: The use of rBGH to stimulate milk production in cows resulted in udder inflamations, infections and other problems affecting milk quality (See: ) (http:) + Many fungal toxins are harmful to human health (to name a few species: Aspergillus flavus, Claviceps purpurea etc), so fungi-resistant GE plants could be even safer than their parental strain. 7.2. CLAIM: VIT. A AND IRON-RICH RICE WILL SOLVE A WORLDWIDE PROBLEM + Most rice varieties today lack iron and vit. A, a health problem for people who eat rice daily. In 1999, Swiss researchers announced a GE rice variety with more beta-carotene, which the body metabolizes to vit. A. Work is also underway on an iron-rich rice variety, to be given free to poor farmers in dev. countries thru the Rockefeller Foundation. See: (From: [email protected]) + BC (beta-carotene) rice will help solve the widespread problem of Vit. A deficiency. + Iron-rich rice will help solve the widespread problem of iron deficiency. - The BC rice and the iron-rich rice contain the CaMV promoter which, according to scientists Mae Wan Ho, Angela Ryan and Joe Cummins, should not be used for GE transformations. They also use an antibiotic-resistance marker (ARM) gene which, according to the British Medical Association, should be phased out. 9.0. Websites On Genetic Engineering: http://www.safe-food.org/welcome.html http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html http://www.greenpeace.org/~usa/reports/biodiversity/roundup http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/cbio/geneng.html http://www.indiaserver.com/betas/vshiva/ http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/biotech.htm http://www.rafi.ca http://www.purefood.org http://www.med.upenn.edu/~bioethic/genetics/articles.html http://www.ucsusa.org/agriculture/ag.docs.html http://www.k2net.co.uk/~savage/ef/earthfirst.html http://www.essential.org/crg/ http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/shag/ http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rone/gedanger.htm http://www.bio-integrity.org http://www.natural-law.org/issues/genetics/ge_hazards.html http://www.bio-integrity.org/ http://www.peg.apc.org/~acfgenet/ http://www.indians.org/welker/genome.htm http://www.solbaram.org/articles/clm505.html http://www.netlink.de/gen/home.html http://www.psagef.org/indexgen.htm http://home.earthlink.net/~alto/boycott.html http://www.notmilk.com http://www.biotech-info.net 10. MISCELLANEOUS: + The strong anti-GE feelings in Europe is due to the Europeans' distrust of their governments following such food scares as the "mad cow" disease and the dioxin-tainted food in Belgium. This springs from deep-seated cultural differences. "There is more reverence for nature there and more of a belief that food is sacred. Americans don't mind eating McDonald's and junk food... but Europeans eat traditional foods they've eaten for thousands of years, as they do in India. They're perceiving GM foods as somehow unnatural when really there is no cause for alarm." Prakash says that the GE produce and products on the American market are safe and "have been thoroughly tested in terms of their safety and environmental impacts." (Dr. C.S. Prakash, a geneticist and professor of biotechnology at Tuskegee University in Tuskegee, Ala.)