doi:10.1038/nbt1203-1411a
Nature Biotech
December 2003 Volume 21 Number 12 p 1411

Trials, tribulations and diversification

The results are in. The world's largest, most concerted evaluation of
the impact of herbicide-tolerant (HT) GM crops on farmland biodiversity
(see pp. 1418, 1429, 1454) reveals differences in weed and insect
densities depending on the crop type and weed killer studied. The fact
that these findings are specific to the United Kingdom and to the crops
and weed killers used was predictably lost on the UK media, which
proceeded to herald the results as a death knell for GM crops. As a
result, Tony Blair and his government no longer have the option of
fighting GM's corner. There will be no commercial GM plant approvals in
Europe now that European authorities can point to the need to conduct
trials on environmental impact.

Is this the end for UK plant bioscience? Well, hardly. Very little
creative research has been done on HT crops for a decade or more. Yes,
there has been a need to transfer the traits to crop species and to
propagate seed. And there has been a good deal of passive 'nature study'
on the environmental and agronomic effects of GM crops. But the
technology that created the HT crops is ancient in research terms,
harking back to a time in the 1980s when genetic manipulation in plants
was more art than science. HT plants emerged early at least partly
because the transferred trait could be used as a selectable marker in
the days when gene cloning efficiencies in crops were extremely low.

Indeed, now might be a good time for the United Kingdom's plant biology
community to refocus on gaining greater understanding of fundamentally
important plant characteristics while the rest of the world works on
applications. It may be a good thing for UK plant research to shift its
focus from agronomic traits to those of mere (!) scientific interest. A
bit of curiosity-driven plant research could be good. A lot would be
better. And if the UK government really wants to get out of this mess,
it could certainly do worse than backing innovative UK plant biology
right now.

doi:10.1038/nbt1203-1418

Nature Biotech
December 2003 Volume 21 Number 12 pp 1418 - 1419

Europe responds to UK's GM field trials

Peter Mitchell

London

Individual EU member states have ambivalent attitudes to the results of
a recent farm-scale evaluation (FSE) of three genetically modified (GM)
crops conducted in the United Kingdom. Despite pressure from the
European Commission (EC; Brussels) to end the current de facto
moratorium on GM crops by May 2004, each government's decision depends
more on the direction of public debate, relayed by the media coverage of
the GM issue in their respective country, rather than on the results of
scientific studies.

The four-year FSE - the biggest and best-controlled ever - studied local
flora and fauna populations after cultivation of GM herbicide-resistant
maize, beet and oilseed rape. Scientists from three independent research
institutions in the UK studied 60-70 fields of each crop, each field
divided into a GM and non-GM section. The results, published in nine
papers on October 16 in the UK Royal Society's Journal Philosophical
Transactions in the Biological Sciences (358, 2003; see p. 1453), show
that wild flower and insect populations were reduced in GM rape and beet
fields, but were slightly increased in GM maize fields. Critics of the
study point out that the FSE was really testing pesticide-spraying
regimes, and GM herbicide-resistant crops are not the cause of the
observed reduction in biodiversity.

Will this study influence the attitudes of other European countries?
Helge Torgersen, Austrian GM policy expert at the Austrian Academy of
Sciences (Vienna, Austria), says, "The new UK data could, and probably
will, serve as an argument in both directions." In Austria, he adds,
"Attitudes are so entrenched that results from experiments like the UK
trialsóespecially when ambiguousócould hardly change anything."

By contrast, the FSE could be used to justify restricting the directive
on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified
organisms (2001/1 when transposing into a member state's law (Nat.
Biotechnol. 21, 346, 2003). Karin Boschert, a GM politics researcher at
Munich University (Munich, Germany), says Germany's coalition
governmentóin which both environment and farming ministers are from the
Green Partyóis using the UK trials as moral support for its anti-GM
line. Fear of such moves could have prompted at least one industry giant
to leave the continent (see Box 1).

But in other countries, the way the mass media presents the public
debate adds pressure to governments; for example, the UK's media has
concluded that GM food is now a dead duck, which would make it very
difficult for the government there to approve the commercial release of
GM crops into the environment. "For sure the UK work is an issue in the
Netherlands and Belgium, where it was reported on front pages under 'GM
crops may harm the environment' headlines," says Geert Ritsema of
Friends of the Earth (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Belgium's Biosafety
Council is examining the FSE data as part of its examination of
marketing applications for GM oilseed rape and sugar beet.

But some can see through the noise. In the Netherlands, although the
press coverage of the UK trials started off by incorrectly ascribing the
findings to GM crops rather than herbicides, Rob Janssen, head of the
Netherlands' biotechnology industry association NIABA (Leidschendam,
Netherlands) says those reports were soon correctedóunlike in the UK. As
a result, "the impact in the Netherlands will be much less than in
countries like the UK where the debate is more one-sided," he says.

But in France, neither press reports nor the FSE are expected to
influence the government's position, which already incorporates a ban on
commercial growing of GM beet and oilseed rape, after an intense public
debate. That ban arose from the risk of cross-pollination, but the UK
data about the effect on wildlife helps to back it up, says Claire
Marris, a GM politics researcher at France's national agronomics
research institute (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique;
Paris). However, on maizeóa crop economically very important in
France - there could be more flexibility from the agriculture ministry,
which reportedly contains some pro-GM elements.

Finally, the UK trials are likely to have little influence elsewhere in
Europe, especially in Spain and Italy where the climate favors different
crop varieties and agricultural methods. Nevertheless, Spain recognizes
the value of large-scale trials, but for the study of gene flow rather
than environmental impact. A trial sponsored by Syngenta (Madrid, Spain)
on GM maize, of which about 32,000 hectares are already under
cultivation in the Catalonia region, was launched in September and is
scheduled to last for three years. This trial will examine gene flow
between coexisting GM and non-GM crops, which in Spain is regarded as a
more critical issue than biodiversity. "Coexistence is going to be much
more important [for Spain's economy]," says Esteban Alcalde, regulatory
manager for the Mediterranean countries at Syngenta. "We rely on EC
[assessment] that there is no adverse impact on the environment for
crops that have been authorized [by the EC]."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-824716,00.html


The Sunday Times - Britain

September 21, 2003

GM crops get the go-ahead

David Cracknell, Political Editor


MINISTERS are poised to approve the commercial growing of genetically
modified crops in Britain, according to leaked cabinet papers.

Confidential letters between senior ministers disclose that the government
is to back new Brussels rules banning GM-free zones and allowing the
"co-existence" of GM with conventional crops.

The revelation comes ahead of the publication next month of long-awaited
results of GM crop trials in Britain. The studies are expected to show
that the growing of some GM crops could be allowed under regulated
conditions.

Tony Blair and Lord Sainsbury, the science minister, are known to be keen
on the benefits of GM, dubbed "Frankenstein crops" by critics. David Hill,
Downing Street's new director of communications, is a former adviser to
Monsanto, the American GM giant.

The disclosure will fuel concerns of anti-GM campaigners that the Brussels
rules will be used by Blair to open the floodgates for the crops to be
grown commercially in Britain.

Michael Meacher, the former environment minister and opponent of GM who
was sacked in June, has warned against the introduction of GM crops.

He says the government has not proved that they are safe and warns that
their introduction will contaminate organic farms, potentially destroying
one of Britain's main agricultural growth markets.

A letter from Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, to cabinet
colleagues reveals that she will support European Union proposals at a
meeting of EU agriculture ministers at the end of the month.

"I am proposing that we broadly support the (European) commission's
guidelines as providing a reasonable basis to address the issue," she wrote
on September 5.

She attaches a summary of the EU rules, which state that "no form of
agriculture (conventional, organic, GM) should be excluded from the EU".

"Co-existence measures should be developed and implemented by member
states because farming patterns across the EU are so diverse," the letter
adds.

It also refers to the EU's proposal to stop governments imposing GM-free
areas, an idea favoured by the devolved administrations in Scotland and
Wales and some English councils. This month the commission refused a plea
by the Upper Austria region to outlaw genetically modified crops for three
years.

"Our interests are best served by giving broad support to the commission
guidelines," Beckett says. "They also reflect the general principles that I
envisage we will want to apply - ie that any co-existence measures should
be evidence-based, practical and proportionate, and should seek to balance
the interests of all farmers."

Beckett's letter was addressed to Jack Straw, the foreign secretary.
Blair, Straw and Patricia Hewitt, the trade secretary, are also keen not to
upset Britain's relations with America, the world's largest grower of
commercial crops.

A five-year moratorium by the EU on genetically modified crops, which
expires this year and will not be renewed, has caused friction with
America, which launched a legal action claiming it was in breach of world
trade rules.

Beckett adds: "We oppose any argument that the de facto moratorium on GM
approvals should be maintained until legislative action has been taken on
co-existence at either EU or national level."

Hewitt, in a reply, concurs.

"I agree that our interests are best served by giving broad support to the
commission guidelines. We must also bear in mind the potential impact (on)
EU-US relations."

Earlier this year The Sunday Times revealed that ministers wanted to kill
off plans by Brussels to bring in a comprehensive regime for labelling GM
foods because they fear "negative fallout" from Washington.

This week the government will announce the results of a public
consultation on the GM technology. Opinion polls show that 70% of the
European public do not want genetically modified food and 94% want to be
able to choose whether or not they eat it.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=446787


GM crops? No thanks
Britain delivers overwhelming verdict after unprecedented public opinion
exercise
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
THE INDEPENDENT
25 September 2003


The title of the debate was "GM Nation?" But that is precisely what the
British people do not want their country to be, according to the official
report from the national consultation on genetically modified crops and food
presented to the Government yesterday.

The unprecedented test of public opinion, which over six weeks this summer
involved 675 public meetings and elicited more than 36,000 written
responses, revealed a deep hostility to GM technology across the population.

Alongside fears that GM crops and food could be harmful to human health and
the environment, the debate threw up widespread mistrust and suspicion of
the motives of those taking decisions about GM - especially government and
multi-national companies such as Monsanto.

On a whole series of questions GM-hostile majorities were enormous, with 85
per cent saying GM crops would benefit producers not ordinary people, 86 per
cent saying they were unhappy with the idea of eating GM food, 91 per cent
saying they thought GM had potential negative effects on the environment,
and no fewer than 93 per cent of respondents saying they thought GM
technology was driven more by the pursuit of profit than the public
interest. Figures in support of GM were, by contrast, tiny.

Even special focus groups, deliberately selected from people who were
uncommitted one way or another, to tease out the views of the "silent
majority", and whose members were initially prepared to admit the technology
might have benefits, opposed GM technology more the more they learnt about
it, the report discloses.

The extent and the unequivocal nature of the hostility revealed by "GM
Nation?" will represent a substantial political hurdle to those who wish to
bring the technology to Britain as soon as possible - led by Tony Blair and
his Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, and the giant American and
European agribusiness companies such as Monsanto and Bayer.

Yesterday Mrs Beckett reaffirmed a promise that the Government would
"listen" to the views the debate has highlighted and respond to them
publicly, although she made no such pledge that it would take account of
them in deciding its course of action.

But that was what the Government had to do, said green groups, the organic
agriculture movement and others sceptical of the values of GM, who warmly
welcomed the report. "The Government will ignore this report at its peril,"
said Pete Riley, the GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth. "The public has
made it clear that it doesn't want GM food and it doesn't want GM crops.
There must not be any more weasel words from the Government on this issue."

The umbrella body for the GM companies in Britain, the Agricultural
Biotechnology Council, rejected the report's findings, saying that "public
meetings do not equal public opinion," although the ABC's chairman, Paul
Rylott, had been a member of the debate steering group and issued no
dissenting opinion in the report itself.

Criticising the debate's methodology, the ABC claimed that nearly 80 per
cent of the debate response forms "can be clearly identified by cluster
analysis as being orchestrated by campaigning groups". The chairman of the
debate, Professor Malcolm Grant, rejected the accusation.

The report is indeed likely to be widely seen as reflecting public opinion,
and Mrs Beckett herself legitimised it yesterday by saying it had been "a
new way of engaging the public in the policy-making process."

The embarrassment that "GM Nation?" will cause to Mr Blair and his
like-minded colleagues is all the greater in that it is the third such in as
many months, after two other GM reports, both commissioned by ministers and
published in July. One final report is now due before the Government decides
whether to give the go-ahead to the commercial growth of GM crops in
Britain. This is on the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops, a four-year
trial designed to see if the deadlier weedkillers used with them cause new
harm to the environment. It is due to be published on 16 October and will be
the crucial document in the debate, because the decision to go ahead is
taken by the EU in Brussels, and the only way the Government can countermand
it is by finding new evidence of harm to human health or the environment
from GM technology - such as crop trials may provide.

The general mood, the report said, "ranged from caution to doubt, through
suspicion and scepticism, to hostility and rejection." Professor Grant said:
"I now look forward to the Government's responding to the points raised in
the debate, and taking these into account in the future formulation of
policy on GM."

GM NATION? BY NUMBERS

* 20,000 people attended 675 meetings across Britain

* The public sent in 1200 letters and e-mails

* The website received 2.9 million hits in just six weeks

* 70,000 feeback forms were downloaded; 36,557 were returned

* 93% of respondents believed GM technology was driven by profit rather than
public interest

* 85% thought GM crops would benefit producers, rather than ordinary people

* 84% believed they would cause "unacceptable interference" with nature

* 54% never want to see GM crops grown in Britain

* 86% were unhappy with the idea of eating GM food

* 93% said too little was known about health effects

* 2% were happy with GM foods in all circumstances
ENDS


next item:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=446777

Blair the key as decision nears over commercial GM crops in Britain
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
25 September 2003


The hostile result of yesterday's report on the national GM debate is yet
another obstacle in the way of Tony Blair's five-year mission to import
genetically modified agriculture to Britain, and the most significant one
yet.

It is Mr Blair who sits at the heart of the GM project. Although other
ministers are keen supporters, such as the Environment Secretary Margaret
Beckett and the Science Minister Lord Sainsbury, it is the Prime Minister
who is the main GM cheerleader within Government: principally, it has long
been rumoured, because of a face-to-face conversation with Bill Clinton in
1998.

The US President, himself a keen supporter, is said to have converted his
British fellow leader to the benefits of GM, and Mr Blair now sees it both
as an important technological step forward, and a way of keeping in step
with the US. EU reluctance to accept GM has infuriated the Americans in
recent years.

But in signing up to GM Mr Blair did something very uncharacteristic in so
canny a politician - he got out of step with the public mood.

Ever since it dawned on people five years ago that this new form of
super-intensive agriculture was coming, whether they liked it or not, they
have on the whole been sceptical or hostile. And now this scepticism and
hostility have been rubbed in the Government's face - through a public
debate it endorsed and funded itself - in a way which will be politically
very hard to ignore.

But the Government may yet try to. The decision on whether GM crops can be
grown commercially here is due to be taken in the next few months. It has
been put on hold for four years while extensive trials have been carried out
on the four GM crops currently proposed for Britain.

The trials are designed to see if the super-powerful weedkillers which the
GM crops are engineered to tolerate cause more harm to farmland wildlife
than the weedkillers being used at the moment. If the trials show that they
do, this will be the one chance the Government has of halting GM in Britain.

This is because the basic decision to authorise the crops is taken at a
European level, and only new evidence of harm to human health or the
environment can then be used to overrule the Brussels authorisation. The
Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) as they are known, to be published on 16
October, will thus be the crucial piece of evidence on which a decision not
to turn Britain into a GM nation could be based.

But over the summer there have been three accompanying consultation
exercises in advance of this, of which the debate is the last. And,
crucially, they have all turned out to be less favourable than the
Government might have wished.

On 11 July the Government's own civil servants concluded - embarrassingly
for Mr Blair - that they were unable to find any compelling economic reason
for introducing GM technology. The report on costs and benefits of GM by the
Strategy Unit of the Cabinet Office said that the benefits would be strictly
limited, not least because no one would buy the products.

On 21 July the Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor David King,
launched a report on the science of GM which dismissed food safety fears
arising from GM crops, but highlighted environmental concerns, noting that
GM crop weedkillers threatened "serious potential harm" to farmland
wildlife.

Now the GM debate has indicated in a way that cannot be ignored that the
British public are overwhelmingly hostile to GM, deeply distrusting those
responsible for pushing it forward - principally government and the
multi-national biotech companies such as Monsanto.

The cumulative effects of these three reports mean that commercialising GM
crops in Britain will be very hard for the Government to justify with any
sort of convincing rational argument. There are not many voices speaking out
in favour of it, and very many against.

Ignoring the GM debate, furthermore, will mean the Government is flying in
the face of its own public consultation exercise.

An atmosphere has therefore been created which may induce Mr Blair and his
like-minded ministers to retreat, on the grounds that the political costs of
going forward may be too high - if the Farm Scale Evaluations give them the
opportunity.

The Government's political will is likely to be key, because if the trials
admit of more than one interpretation - as they may - ministers can either
retreat behind the argument that they are powerless in the face of an EU
decision to authorise GM, or seek to derogate from that decision in the EU
Council of Ministers.

The fact that the GM Debate has given the loudest public raspberry
conceivable to GM technology may well push them towards the second course of
action.

FACTS AND FIGURES

* GM crops were cultivated on 59 million hectares globally in 2002 with 99
per cent in four countries, the US (66 per cent), Argentina (23 per cent),
Canada (6 per cent) and China (4 per cent).

* Three crops comprise 95 per cent of the land under GM cultivation: soybean
(62 per cent), maize (21 per cent) and cotton (12 per cent).

* Millions of people, particularly in the United States, Canada and
Argentina, have been eating food derived from animals fed on GM diets for up
to seven years and no substantial ill-effects have been reported.

* Products from the US biotech giant Monsanto account for more than 90 per
cent of the total area planted with genetically engineered crops in the
world in 2001.

* Of the six million farmers who grew GM crops in 2002 worldwide, more than
three-quarters were small-scale and poor cotton farmers in developing
countries, mainly China and South Africa.

* In 2002, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Zambia rejected donations of GM-maize as
food aid from the US through the World Food Programme despite shortages that
threatened 10 million people with starvation.

* Genetic contamination of non-GM and organic crops by GM varieties in
Canada has started.

* In 2000, a variety of GM maize called StarLink, designed by GM company
Aventis as an animal feed and not allowed to be fed to humans, was found to
have contaminated taco shells in the USA. Aventis had to buy the whole
harvest in the US, at estimated cost of $100m.

* In May 2000, conventional non-GM oilseed rape imported from Canada and
sold in the UK, France, Germany and Sweden by seed company Advanta was found
to be contaminated with GM oilseed rape.

* Nearly 800 million people go hungry every day because they cannot grow or
buy food. One in seven children born in the countries where hunger is most
common die before they are five.

* Commercialisation of GM oilseed rape and maize would increase costs of
non-GM and organic farmers by up to 41 per cent.

* All of the GM oilseed rape trials by GM company Aventis in farm scale
evaluations had been contaminated with an unapproved GM oilseed rape
variety. The Government said it was a "serious breach of regulations" but
allowed the crops to be harvested.

* The four corporations that control most of the GM seed market had a
combined turnover from agrochemicals and seeds of $21.6bn in 2001.

* One study showed Monsanto's GM soya had 6 per cent lower yields than
non-GM soya and 11 per cent less than high-yielding non-GM soya.

* The US biotechnology industry spends $250m a year promoting GM.

* Only 1 per cent of GM research is aimed at crops used by poor farmers.

* No GM crop has been approved for sale or growing in the European Union
since 1998. No GM crops are approved for cultivation in the UK.

* The biggest UK supermarkets removed GM ingredients from their own-label
products in 1998 and most fast-food outlets and other food manufacturers
have followed suit.
ENDS

next item:

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=446776

Michael Meacher: Are we going to sacrifice a growing market for organic
crops by risking contamination?
25 September 2003


The main advantages alleged for genetic modification are that it increases
yields, reduces herbicide use and could feedthe developing world.
Unfortunately, all these claims are either strongly disputed or downright
wrong.

Monsanto has declared that yields increase, but the experience of Canadian
farmers, who were initially favourable to GM, has proved the opposite. In
India, the GM cotton harvest collapsed because of bollworm infestation. On
herbicide use, powerful chemical weedkillers still often have to be used
three times - first to clear the ground, then as the crop begins to grow,
and third as it matures. Cross-contamination has proved a nightmare, with
oilseed rape pollen particularly promiscuous. And if world hunger is to be
addressed, fair trade rules for the developing countries, a more equal
distribution of land, and population management measures are vastly more
important than GM, whose role is insignificant.

The disadvantages of GM are that it is an untested, and potentially risky,
technology. The insertion of GM DNA and lack of control over the gene's
functions could cause undesired effects not immediately apparent. That is
why it is so serious that no systematic clinical testing has been carried
out on the health impacts of GM foods. We do know that food allergies and
food-related illnesses have doubled here and in North America over recent
years, but the suspected connection with GM has not been tested. Equally,
long-term impacts of GM on the environment have not been explored.

Other key disadvantages are that co-existence with organic crops is
impossible. Organic oilseed rape has virtually been wiped out in Canada as a
result of GM contamination. Do we want the same to happen here? We have a
choice. Are we going to sacrifice organic crops, for which there is an
expanding market, in order to license GM crops, for which there is no
market?

People also want consumer choice. The Government says it is in favour. But
people cannot choose GM-free food when the labelling rules proposed have a
0.9 per cent threshold, so you do not know if it is GM free.

Michael Meacher was the Environment minister from 1997 to 2003

ENDS

next item:

frantic PR from

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=446775


Paul Rylott: British consumers should have the option of buying cheaper,
more convenient food
25 September 2003


British consumers today demand affordable, safe, high-quality food produced
in a way that is more eco-friendly than some current farming practices.

Genetically modified (GM) crops offer one solution. Currently farmers and
consumers are denied the GM option. People in Britain should be free to
choose GM, just as they are in other countries.

GM crops are now grown in 16 different countries. Six million farmers are
growing them, four million are in resource-poor countries such as China,
India and South Africa. GM crops are grown each year on approximately 60
million ha, an area over twice the size of the UK.

The recent economic review by the Prime Minister's strategy unit concluded
that GM crops would offer UK farmers "cost and convenience advantages",
which the industry estimates to be in excess of £50m for the four crops that
in the farm-scale evaluations (FSE).

The UK science review stated that the risk from current GM foods was no
greater than other forms of agriculture. This should not have been a
surprise - it is a view shared by the World Health Organisation, regulators
around the world and the Royal Society.

The Agricultural Biotechnology Council looks forward to the results of the
FSEs and expect them to replicate environmental benefits already observed
elsewhere. The 280-plus sites cultivated as part of the FSEs have clearly
shown that co-existence of GM and organic agriculture is feasible.

GM technology already offers substantial advantages to British farmers and
consumers. Further technological benefits will come. Future GM crop
possibilities include virus, pest and disease resistance and the ability to
reduce allergenicity and improve the nutritional content.

Current GM crops also allow farmers to improve the environment they live and
work in through the more targeted use of inputs such as pesticides and
herbicides. They no longer have to cultivate the soil as much, which means
that they improve soil structure, reduce soil erosion and save fuel.

In Britain, independent studies have shown that in oilseed rape, fuel
savings could be 16 million litres, which means a saving in greenhouse gas
emissions of 57,000 tons. The estimated yield and productivity savings of GM
crops could help a potential biofuels industry in the UK to the tune of
£85m.

Recent research at Brooms Barn, Rothamsted, has shown that innovative weed
control methods, only possible with GM technology, can tailor the weeds
within the crop so that they provide specific skylark or stone
curlew-friendly habitats.

Genetic modification is already benefiting society in the medical and
pharmaceutical arena. The time has come for case-by-case responsible
introduction of this technology within UK agriculture.

Paul Rylott is the chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council

ENDS

next item:

http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=446727

We must explore the costs and benefits of GM technology
25 September 2003


It was no surprise to learn that the official report into public attitudes
to genetically modified crops revealed widespread doubts about the new
technology. What was startling was the scale of that rejection. Only 2 per
cent of those who took part in 600 consultation meetings across the country
said that they would be happy to eat GM foods. That is not necessarily
representative of public opinion, as the meetings were not designed to
achieve a cross sample of the British population. Indeed, there is a case
for saying that there is a "self-selecting" effect at work in such a
consultation exercise, because those most likely to turn up to such a
meeting might be expected to be those most passionately opposed to GM
products. Even so, it is not encouraging news for the GM lobby.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1049141,00.html

They reap what they sow

Leader
Thursday September 25, 2003
The Guardian

In trying to find where hostility to the genetic modification of crops ends,
the government has discovered an uncomfortable fact: there is no boundary to
the public's antipathy. Instead, the results of the admirable national
public debate show that not only are people deeply uneasy about GM
technology, but that the more they find out about it, the more their
opinions harden and the more intense become their concerns. The news
will dismay GM's supporters, including many in government, who always
thought that opinion could be turned around if the public was given enough
decent information.

This view is quietly disappearing from the political radar. In fact, rather
than supporting the case for GM crop cultivation, the government's own
advisers have been steadily weakening it. Its science review of
biotechnology in July expressed hitherto unspoken doubts about the
environmental impact of transgenic crops and admitted substantial gaps
in scientific knowledge remained.

Weeks earlier the Downing Street strategy unit concluded that the
current range of GM crops had little commercial potential in the UK. These
reports and yesterday's findings bring to the surface the reality that
retailing new
breakthroughs in science, especially ones which impact on the sensitive
area of food safety, requires ministers to tread carefully and cautiously.

Whether this message has sunk deep enough into Whitehall will be
revealed by the handling of the results, due in weeks, of the field-scale
trials of GM
crops. Given that yesterday's report shows little support for early
commercialisation, ministers face no easy task.

This issue is not about the triumph of opinion over knowledge. What is
striking about the GM debate is the suspicion infecting the public mood.
The report identifies "a weakening of faith in the ability or even the will of
any govern ment to defend the interest of the general public". Coupled
with the widely held belief that multinationals have too much power and with
recent food scares such as BSE, ministers need to start speaking to
people's concerns if they want to assuage them. There should be a recognition
that science does not provide all the answers - although it enables the right
questions to be asked. It is clear that government may not have the
knowledge and advice to make good decisions, especially when dealing
with new technologies. This means ministers themselves have to come clean
over what science can and cannot explain. It is not good enough to say there
is no evidence for risks, because the public believes they are not looking
hard enough.

While these might be viewed as local difficulties, looming in the distance
are more geopolitical concerns that call into question the power and role
of national governments when determining the extent of the commercial
sphere.
European consumers are sceptical about GM technology, opting for a
"safety first" approach in dealing with it.

The result has been a five-year moratorium on growing crops in Europe,
a stance that reflects continental anxieties. But pressure from the United
States and lobbying by multinational companies means this will be lifted.
Such a development, if not contained and limited, will confirm fears that
ministers buckle before corporate interests.

GM crops represent one of the biggest decisions this government faces.
They signal an irreversible shift in farming and could determine what happens
to food production patterns. There is little public appetite for GM food.
If it
wants to develop one, the government needs to recover the trust of the
electorate. Unless ministers can regain consumers' faith in the ability of
governments to safeguard the food supply and the environment, GM
crops will remain just food for thought.

-------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------

TITLE: Junkyard Dogs
SOURCE: Forbes, USA, by Zina Moukheiber
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0929/052.html
DATE: Sep 29, 2003

------------------- archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ -------------------


Junkyard Dogs

A tiny Aussie firm has claimed rights to vast tracts of the genome and is
riling the biotech world.

Francis Collins was in the middle of his keynote speech last July at the
International Congress of Genetics in Melbourne, Australia when he
arrested the audience with a rebuke singling out a local biotech firm.
Collins, the force behind the mapping of the human genome and now the
director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, accused the
firm of hijacking drug research with flimsy patents covering huge strips
of so-called junk DNA, biological bits once thought insignificant but now
central to the work of disease hunters.

In the audience was a stunned Malcolm Simons. Cofounder of the accused
firm, Genetic Technologies, he stood up and introduced himself as the
author of the patents. He replied that his claims were deserved and
cleared by the U.S. Patent & Trademark office. Simons, a 63-year-old
immunogeneticist recently made bald by chemotherapy, sat down, a bit
shaken. He says now: "That was a perverse comment. I was the first to
realize that junk DNA is not junk."

Genetic Technologies has incited a mini-riot in the high-stakes world of
biotech. Gene hunters have long focused on a mere 1.5% of the human
genome, an estimated 25,000 genes that code for proteins and thereby
control the immune response, organ growth and brain activity, among
other things. The other 98.5% of the double helix was derided as junk, a
vestige of the distant evolutionary past. But since the first draft
sequence of the human genome was released in 2000, scientists have
realized that junk DNA plays a key role in switching genes on and off.
And they are astonished to find that an obscure company has a claim on
the junk and wants to be paid for it.

Simons' four key patents, granted by the U.S. between 1993 and 1998,
cover the use of variations in a junk DNA sequence to assist in
analyzing or identifying genes in the coding regions. But the patents are broad
enough for the company's chairman, an irascible Aussie doctor-turned-
entrepreneur named Mervyn Jacobson. He has compiled a list of more
than 1,800 companies whose work he thinks falls within the scope of the
patents. "The world has become our research lab," he says.

The patents expire between 2010 and 2016, and Jacobson wants to
make the most of that time. So far the company has sold licenses to two
universities and eight U.S. companies, including Quest Diagnostics,
Nanogen, Perlegen Sciences and Myriad Genetics. Prices range from
$75,000 for the University of Utah to $1 million for Myriad. Jacobson has
generated $7 million in license revenue since mid-2002--this, for a firm
that grossed $3 million last year, half of which came from helping to
settle paternity disputes.

If you don't pay, you get sued--especially if you scorn Jacobson. Last
year a major U.S. biotech firm invited him up to learn more about his
patents. Jacobson flew from Australia, but the company's head of
business development never showed. "They view us as sufficiently small and far
away to ignore us," says Jacobson.

Three U.S. firms now face infringement suits for refusing to pay:
Applera, Nuvelo and Covance. Jacobson says Applera should either buy
a license or stop using noncoding DNA for, among other things, a
diagnostic
test for cystic fibrosis. Jacobson also wants $5.7 million in license
revenue from the New Zealand department of health. He has also taken
the unusual step of demanding $1,000 fees for academic licenses. "Every
university that does genetic research potentially infringes their
patents," says Brent Brown of the University of Utah's technology-
transfer office, which took its license in May.

An early paying customer was Sequenom, a DNA-analysis company in
San Diego that agreed to pay $500,000 in April 2002. Says Antonius Schuh,
chief executive of Sequenom: "It's a ridiculous, trivial patent." He sat
for four months on a letter from Jacobson notifying the company that its
research might be infringing. Eventually, Schuh decided to pay before
the price went up.

Simons, who left Genetic Technologies in 2000 after a tiff with
Jacobson, has been growing steadily more aghast at his former colleague's
hardball tactics. Though he is currently battling multiple myeloma, a fatal
bone-
marrow cancer, Simons says he is willing to take the stand for either
side to clarify the patent if the Applera lawsuit goes to trial.

Genetic Technologies' detractors say its patents could crumble under
attack from a good defense lawyer. Genome mapper Francis Collins
says prior research undermines Simons' work. He cites a 1978 paper that
showed a link between the gene behind sickle cell disease and a variation in a
section of junk DNA. Jacobson dismisses as poppycock the notion that
noncoding DNA was understood back then.

Research into noncoding DNA has recently been gaining force. In
December 2002 a pivotal Nature article pointed out that junk DNAmay help
explain
the differences between man and mouse, since the two creatures share
most of their genes. About 5% of the genome in both humans and mice has
changed little for millennia, and about half of that 5%is noncoding. The
fact that these pieces of DNA have been around that long implies some
role.

Up to one quarter of genetic mutations occur either in introns, noncoding
segments of DNA sandwiched within the coding regions of a gene, or in
sequences between genes. Mutations in introns give rise to cystic
fibrosis, breast cancer or forms of anemia. Variations in the between-
gene regions have been linked to sickle cell anemia and diabetes.

Simons' breakthrough in finding meaning in the junk dates to 1987, when
he was setting up a DNA diagnostics business for an Australian company in
Burlingame, Calif. On the side, he took part in an international workshop
studying the human leukocyte antigen gene complex, which helps regulate
the immune system. He found a link between HLA and the regions of junk.

By 1988 his employer had gone bankrupt, and Simons was forced to
return to Australia. Mervyn Jacobson read about Simons' bumpy journey and
was smitten with the idea of finding value in junk DNA. In 1989 they formed
GeneType and applied for their first patent covering noncoding regions
and HLA. In 2000 GeneType pulled off a reverse merger with a publicly
traded Australian shell company that formerly mined for gold. The deal
brought in $6.5 million in today's dollars. DNA may be a richer lode.

*

[a list of patents granted to Malcolm J. Simons by the U.S. PTO;
more about Genetic Technologies: http://www.gtg.com.au/]

United States Patent 5,153,117
Simons October 6, 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fetal cell recovery method
Abstract

The present invention provides a method for selectively recovering fetal
cells from a maternal blood sample. The method comprises the following
steps. Cells of the sample are combined with a first and a second
antibody labeled with different fluorochromes for a period of time
sufficient for antibody binding to produce labeled cells. The antibodies
are specific for two different antigens expressed by two material HLA
alleles. In a preferred embodiment, the alleles are of an HLA locus for
which the woman is heterozygous. Cells having two different fluorescent
labels are separated from cells having either a single fluorescent label
or unlabeled cells using fluorescence-activated cell sorting. The
separated single-labeled and unlabeled cells are recovered. The
separated fetal cells can be used in a variety of procedures including DNA
amplification methods and karyotyping.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Simons; Malcolm J. (Fryerstown, NZ)
Assignee: GeneType A.G. (Zug, CH)
Appl. No.: 499932
Filed: March 27, 1990

*

United States Patent 5,192,659
Simons March 9, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intron sequence analysis method for detection of adjacent and remote
locus alleles as haplotypes
Abstract

The present invention provides a method for detection of at least one
allele of a genetic locus and can be used to provide direct determination
of the haplotype. The method comprises amplifying genomic DNA with a
primer pair that spans an intron sequence and defines a DNA sequence in
genetic linkage with an allele to be detected. The primer-defined DNA
sequence contains a sufficient number of intron sequence nucleotides to
characterize the allele. Genomic DNA is amplified to produce an amplified
DNA sequence characteristic of the allele. The amplified DNA sequence is
analyzed to detect the presence of a genetic variation in the amplified
DNA sequence such as a change in the length of the sequence, gain or loss
of a restriction site or substitution of a nucleotide. The variation is
characteristic of the allele to be detected and can be used to detect
remote alleles. Kits comprising one or more of the reagents used in the
method are also described.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Simons; Malcolm J. (Fryerstown, AU)
Assignee: GeneType AG (Zug, CH)
Appl. No.: 551239
Filed: July 11, 1990

*

United States Patent 5,447,842
Simons September 5, 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fetal cell recovery method
Abstract

The present invention provides a method for selectively recovering fetal
cells from a maternal blood sample. The method is performed on a blood
sample from a pregnant woman having different first and second cell
surface antigens expressed by a first allele of a polymorphic genetic
locus and a second allele of a polymorphic genetic locus. The method
separates maternal and fetal cells based on differential reactivities of
the cells to antibodies specific for polymorphic cell surface antigens,
particularly the HLA antigens. In particular, the fetal and maternal
cells are separated based on the non-reactivity of the fetal cells to an
antibody specific for a cell surface antigen encoded by a non-transmitted
maternal allele. The method can be performed using solid phase-affixed
antibody and recovering non-bound cells or using fluorescent labeled
antibody and recovering unlabeled cells by fluorescence-activated cell
sorting. In a preferred embodiment, the cells are also contacted with a
second antibody specific for the second cell surface antigen. Fetal cells
are separated based on their reaction with, at most, one of the
antibodies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Simons; Malcolm J. (Glenluce, AU)
Assignee: GeneType A.G. (Zug, CH)
Appl. No.: 927313
Filed: November 2, 1992
PCT Filed: March 27, 1991
PCT NO: PCT/AU91/00115
371 Date: November 2, 1992
102(e) Date: November 2, 1992
PCT PUB.NO.: WO91/14768
PCT PUB. Date: October 3, 1991

*

United States Patent 5,612,179
Simons * March 18, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intron sequence analysis method for detection of adjacent and remote
locus alleles as haplotypes
Abstract

The present invention provides a method for detection of at least one
allele of a genetic locus and can be used to provide direct determination
of the haplotype. The method comprises amplifying genomic DNA with a
primer pair that spans an intron sequence and defines a DNA sequence
in genetic linkage with an allele to be detected. The primer-defined DNA
sequence contains a sufficient number of intron sequence nucleotides to
characterize the allele. Genomic DNA is amplified to produce an
amplified DNA sequence characteristic of the allele. The amplified DNA
sequence
is analyzed to detect the presence of a genetic variation in the amplified
DNA sequence such as a change in the length of the sequence, gain or
loss of a restriction site or substitution of a nucleotide. The variation is
characteristic of the allele to be detected and can be used to detect
remote alleles. Kits comprising one or more of the reagents used in the
method are also described.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Simons; Malcolm J. (Fryerstown, NZ)
Assignee: GeneType A.G. (Zug, CH)
[*] Notice: The portion of the term of this patent subsequent to March
9, 2010 has been disclaimed.
Appl. No.: 949652
Filed: September 23, 1992

*

United States Patent 5,789,568
Simons August 4, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) locus-specific primers
Abstract

The present invention provides a method for detection of at least one
allele of a genetic locus and can be used to provide direct determination
of the haplotype. The method comprises amplifying genomic DNA with a
primer pair that spans an intron sequence and defines a DNA sequence
in genetic linkage with an allele to be detected. The primer-defined DNA
sequence contains a sufficient number of intron sequence nucleotides to
characterize the allele. Genomic DNA is amplified to produce an
amplified DNA sequence characteristic of the allele. The amplified DNA
sequence
is analyzed to detect the presence of a genetic variation in the amplified
DNA sequence such as a change in the length of the sequence, gain or
loss of a restriction site or substitution of a nucleotide. The variation is
characteristic of the allele to be detected and can be used to detect
remote alleles. Kits comprising one or more of the reagents used in the
method are also described.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Simons; Malcolm J. (Fryerstown, AU)
Assignee: GeneType A.G. (Zug, CH)
Appl. No.: 682054
Filed: July 16, 1996

*

United States Patent 5,851,762
Simons December 22, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genomic mapping method by direct haplotyping using intron sequence
analysis
Abstract

The present invention is an improved genomic mapping method which is
able
to generate highly informative polymorphic sites throughout the genome.
In addition to being highly polymorphic, the sites can be used to
generate patterns that identify allelic and sub-allelic haplotypes
associated with the region.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Simons; Malcolm J. (Glenluce, AU)
Assignee: Gene Type AG (CH)
Appl. No.: 293779
Filed: August 22, 1994

4. RELEVANT THEOLOGY

4.1 Crude Atheism

This theme may be introduced by a glimpse of a relatively candid
advocate of gene-tampering:



James Watson endorses scientists "playing God"

At the annual meeting of the British all-party Parliamentary and
Scientific Committee held in mid-May, James Watson argued that there
is nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of scientists "playing
god" by manipulating the human genome. Watson rejected criticism of
human germline engineering by asking, "[I]n all honesty, if scientists
don't play god, who will?"


A further introductory glimpse is the following letter from me to a
British newspaper about one of their columnists:

The leading environmental journalist George Monbiot has made some
of the most penetrating comments on genetic modification (GM). It is
therefore a shame that he now presumes to set up several false antinomies
for the purpose of attacking Prince Charles' view of the issue.

Monbiot begins with the assumption "Prince Charles's solution to
the environmental crisis is spiritual transformation, rather than
political awakening". Monbiot seems to assume that political awakening can
be achieved without spiritual transformation, or anyhow these are mutually
exclusive, alternative pathways.

This is a fake counterposition. The big efforts to achieve
political awakening aside from, or in direct opposition to, spiritual
advancement have been disastrous - the French and Russian revolutions,
for instance. And today's dominant money-worship (your Thatcherism, our
Rogernomics, etc) is all the more insidious because it uses PR instead of
guns. Either way, not only spiritual health but also ecology suffer
drastically under ideological materialism.

Monbiot takes from his Bible that " God granted man dominion over
nature" and suggests this idea is contrary to any environmental ethic.
Again, a false antinomy. When man takes care of nature on his best
understanding of God's plan, he does relatively well; but in Genesis 3, and
in the big GM corporations today, man presumes to know better than God, and
tends to cause ecological & social mayhem.

And again: "the need to protect the environment springs not from 'a
sense of the sacred', but from social justice." Why can this "need" not
spring from both sources? Why imply they are in conflict? (Where does
Monbiot get his sense of justice, by the way?)

Monbiot asserts "human life, resulting from a series of
evolutionary accidents, is arguably meaningless". If it were so, why
should anybody care for the biosphere in which the human species will live
or die? Ethics has no logical or workable basis except in religion; and
the religion which our monarchy defends, and which Monbiot evidently
dislikes, is the only known basis for a decent society and for properly
taking care of nature.

The media have, over the past decade at least, presented every
issue as a one-dimensional bipolar gladiatorial conflict. I had thought
Monbiot above this type of journalism. But apparently his antagonism to
religion has misled him to join the common game. In so doing he has
misused the hard-won right to voice criticism of the heir to the throne.
yrs etc

-

The strongest reasons to be extremely cautious about GM are
theologically-based ethical reasons. Sure, the fears of poisonings by GEF,
and of ecological disruption, are generally sound (as I have indicated
above); but the fear of unethical gene-tamperers playing God is - with
all its admitted vagueness - to my mind more important.

In thus aligning myself with some other Christian people I am of
course aware that this ground is, in the minds of most New Zealand citizens
today, weak or even nonexistent. I refer them to the other category of
reasons, which are quite strong enough to justify a proper ANZFA and ERMA
in place of the present cynical charades.

Those who will release uncontained GMOs, falsely claiming they've
been properly tested and can be foreseen to cause no ecological harm, can
only be called liars. They are doing this partly from greed. But there is
a deeper reason for their reckless lying. They crave the power over nature
which is a fleeting shadow of God's pleasure in Creation. Never has such a
power been accessible to the human. Its use will evidently require great
restraint - primarily self-restraint by those who can perform the
manipulations.

Rebellion against our Maker is depicted in Genesis 3. I freely
admit I cannot make much of that dense, profound set of myths; but I do
take it as, at the very least, a warning that when humans pretend to know
better than God how the biosphere should be we can create colossal trouble.

The devious Comstock purports to answer by solemnly discussing an
alleged notion that all technology could be bad. As a practical
technologist in several fields and an observing Christian, I advise you to
ignore this caricature. Nobody is saying that all technology is bad, so
Comstock's knocking-down of a straw man (his main mode of arguing) is
irrelevant.

4.2 'Maadi Religion'

I deplore the very recent attempt by Mere Roberts and a few others to make
out that some alleged ancient Maori religion is a strong basis for opposing
GM today.

The appended letter to Roberts gives some idea of this rort.

Australasia has been for a couple decades approx 85% urban; we have
really gone in for the 'parasitical cities' blunder. In particular, the
people who had arrived first (tho' as late as mid-way thru the Christian
era) were at most 15% urban as late as the end of WW2 but by now have
largely quit growing food. They nevertheless maintain to some extent a
philosophy of living which has been summarised thus: walk backwards into
the future. We can't know much about the future, so look to the past as we
try to act wisely in the present. I used to arrange Dr Ranginui Walker to
lecture my main Environmental Studies class most years, and am glad that
many hundreds of students were taught this wisdom - one of the
philosophical lessons by which Maori culture can improve New Zealand.
But I do not see evidence that the religion alleged by Roberts existed
until a few years ago, and I deem it a very weak reed for the purpose of
appraising GM (or any other purpose).

In the ERMA hearing 98-12-10 on the PPl 10,000 GM-sheep the
chairperson of their special Maori cttee was elevated to the ERMA Board
itself for the occasion. She raved at me incoherently. I asked your staff
to procure, thru Agent Beale, a transcript of this rave; no response has
yet occurred. I again recommend that you get this transcript, for some
idea of the quality of the tendency which I am criticising.

4.3 A Respectable Expert

I now give my comments on the relevant philosophy of one of the
less silly ideologues - far more sensible than Dawkins - available for
propping up GM: Professor Paul Davies, the best-selling author of many
books featuring phrases like 'The Mind of God', now at Adelaide on a
similar footing to what Asimov enjoyed at BU:

Paul Davies THE FIFTH MIRACLE - The Search for The Origin of Life
Allen Lane 1998

p5
The living cell is the most complex system of its size known to mankind.
Its host of specialized molecules, many found nowhere else but within
living material, are themselves already enormously complex. They execute a
dance of exquisite fidelity, orchestrated with breathtaking precision.
Vastly more elaborate than the most complicated ballet, the dance of life
encompasses countless molecular performers in synergetic [sic] coordination.

but he goes on immediately:

Yet this is a dance with no sign of a choreographer. No intelligent
supervisor, no mystic force, no conscious controlling agency swings the
molecules into place at the right time, chooses the appropriate players,
closes the links, uncouples the partners, moves them on. The dance of life
is spontaneous, self-sustaining and self-creating.

he seems to realise this is implausible:

How did something so immensely complicated, so finessed, so exquisitely
clever, come into being all on its own? How can mindless molecules,
capable only of pushing and pulling their immediate neighbours, cooperate
to form and sustain something as ingenious as a living organism?

pp 32-3

The source of semantic information can only be the environment of
the organism, but this begs the question of how the information got into
the environment in the first place. It is surely not waiting, like
fragments of a pre-existing blueprint, for nature to assemble it. The
environment is not an intelligent designer. . . . In the end, the
environment is the entire universe. Follow the chain of causation and the
question becmes one of cosmology. We are then confronted by the ultimate
question: Where did the information content of the universe come from?

pp35-6

The reason that the universe can have zero energy and still contain
1050 tonnes of matter is because [sic] its gravitational field has
negative energy - a peculiar concept . . . A convincing mechanism was
found to explain how positive energy was channelled into matter, and an
equal quantity of negative energy went into the gravitational field. So in
effect, all the cosmic matter was actually created for free!

p42

No law of Nature forbids a left-handed DNA molecule, yet nobody has
ever found one.

{This is an outright error. LH helices are perfectly respectable among the
mainstream DNA theorists, X-ray analysts, etc. - tho' admittedly not as
common as RH helices. That Davies could make such an error suggests he
does not bother to get his rapid writing checked by experts.}

pp81-2

To fully comprehend how life arose from non-life we need to know
not only how biological information was concentrated, but also how
biologically useful information came to be specified , given that the
milieu from which the first organism emerged was presumably just a random
mix of molecular building blocks. In short, how did meaningful information
emerge spontaneously from incoherent junk?

( note 2 question-beggings: 'presumably . . . '
and in the last sentence 'how did . . . ' when no good reason has been
advanced for believing THAT it did. )

p76
Having thus SEDUCED the right tRNA molecule to berth at the
production line . . . [my emphasis]
. . .

It is worth repeating that, in spite of the appearance of purpose,
the participating molecules are completely MINDLESS. Collectively they may
display systematic cooperation, as if to a plan, but individually they just
career about. The molecular traffic within the cell is essentially
chaotic, driven by chemical attraction and repulsion and continually
agitated by thermal energy. Yet out of this blind chaos order emerges
spontaneously. [my emphasis]

p77
I began by explaining the geometrical forms of molecules, the
structure of DNA and the sequence of base pairs, then I sneakily started
describing messages and information and specifications. In short, I
shifted from the language of hardware to that of software. A gene is a
particular material form in three-dimensional space, but it is also an
instruction to do something. The secret of life lies with this dual
function of biological components. And nothing better illustrates this
duality than the genetic code.

{ next section: THE GENETIC CODE }

. . . p81 I have subjected the reader to the technicalities of the
genetic code to make a general conceptual point that goes right to the
heart of the mystery of life. Any coded input is merely a jumble of
useless data unless an interpreter or a key is available. A coded message
is only as good as the context in which it is put to use. That is to say
it has to mean something. . . . The information distributed along a
strand of DNA is biologically relevant. In computerspeak, genetic data
is semantic data.
. . . p83 Like the floppy disk, DNA is itself hardware, but again the
crucial feature is not the stuff of which DNA is made but the message
written into its base pairs. Put this message into the right molecular
environment - in the right semantic context - and, what do you know,
life happens!

. . . p84 I have described how life, at rock bottom, has the same logical
structure as a computer.

( he hasn't , and it hasn't)


p219
For 300 years science has based itself on reductionism and
materalism, leading inevitably to atheism and a belief in the
meaninglessness of physical existence.

Tell that to Newton & Faraday! It was to at least some extent
vice-versa. He implies science is inherently reductionist & materialistic;
he overlooks the fact that it has been made so lately by atheists but is not
inherently so. He should read Rev Dr Harold Turner's 'The Roots of Science'.

p221 . . . the principles of Darwinism rule out the teleological notion
of life striving for betterment.

Are these of similar authority to 'the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi'? Has Davies stated them? Where can we read The
Principles of Darwinism?

Those comments on a prominent scientist's purported philosophy
will, I hope, give some idea of how far adrift atheism has led scientists.
It does matter that such crude epistemology is common among gene-tamperers.
They are therefore, as a group, less to be entrusted with dangerous
technology.

4.4 A Better Path

I am aware the Commission will be receiving detailed theological
material from Christian groups, to which I leave most of that role.

I simply close by saying that what we should do - not resembling
what gene-tamperers are now doing - is:
* design technologies with all the prayerful awareness we can muster of
God's intentions for this world;
* test our inventions carefully & fully;
and only then, if they have passed stringent tests,
* deploy them with due prudence and close monitoring.

The vagueness in that outline may seem daunting - it certainly
does to me. But that is no excuse to shrink from this, our calling as
stewards of God's Creation.

* * *

I would be glad to discuss any of the above with the Commission. I
briefly presented my credentials in my application to take part more fully
from the start; it is unclear whether Mr Brown QC showed you that document.

As the person who first proposed this Royal Commission (in 1977), I
have been dismayed at aspects of its composition, terms of reference,
biased & unhelpful staff, lack of sworn evidence, etc. These concerns
have made me all the more anxious to do whatever I can to help.

24.09.2003

HRH The Prince of Wales hosted a dinner at Clarence House to
celebrate the progress of organic food over the last 10 years.

The Prince hosted the event at his official London residence,
Clarence House, for VIP guests, farmers and supporters of the organic
food industry to mark the progress of organic food over the last 10
years.

The Prince of Wales and his guests were treated to an organic feast
cooked by Chef Jamie Oliver and students from his restaurant,
Fifteen.

Jamie Oliver cooked a completely organic meal which included produce
>from His Royal Highness's organic Home Farm, near Highgrove in
Gloucestershire, and other small British organic suppliers.

"Amazing Highgrove Lamb" was cooked two ways for the main course:
shoulder slowly braised, and loin, pan-roasted rare, served with
organic garden vegetables collected by Jamie Oliver and his trainees
>from the Duchy farm. The organic meat was served with
Dauphinoise-style potatoes and Jamie's "Essex" sauce.

The Prince is a great supporter of British agriculture and organic
farming and all the profits from his own organic produce range, Duchy
Originals, go to charity.

The Prince has also donated £15,000 from his UK Charitable Foundation
to Jamie Oliver's charity, Cheeky Chops - enough to train one
student for a year.

Jamie Oliver has met The Prince on a number of occasions and recently
sat next to him at a Highgrove dinner held by His Royal Highness to
promote the sale of British mutton.


The Menu

Canapés
Pan-seared diver-caught Scottish scallops wrapped in Duchy farm bacon
and skewered with rosemary.

Old English-style carpaccio of rare breed Aberdeen Angus beef (hung
for 30 days) with Highgrove organic beetroots and horseradish crème
fraiche.

Tartare of Highgrove lamb fillet with reggiano classico Parmesan,
lemon thyme tips and Fontodi extra virgin olive oil.

A spoon of fantastic English wild mushrooms sautéed with first of the
season black truffles.

Bread made with Duchy flour and Duchy biscuits.

Starter
Oozy Risotto of autumn squash with Duchy smoked bacon and crisp
sage.

Main course
"Amazing Highgrove Lamb" cooked two ways; shoulder slowly braised
and loin pan-roasted rare, served with organic garden vegetables from
the Duchy farm, Dauphinoise-style potatoes and Jamie's "Essex"
sauce.

Dessert
Duchy Cambridge Cream with damson compote and smashed Duchy
shortbread.

Duchy & English cheeses.

Coffee and Duchy chocolates.

===============================

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/25/noliv25.xml&
sSheet=/news/2003/09/25/ixhome.html

Oliver's organic feast fit for a Prince
By Andrew Hibberd
(Filed: 25/09/2003)


The television chef Jamie Oliver cooked an organic feast hosted by Prince
Charles at Clarence House last night in celebration of the growth in organic
farming.

The chef was assisted by students from his London restaurant Fifteen and
served guests including Camilla Parker Bowles, Prince Charles's companion,
the singer Sting and his wife Trudie Styler, the comedian and writer Stephen
Fry, the designer Jasper Conran and the chef Anton Mosimann. Oliver, who is
taking a year off from television to devote more time to his family and the
restaurant, used produce grown at Highgrove, the Prince's estate in
Gloucestershire.

A Clarence House spokesman said: "Jamie Oliver is a keen supporter of
organic food. He devised the menu. They wanted it to be totally organic."

The Prince is a passionate supporter of organic farming and his own range,
Duchy Originals, is among Britain's leading organic food brands. He has
donated £15,000 from his UK Charitable Foundation to Oliver's charity,
Cheeky Chops, which takes unemployed young people and retrains them.

http://www.jamieoliver.net/

Leaked memo shows no insurance for GE

A memo leaked to the Green Party shows that New Zealand s biggest
insurance company has moved to deny insurance cover for any harm resulting
from Genetic Engineering.

We expect other insurance companies to follow suit, as it is normal
practice overseas that the risks from GE can t be insured,  Green
Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said today. This shows how big a risk
insurers believe the GE industry to be. 

The move by Vero, formerly Royal & SunAlliance, means farmers won t get
private cover for losses caused by either their own GE crops, animals or
micro-organisms, or those of their neighbours. The move by Vero is
effective from October 1, and applies to both personal injury and property
damage.

Ms Fitzsimons said the ramifications were huge.

If a farmer uses a genetically engineered vaccine which has a living
bacteria or virus, and that bacteria or virus is excreted by the animal
and contaminates the soil and the farmer s land become unsaleable, there
will be no insurance cover for the loss of value of that farm.

If your neighbour grows herbicide-resistant GE crops and creates
herbicide-resistant weeds, as has happened overseas, and these then infect
your farm, you can t insure against that and nor can your neighbour.

If genetically engineered pollen from a neighbour s crop contains an
allergen and you get sick, there will be no insurance to cover that.

If a genetically engineered crop fails to perform, such as the GE cotton
crops overseas which performed much worse in drought conditions than
normal cotton, there will be no insurance cover for that.

If you re growing a GE crop and the pollen contaminates your neighbour
and they lose their organic certification, you will not be able to insure
against the damages from your neighbour,  Ms Fitzsimons said.

The Government s strict liability regime, in the New Organisms and Other
Matters Bill going through now, means people using GE are only liable for
damages if they break the law. None of the matters outlined above
involve any breach of the law, so there would be no liability for the
people causing the harm and no compensation for the people affected.

The combined result of the liability regime and the lack of insurance is
that the full risk for any genetically engineered organism that goes wrong
will be borne by the victim,  Ms Fitzsimons said.

Jeanette Fitzsimons MP: 04 470 6661 or 0274 586 068
Ali Tocker, press secretary: 04 470 6723 or 021 528 067

BIO-IPR docserver
____________

TITLE: Judge Allows Antitrust Case Against Seed Producers
AUTHOR: David Barboza
PUBLICATION: New York Times
DATE: 24 September 2003
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/24/business/24crop.html
____________

New York Times | 24 September 2003

JUDGE ALLOWS ANTITRUST CASE AGAINST SEED PRODUCERS

By David Barboza

Chicago, Sept. 23 -- A federal judge on Friday let proceed an antitrust case
that accused the Monsanto Company and other big agricultural seed giants of
conspiring to control the world's market in genetically modified crops.

In a 13-page decision, Rodney W. Sippel, a federal district judge in St.
Louis, dismissed part of a class-action lawsuit that was filed in 1999 by a
group of farmers who said they had suffered huge losses because of global
opposition to genetically modified crops.

But Judge Sippel allowed the antitrust portion of the case to proceed,
possibly setting the stage for a court battle over whether the world's
biggest producers of agricultural seeds got together in the late 1990's to
fix prices and control the market for those valuable biotechnology seeds,
which are now planted on more than 100 million acres worldwide.

Judge Sippel denied an effort by the big seed companies to dismiss the
antitrust claims and end the possibility of a trial.

While the judge has not yet ruled on whether to give the case class-action
status, his decision to allow the antitrust case to move forward means
thousands of internal documents about how some of the world's biggest
biotechnology companies set their prices could be presented in court.

Lawyers representing the farmers who filed the suit have said in court that
some documents show that Monsanto and its competitors conspired to fix
prices for years.

Monsanto and its co-defendants in the case, Bayer, Syngenta and Pioneer, the
world's biggest seed company, have strongly denied any conspiracy took place.

Executives at Monsanto, which produces about 90 percent of the world's
biotechnology traits, the genes that transform ordinary seeds into new types
of crops, say the company legally patented and licensed its traits to other
seed companies, including its three rivals and co-defendants.

Today, both sides in the case claimed some victory in the judge's decision.

Richard Lewis, a lawyer at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, which filed the
class-action suit in 1999, said today, "The farmers are pleased that this
challenge to the progress of the case has been defeated."

But executives at Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis, said the judge's
ruling significantly narrowed the scope of the case, and that if the judge
denied the class-action status, the case would be even further diminished.

The 1999 lawsuit, which was filed by some of the nation's most prominent
antitrust lawyers, originally argued that Monsanto, a pioneer in the
development of biotechnology crops, was at the center of a global conspiracy
to control the market for those crops.

The suit also accused Monsanto of rushing genetically modified crops to
market without properly testing them and harming farmers who suffered crop
losses when some export markets began to shun biotechnology crops.

Monsanto executives say most of the original claims -- including those that
said even farmers who used conventional seeds were harmed by biotechnology
crops -- have been dismissed.

"The broad claims have been so significantly narrowed, so it's clear that
what they were charging about biotech is not true," a spokesman for
Monsanto, Bryan Hurley, said. "This is absolutely an interim step and if it
moves forward we believe it's a case without merit and we're confident the
court will recognize that."

The other seed companies involved made similar statements.

"We don't think the case has any merit," said Doyle Karr, a spokesman at
Pioneer Hi-Bred, a subsidiary of DuPont.

Bayer, which acquired Aventis CropScience in June 2002, also dismissed the
price-fixing accusations.

"We don't believe the claim against Bayer is valid," said Mark Ryan, a Bayer
spokesman. "We'll defend ourself vigorously in court against that claim."

But antitrust experts say a contentious antitrust court battle is brewing.

"The judge is saying this antitrust case can go forward," said Robert
Mnookin, a professor at the Harvard Law School. "He's refusing to throw out
the antitrust case because there's a material dispute of fact over whether
Monsanto and these other companies conspired to fix prices."

_____________

GOING FURTHER (compiled by GRAIN)

The 13-page decision of Judge Sippel is available online:
http://pacer.moed.uscourts.gov/opinions/BLADES_V_MONSANTO_CO-RWS-397.PDF

Jim Suhr, "Judge: Monsanto Lawsuit Should Proceed", Associated Press, 24
September 2003. (Highlights that if the suit proceeds as a class action
case, more than 100,000 farmers could be involved.)
http://newsobserver.com/24hour/business/story/1009177p-7084982c.html

No GM please, we are British !

By Devinder Sharma

Britain has done it. In a historic verdict, the British people have
rejected genetically modified crops (GM crops) and foods.

With only 2 per cent of the population saying yes to GM foods, and
another 8 per cent not averse to eating GM foods, an overwhelming
percentage of the people who participated in one of the biggest ever
public debates in Britain have rejected the modified foods. "The GM
Nation" report, based on the response received from more than
37,000 people, has not only 'expressed caution and doubt, but also
thorough suspicion and scepticism, and even hostility and rejection'.

The rejection of the GM crops and foods in Britain will soon have
repercussions in India, where in the name of foreign investment the
multinational industry has managed to seek political patronage for a
risky science. Despite public outcry, at least ten States have made
available prime land at a throwaway price for a nascent
biotechnology industry -- a scandal that is sure to be a hundred times
bigger than
the infamous Taj Mahal corridor scam in Uttar Pradesh that has
invited Supreme Court's ire against the former chief minister, Ms Mayawati.

The British outcry against GM crops is also a clear warning for the
Indian agricultural scientists. By not listening to the farmers and
the civil society, the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR)
too invites scepticism and scorn about the need and relevance of the
direction of research in the world's second biggest public sector
research infrastructure. In Britain, agricultural biotechnologists
have already begun to flee. Aware of the public's mistrust over a
science, which has tragically been allowed to slip into the hands of
multinational companies, newspapers report that leading
biotechnologists have already left the country searching for greener
pastures.

The United States too is faced with almost a similar crisis, with many
universities unable to fill the vacancies created by molecular
biologists opting for the private sector, already in the thick of a
recession. For an emerging workforce of molecular biologists in India,
unable to find suitable placements abroad, the GM bubble (unlike the
IT industry) has burst even before it grew to a respectable size.

A stream of leading GM crop researchers, reports The Guardian, have
quit the country, while others are preparing to leave in the next few
months, threatening to damage Britain's world-class reputation in the
field. "The really committed people who have underpinned our
excellence are moving out and that's a real worry," said Professor
Chris Leaver, head of plant sciences at the University of Oxford.

Such is the public hatred for anything associated with genetic
manipulation that even the multinational plant biotechnology industry
has not been spared. "High-profile GM research companies such as
Monsanto, Bayer and Dow have all closed down research facilities in
Britain in recent years, drastically diminishing the career prospects
of scientists working on GM crops. Only one multinational company,
Syngenta, remains", says John Vidal in the Guardian.

The public mistrust against genetic engineering is the outcome of the
aggressiveness with which distinguished agricultural scientists joined
the multinational industry in blindly promoting an untested and risky
technology at the cost of human health and environment. Not realising
that the art of public deception cannot last for long, agricultural
scientists -- and that includes the Royal Society in Britain and the
National Academy for Agricultural Sciences in India - actually turned
into a mouthpiece for the discredited industry.

Scientists (and politicians joined them later) used emotional
arguments of eradicating hunger and malnutrition as a justification
for introducing modified crops, which actually have nothing to do with
hunger. Developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, have
been very cleverly forced by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of
the United Nations (FAO) and the World Bank to accept agricultural
biotechnology as "the tool for eradicating hunger". And as Dr Richard
Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, once said:
"Seeking a technological food fix for world hunger may be... the most
commercially malevolent wild goose chase of the new century."

The hunger argument continued to flourish and gain ground. As American
President George Bush told the June BIO 2003 industry convention,
"America and other wealthy nations have a special responsibility to
combat hunger and disease in desperate lands". So much so that the
United States had actually created a scare of an impending famine in
some of the southern African countries in 2002 so as to justify the
offloading of GM food grains for which there were no takers.

For an industry, which is being driven out of the rich and
industrialised countries, translocation to some of the fast emerging
economies and countries like India, Brazil, Argentina, Thailand and
Malaysia, among others, remains the only option. Except for South
Africa and Egypt, none of the African countries seem suitable
because of the absence of an adequate public infrastructure. The focus of the
industry therefore is to make the developing countries accept more
and more investment in genetic engineering, and at the same time
provide markets for the GM products and crops. Such are the high stakes
involved that the hunger card still continues to be used with
impunity.

No wonder, India is busy preparing a national agricultural
biotechnology policy before even ascertaining the national research
priorities. Pakistan and Bangladesh have recently been forced to
accept genetic engineering as part of a restructuring that is being
advised as a pre-condition for financial credit. Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, and even the Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal are being made
to accept genetic engineering. Much of the pressure is coming
through the donor agencies, which are bringing in development projects
weaving in biotechnology and genetic engineering. #

(Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy
analyst.
Responses can be mailed at: dsharma@ndf.vsnl.net.in)

Please excuse if the RachelWk below has reached you by some other
route; I just wanted to make sure it does reach those I know will be
interested.

For 3 decades I pushed the theory that there's no threshold for the
delayed harms cancer, mutations, and foetal terata. Lately I've been
adding mental illness to that list, if only as a precautionary measure.
'Safe doses' in the sense of 'known to do no harm' have generally never
been shown for these processes. S S Epstein has been among the main
leaders in this understanding. Time lags of decades or generations
generally make a mockery of 'no harm reported yet' as a basis for
scientifically-based reassurances. I am staggered that this elementary
understanding has yet to sink in with so many politicians and even
scientists.

A decade ago Nobel winner D Carleton Gaiduschek told an ANZAAS
confab (in Palmerston N) that almost every person reaching the age of 90 in
the USA was more or less demented. In NZ it was evidently not that common,
but was nevertheless important & increasing. There was then no pre-autopsy
method to distinguish Alzheimer's syndrome from some other dementias, and I
doubt any widely-available method yet exists, so I continue to caution
against synonimising senile dementia with Alzheimer's.

Which are the main causes in the last few decades' proliferating
cocktail of xenochemicals ( + natural chemicals far above natural
abundance, and dearth of some others e.g selenium) is a trans-scientific q.
It cannot be answered by any conceivable measurements. (Furthermore, v
little is being done to investigate even the most suspect e.g lead,
mercury; or to decrease body burdens e.g by chelation with EDTA.) If the
burden of proof continues to be forced by industry onto the shoulders of
the victims & their medical sympathisers, you can safely assume all 4 major
categories of delayed poisoning will increase.

In that context, must we risk novel GM-caused diseases? Must we
add to EMS other unimagined
illnesses? If we know so little about causes (& treatment) of dementia,
must we create novel viri that might compound mental damage? If prions are
so new to science that the NZ Vet J could only a half-decade ago reject a
letter saying prions are proven reality, must we risk creating variants of
them?

The human mind is not working so well as it did when I was young.
We will never know all the reasons, nor even be able to compile a rough
order of favouritism. What science & medicine ought to do in such
circumstances is, at the least,
1 develop better treatments, both chemical and psychological
2 protect people from plausible causes e.g Pb, Hg, impurities in
GM-tryptophan, all other GM-biosynthesized food supplements, CNS-attacking
viri even within containment,
... please add to the list.

A big NZ mtg on cancer is mentioned on Radio NZ today. How much
attention will they give to protecting people from known carcinogens? What
do we really know about causes of dementia, chemical microbial & viral?
Wouldn't it be prudent to get radically more protective?

But instead, ignorant power-plays dominate the public health scene
- the head of the NZ health dept Karen Poutasi M.B, chmn parltry cttee on
health Mrs "Steve" Chadwick, WHO non-infectious dept chief Ruth 'Bonita'
Ph.D, Dame S Cartwright governor-general of NZ, Fiddler Bunkum ex-MP (now
in Outer Mongolia), Sandra Peirce Coney Ak regional cclr, and many other
PowerHarpies, have diverted enormous government resources away from major
illnesses & threats onto a minor, decreasing cause of death 80/y cancer of
the cervix).

Those willing to investigate the plight of the movement to control
gene-jiggering please notice which 'experts' are allowed to use the media
for neurotic attention-getting while misinforming the public so as to bring
the movement into disrepute with good scientists. Susan Kedgley list-MP,
Fiddler Bunkum again, Mary Ann transient from S. Africa 'DNA was discovered
in 1953' on TV, Claire Bleakley 'leader' GE-free NZ, etc etc ... and now
homosexual politician Jon on TV for 'GE-free NZ' ... PC rules OK, rather
than media presenting facts and opinions from experts. I suggest it is no
coincidence that some of the reporters pretending to 'cover' the GM issue
are perverts.

=======================Electronic Edition========================
. .
. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #776 .
. ---August 14, 2003--- .
. (Published September 29, 2003) .
. HEADLINES: .
. ORIGINS OF DEMENTIA, PT. 1 .
. ========== .
. Environmental Research Foundation .
. P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903 .
. Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org .
. ========== .
. All back issues are on the web at: http://www.rachel.org .
. in text and PDF formats. To subscribe (free), send E-mail .
. to listserv@lists.rachel.org with the words .
. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME in the message. .
. The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish; .
. to learn how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word .
. AYUDA in an E-mail message to info@rachel.org. .
=================================================================

ORIGINS OF DEMENTIA, PT. 1

by Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D.*

Here is a sign of our times: within the publishing world, a new
nonfiction subgenre has emerged -- the Alzheimer's memoir.
Among the first was Elegy for Iris, written by English literary
critic John Bayley about his wife, the novelist Iris Murdoch.
In both the book and the movie based on it, we see the famously
brilliant Murdoch descend into a mental state in which, no
longer able to dress or speak, she desires only to watch the
famously simple children's show, Teletubbies. More recent are
The House on Beartown Road: A Memoir of Learning and Forgetting
by journalist Elizabeth Cohen, which was excerpted in People
magazine, and The Story of My Father by best-selling novelist
Sue Miller, which was profiled in Reader's Digest.[1]

And these include only the books in which the subject of the
story is a former college professor. There are many, many
others.

My own father is a former college professor, and he suffers
from dementia. He now lives in a nursing home. This is hardly
an unconventional situation -- half of all nursing home
residents in the United States are demented[2] -- but the
decision to place him there was an extraordinary one for our
family. After fifty years of marriage, my father wanted to live
out his days with my mother in the house that he had built for
them both when she was a young bride; my mother was devoted to
caring for him there, no matter what it took. And for several
years after his diagnosis she did.

But then Dad became "delusional and combative," in the language
of neurology. "Delusional" meant he came to believe my mother
was having an affair. He grew suspicious when the phone rang.
He followed her to the mailbox, shouting accusations. He
prowled the house at night looking for the other man. He stood
over her while she slept. "Combative" meant that he began to
relive his experiences in Italy during World War II. It was a
dangerous combination.

And so, my retired college professor father -- the man who
introduced me to calculus and Rachel Carson, who planted an
organic garden every spring, who took up the piano in his 40s,
who loved to embroider, bake bread, and make candles, who had
seat belts installed in the family car before they were
standard-issue -- is now institutionalized in a facility from
which he regularly attempts to escape and whose staff he
periodically attempts to assault. He has quite literally become
an imprisoned combatant, which was his biggest fear when, sixty
years ago as a teenage soldier, he sailed into the
Mediterranean on a warship.

In the Alzheimer's wing of the nursing home where he lives a
detailed description of each resident is posted on the door to
their room. It's a way of helping the patients remember where
their beds are located. These biographies also remind my
mother, my sister, and me that Dad is part of a much bigger
tribe. The dementia-sufferers there include former teachers,
former farmers, former entrepreneurs, former church ministers,
former world travelers, former ballroom dancers. Each has a
life history, a family, an identity.

And this small, rural nursing home is itself part of a larger
collective story. In the United States, about 4.5 million
people suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and another 1.5 million
from other forms of dementia. Because the risk of developing a
dementing illness rises sharply with age (ten percent of those
over 65 years old are afflicted with Alzheimer's, while 40
percent of those over 85 are) and because the population itself
is aging rapidly (the first baby boomers turn 65 in 2011), we
are standing on the cusp of a slow-motion epidemic.[3,4] A
disease for which there is no cure, Alzheimer's has already
risen from the 12th leading cause of death to the 8th.[5] By
the year 2050, 10-15 million Americans are projected to have
Alzheimer's -- more than double the number we have now.[3,4]

The economic implications of these statistics are equally
sobering. (And, as an accounting professor, my father would
have found them compelling.) Alzheimer's patients live, on
average, eight years after diagnosis. During this time, they
require, on average, $213,000 in medical care. This makes
Alzheimer's the third most expensive disease in the United
States. (Cancer and heart disease still take the top two
slots.)[3] Yes, someone has done the math: the current economic
burden of Alzheimer's, in medical treatment costs alone, is
about $100 billion each year.[3] One researcher has estimated
that annual costs could rise to $700 billion by 2050.[4] These
figures do not include the one-third of neurodegenerative
dementias that are non-Alzheimer's in origin. The prevalence of
Lewy-body dementia (which is the second most common form of
dementia) and Parkinson's disease (which leads to dementia in
one third of all cases) is also expected to increase sharply as
the population ages.[6,7]

All these diseases are officially classified as "idiopathic
disorders of unknown pathogenesis,"[7] which is another way of
saying that no one knows what causes them. Thus, in addition to
presenting overwhelming personal challenges to those afflicted
and to their caregivers, neurodegenerative dementia brings with
it four other miserable characteristics: it has no known cause;
it has no known cure; it is becoming increasingly common; and
it costs considerably more than an average home mortgage to
care for each person diagnosed.

Clearly, then, addressing the question of dementia's causality
should be a national priority. Some medical researchers are
indeed working feverishly to understand the genesis of
dementia, and, while their efforts have not yet taken on the
coordinated urgency that has characterized, say, the atomic
bomb program in the 1940s or the space program in the 1960s,
there are signs of an emerging new framework for inquiry.

In May 2003, the Mount Sinai School Center for Children's
Health and the Environment organized an important conference at
the New York Academy of Medicine entitled "Early Environmental
Origins of Neurodegenerative Disease in Later Life."[8] In
Rachel's #777, we will take a close look at the evidence for an
environmental connection to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
disease. Here we will examine the conceptual rationale for
pursuing early-life environmental links to late-life dementias,
as presented at this ground-breaking conference.

The chain of logic goes as follows. First, inheritance alone
appears to play little direct role in the risk of developing
dementia. (Heredity explains only five percent of Parkinson's
disease, for example.[9]) This means we need to look toward the
environment, possibly in concert with genetics and lifestyle
factors, to understand dementia's root causes.

Second, many neurodegenerative diseases are thought to arise
through a series of stages that require many years or even many
decades to progress. The cascade of neuronal changes leading to
Alzheimer's may already be evident in one's 20s or 30s.[10]
This means toxic exposures early in life -- even prenatal
exposures -- may be more relevant to late-life dementias than
equivalent exposures encountered later.[5]

Third, many cognitive disorders known to be caused by exposure
to toxic chemicals have decades-long latent effects. Dupont
workers exposed to high levels of lead on the job showed more
rapid cognitive declines during their retirements than
coworkers exposed to lower lead levels, even though neither
group had been exposed to any lead for almost twenty years.
Similar findings come from South Korea.[11]

Fourth, animal studies show that early-life exposures to
certain neurotoxic chemicals can create subtle but permanent
changes in the brain that produce no functional deficits until
the effects of these "silent toxicities" are unmasked by later
challenges.[12] This means early-life exposures to neurotoxic
chemicals can enhance susceptibility to late-life exposures.

Fifth, neurotoxic chemicals, in the form of pesticides,
persistent organochlorines, and heavy metals, are widely
distributed in the U.S. environment.[5]

Sixth, human studies of non-dementing illnesses show that
certain factors encountered early in life can predispose an
individual to the development of disease in their elder years.
For example, studies in England show that babies born small
because they were denied adequate nutrition in the womb develop
into adults who are, in advanced age, at higher risk of
hypertension, stroke, diabetes, and breast or prostate cancer.
The results of these studies suggest that infants are
"programmed" by environmental insults that take place at a
critical period of development in ways that have lifelong
consequences. This idea is known as the Barker Hypothesis.[13]
In Rachel's #777, we shall explore the relevance of the Barker
Hypothesis for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease.
==============

*Sandra Steingraber is a biologist and author (see Rachel's
#565). She is currently a Distinguished Visiting Scholar in the
Interdisciplinary Studies Program at Ithaca College in Ithaca,
New York.

Unless otherwise noted, all citations refer to presentations
made at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine conference, "Early
Environmental Origins of Neurodegenerative Disease in Later
Life: Research and Risk Assessment" (New York Academy of
Medicine, May 16, 2003). Conference proceedings are currently
in preparation for publication.


[1] J. Bayley, Elegy for Irish (New York: St. Martins Press,
1999); E. Cohen, The House on Beartown Road: A Memoir of
Learning and Forgetting (New York: Random House, 2003); S.
Miller, Story of My Father (New York: Knopf, 2003).

[2] Robert Butler, M.D., President and CEO, International
Longevity Center, "Early Determinants of Disease in the
Elderly."

[3] M. Saleem Ismail, "Trials, Tribulations and Triumphs in
Alzheimer's Disease: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?"
presentation at the Ithaca College Gerontology Institute
conference, "Meeting the Challenge of Dementia," May 29, 2003.

[4] D. Shenk, The Forgetting -- Alzheimer's: Portrait of an
Epidemic (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pg. 5.

[5] Introduction to conference proceedings, pgs. 1-2.

[6] G.B. Wilks, "Supportive Treatment of Lewy Body Dementia,"
Patient Care Vol. 34 (2002), pgs. 85-90.

[7] R.L Nussbaum and C.E. Ellis, "Alzheimer's Disease and
Parkinson's Disease," New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 348
(2003), pgs. 1356-64.

[8] Co-organizers of the conference were the International
Longevity Center, the Bachmann-Strauss Dystonia and Parkinson
Foundation, and the Children's Environmental Health Network.

[9] C. Warren Olanow, M.D., Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, "New
Research in Parkinson's Disease."

[10] John Morrison, Ph.D., Mt. Sinai School of Medicine,
"Neurobiology of Aging and Dementia,"

[11] Andrew Todd, Ph.D., Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, "Lead
and Loss of Cognition."

[12] Deborah Cory-Slechta, Ph.D., University of Rochester,
"Animal Models of Parkinson's Disease."

[13] C. Osmond and D.J.P. Barker, "Fetal, Infant, and Childhood
Growth Are Predictors of Coronary Heart Disease, Diabetes, and
Hypertension in Adult Men and Women," Environmental Health
Perspectives Vol. 108 Supplement 3 (2000), pgs. 545-553.

When C S Prakash of Tuskegee raised a worldwide declaration of
support for gene-tampering of plants (as done a few y ago - synthetic
Agrobacterium plasmids, and 'biolistics'), one practitioner told him why he
refused to endorse Prakash's pronunciamento.

I note with pleasure that Brown was promoted full prof soon
afterwards. I suspect the USA continues its tradition of protecting, even
rewarding, principled scientific dissent.

Brown may by now think somewhat differently - I don't know -
but anyhow this statement stands as a classic.

R

--

Dr. Patrick Brown
Associate Professor
Department of Pomology
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
530-752 0929
530-752 8502 (Fax)


Dear C S Prakash,

I appreciate your efforts on behalf of those who see the great promise of
Plant Biotechnology but I think your approach is dangerously flawed. I
believe it is time that plant scientists defend our position but that
position must be wholly defensible and it is not. (For background on who I
am see Plant Physiol (1999) 119:17-20.

Let me explain my rationale and then propose an alternative petition;
excerpts from your petition are marked with the >> followed by my comments:


>>Many characteristics, such as pest and disease resistance, have been
>>routinely
introduced into crop plants by traditional methods of sexual reproduction or
cell culture procedures. The addition of new or different genes into an
organism by recombinant DNA techniques does not inherently pose new or
heightened risks relative to the modification of organisms by more
traditional methods, and the relative safety of marketed products is further
ensured by current regulations intended to safeguard the food supply.

There are two components to this statement that cause concern, both of which
have been trivialized by many Plant Scientists.

Firstly: It is unscientific to say "Current Foods are Safe" therefore "New
foods are Safe" irrespective of the methods used to produce these foods. We
may have been willing to accept this risk but that is not the same as
calling all foods safe. You may feel this is trivial but to one with an
opposing view this comes across as exceedingly arrogant and scientifically
careless. It is an unnecessary comparison and an arrogant conclusion.

You claim that the new technologies are fundamentally the same as
traditional breeding, yet this is clearly not the case.

On the most obvious scale it is blatantly untrue - no amount of carefully
controlled breeding would have developed the current Glyphosate tolerance
mechanisms, let alone the BT gene. Biotechnology has the capacity to produce
characters that could never occur through traditional breeding - therefore,
by definition, it is a different process.

On a more subtle level, we do not know what regulations may be in place
that control gene incorporation during a normal crossing event. Without
full knowledge of how sexual plant reproduction occurs how can you claim
Biotech methods are the same? We only discovered MADS boxes, TATA regions,
Homeoboxes in the last few years and there is no plant scientist who would
claim we understand more than a small percentage of the processes regulating
sexual reproduction in plants. To claim equivalence to traditional methods
when we do not understand them is clearly illogical.

Certainly you will agree that normal crossing involves the movement of
clusters of genes including in most cases the relevant promoters,
translational controls, feedback regulations etc.

The biotech methods used to date NEVER use the promoter specific to the
gene of interest and since there are very few examples of a fully
characterized gene in which we understand ALL of the relevant regulatory
mechanisms, it is clearly now impossible to introduce a fully 'functional' gene
in the broadest biological sense.

In almost all cases recombinations that occur during traditional breeding
occur within paired chromosomes; the long arm of chromosome 3 does not pair
with the short arm of chromosome 6! Why should nature have developed such a
controlled process; does it make a difference? The answer is almost
certainly YES. Is random gene insertion using _Agrobacterium_ the same as
controlled hybridization? Clearly not - there is a profound difference the
consequences of which are unknown.

Some will argue that genes jump around in all plant species. Certainly this
occurs but the homology in sequences that is pervasive in nature suggests
this a surprisingly rare event. Clearly, there must be a reason pervasive
gene jumping does not occur. Further, as we know nothing of this process it
is hard to argue it is a safe approach for man to use to manipulate plant
genomes.

Clearly, biotech gene insertion is not the same as traditional breeding
and while it may prove to be OK we simply cannot presume it is so! One can
perhaps be amazed that we haven't created more monsters before now! I
suspect there are some controls in place that have saved us from our own
naiveté.

>>The novel genetic tools offer greater flexibility and precision in the
modification of crop plants.

I concur if your definition of precision is the ability to insert a small
number of specific genes;

I disagree if your definition of precision is the introduction of a fully
functional and appropriately regulated protein.

>>No food products, whether produced with recombinant DNA techniques or with
more traditional methods, are totally without risk. The risks posed by foods
are a function of the biological characteristics of those foods and the
specific genes that have been used, not of the processes employed in their
development.

It is true that we accept risks as a normal part of life - driving a car is a
good example. The difference is the risks we accept are well defined by
experience and are clearly understood before we take them. Some risks are
also taken because the rewards are perceived to outweigh the risk; eating that
20-oz Rib-eye is an example. Traditional breeding has on the whole
been an acceptable risk with 10,000 years of data and experience and a trust
in the motives of the public sources of new cultivars.

The general public is not yet prepared to accept the risks of recombinant
technologies, for good reason. They do not understand the risks, they see
little benefit, they mistrust the motives of those selling the technology
and they have no experience except that which tells them big corporations
make big mistakes. Remember these are the companies that brought us DDT,
Dioxin, Dalkon Shields, Thalidomide, PCB's, MTBE, Bhopal and so on - all
with a promise of global benefit and minimal risk.

We have not earned the trust needed for the public to accept our assessment
that the risk is worth taking.

>>Our goal as scientists is to ensure that any new foods produced from
recombinant DNA are as safe or safer than foods already being consumed.

Let's make sure we continue to do so.

>>Current methods of regulation and development have worked well. Recombinant
DNA techniques have already been used to develop 'environmentally-friendly'
crop plants with traits that preserve yields and allow farmers to reduce
their use of synthetic pesticides and herbicides.

This statement is not without its critics. Firstly, the position adopted by
FDA does not require thorough testing - it only requests it. Secondly, the
safety of Roundup-Ready corn does not prove the safety of the next
generation of plants. As you are well aware, every transformation event is
different with genes introduced in a unique part of the genome.

Your own experience and mine and those of all who have conducted genetic
introduction using biotech methods, tells us that many gene introductions
result in fatal or extremely disruptive phenotypes, and while the extreme
aberrations can be easily selected out, it is also highly likely that subtle
biochemical perturbations remain following essentially all transformation
events. Irrespective of whether they may also occur during normal breeding
(and we have no way to compare relative frequencies) it is irresponsible to
claim 'safety and normalcy' when we know we have modified the background
biochemical function of the transformed crop! Further, we do not test for
these changes! It is abundantly clear that plants can produce toxic
compounds, 95% of the solanaceous species are completely unpalatable and the
vast majority of the genes involved in forming toxic compounds are still
present in modern tomato and potato. Is there a chance that tomato could be
induced to produce a toxin? Certainly! Would we be required to test for
this? Under current FDA rules? NO! Whether this could occur with normal
breeding does not make it right to add further to the problem!

Currently the FDA does not require this type of testing, on the presumption
that a transformed crop is exactly the sum of the original crop and the
introduced gene - that is clearly not a valid assumption.

>>The next generation of products promises to provide even greater benefits to
consumers, such as enhanced nutrition, healthier oils, enhanced vitamin
content, longer shelf life and improved medicines.
Through judicious deployment, biotechnology can also address environmental
degradation, hunger, and poverty in the developing world by providing
improved agricultural productivity and greater nutritional security.
Scientists at the international agricultural centers, universities, public
research institutions, and elsewhere are already experimenting with products
intended specifically for use in the developing world.

Absolutely and Unabashedly True!

However, I cannot support those who claim
the release of the current generation of GMOs is indeed 'Judicious'.
Monsanto's BT corn is a great example:

Consider the following:-

Was it Judicious to release a crop with a single BT gene rather than the
complex of genes advised by the independent review panel?

Was it Judicious to release this crop before the ecological data was
available to determine optimal 'Buffer Zones and Refuges'? To my knowledge
there is very little data to predict how large or small or varied these
buffers should be.

Was it judicious to use antibiotic resistance as the selectable marker
when better and completely benign alternatives exist?

Was it judicious to use CaMV 35S as the promoter? This choice clearly
introduces a risk associated with a promoter designed to be free of
regulatory controls, it excites those who see viral genes as threatening
(and their rationale is almost irrelevant since the choice just screams
'Monsanto Never Listens'), and it ensures that the BT protein is present
uniformly throughout plant development and is present in the pollen. Again
methods exist (or will soon exist) that make the use of CaMV as a promoter a
BAD choice; there is no justification for BT to be present in pollen and the
choice of a single BT gene is guaranteed to hasten resistance development.
Why was this approach used? Expediency, speed to market, early returns on
investment - these are not justifiable criteria for producing
food and not criteria that university scientists should blindly support.

Further, in the case of Roundup-Ready soybean, was it judicious to choose,
as one of your first products, a crop that builds a dependence on the use of
your own herbicide? Certainly those who think that Monsanto cares only about
corporate profit must have felt vindicated by this decision!

In my discussion I have only adressed a few of the legitimate concerns that
surround the release of the first generation of GMOs. I am sure you are
aware of many more with variable justification.
Irrespective of the details of these arguments I feel there is sufficient
information to conclude that we do not know enough about molecular biology
and reproduction to be conducting blind human feeding trials on the population
of the USA.

It is a pity the radical elements are destroying property but that doesn't
absolve us
from our obligations as scientists to question our presumptions and
responsibly adress the needs of our society.

So, in conclusion

Yes you are right, a judicious use of this technology will result in
profound human benefit.

BUT:
The real threat to the future of biotechnology is the irresponsible and
premature release of the first generation of GMOs that are full of unsound
scientific assumptions, rife with careless science, arrogantly ignore the
concerns of many in the general public, provide little real benefit except
corporate profit and marginally improved grower returns, and offer a host of
poorly studied human and ecological risks.

Given the level of our knowledge of the molecular biology and reproduction
of crops, the current FDA regulation guiding the release of GMOs is inadequate.

OUR CHALLENGE AS SCIENTISTS
is to recognize that we do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the process
to use it safely, work towards adressing all of the concerns explicit in the
current generation of crops, support a testing program to ensure safety of
all GMO food stuffs in the interim, and LISTEN to those who eat food! They
may be unsophisticated in their science but they are the purpose we are
doing this in the first place.

FINALLY
Many plant scientists have made the mistake of thinking a defence of plant
biotechnology requires a defense of GMOs. This argument is analogous
to the NRA's argument that a defence of assault rifles is necessary to
protect gun rights. This defence of the current GMOs, and by proxy our
defence of Monsanto et al. is our biggest and most pervasive problem and the
reason university plant scientists are seen as no more reputable than
industry scientists. The biggest threat to this technology is not the
radicals but our pervasive defence of questionable science and policy.

Plant biotechnology does not equal GMOs.

I propose the following petition that protects the future of this
technology, shows respect and restraint and recognizes the unknowns. This
petition will demonstrate our commitment to the betterment of mankind
through the judicious use of science.

We the Undersigned Pledge that:

WHEREAS IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS TREMENDOUS PROMISE IN THE USE OF
PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE THE FUTURE OF MANKIND

AND,

WHEREAS IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY AN INADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING
OF THE PROCESSES INVOLVED TO GUARANTEE THE HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL SAFETY OF
THESE CROPS,

WE HEREBY:

DO NOT SUPPORT THE RELEASE OF NEW CROPS WITHOUT A FULL AND VERIFIABLE
ASSESSMENT OF THEIR HEALTH, ECOLOGICAL SAFETY AND BENEFIT TO MANKIND.

FURTHER:

WE REITERATE OUR BELIEF IN THE PROFOUND PROMISE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY AND URGE
THE CONTINUANCE OF RESEARCH IN THIS AREA.

FURTHER WE THE UNDERSIGNED RECOGNIZE AND WILL RESPOND TO THE MANY VALID
CONCERNS OF SCIENTISTS AND THE PUBLIC AND RESPECT THEIR EFFORTS TO ENSURE
THE SAFETY OF THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY.

WE THE UNDERSIGNED MAKE THIS PLEDGE:

Bayer abandons British crop trials

Robin McKie, science editor,
Sunday September 28, 2003,
The Observer

A key GM crop developer, Bayer, has decided to halt UK trials of
genetically modified plants. The move is seen as a major blow to the
industry. Bayer was the last company carrying out GM trials in the UK,
though it said yesterday it hoped to start up again soon when conditions
were 'more favourable'.

The company blamed Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett for its
decision. Her insistence that the locations of all trial sites be made
public had forced its hand, a spokesman told The Observer.

Until last week, Bayer CropScience, Bayer's crop subsidiary. believed
it was close to a deal that would allow GM crop test sites - which are
regularly destroyed by protesters - to be kept secret. Instead of having
to publish exact map references for fields, companies would only have to
name the county in which it was holding a trial.

The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment had said this
vaguer notification was 'acceptable in terms of risk assessment', while
the police have always complained that explicit disclosure of test site
locations has been a major factor in aiding 'crop-trashers'. But at the
last minute the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
told Bayer it would not support this change in regulations.

'In the absence of any moves to ensure the security for trials, Bayer
CropScience has no choice, therefore, but to cease its variety trial
activities in the UK for this coming season,' said the official. 'It is
disappointing the criminal activities of a small minority of people have
prevented information on GM crop varieties being generated.'

Most GM crop trials carried out over the past few years have been
sabotaged, not only those of Bayer. Other companies have pulled out. Now
Bayer, the last to continue with them, has decided to call it a day. The
current 'brain drain' of UK agricultural scientists to the US and Canada
is now only likely to intensify.

The fact that companies also specifically blame Beckett for this
latest blow is particularly intriguing. Last week, a letter from Beckett
to her fellow Ministers said Britain should back EU laws that ban all
GM-free zones, a move that would give the go-ahead to the commercial
growing of GM crops here. But as long as test GM trials are exposed to
sabotage, the prospects of commercial growing look remote. 'This is a
back-door moratorium,' said an industry source.

Monsanto, Bayer: Antitrust claims against seed producers can go forward

The antitrust portion of a lawsuit accusing Monsanto and some of its
seed-marketing rivals of plotting to control genetically modified corn and
soybean prices should be allowed to go forward, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel's 13-page decision this month threw out
part of a 1999 lawsuit by a group of farmers who said they had suffered
losses because of global resistance to genetically modified crops. But the
judge said a claim alleging antitrust violations can proceed because
"genuine disputes of material fact remain."

Victoria Nugent, a lawyer for the farmers, on Wednesday praised the
ruling, calling it "a very good result for our clients."

Bryan Hurley, a Monsanto spokesman, said the company was pleased that the
judge had narrowed the scope of the case, and was confident it would
ultimately prevail against the antitrust claim.

Monsanto and others named in the case - Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont unit
Pioneer Hi-Bred - have denied the farmers' claims that the companies
plotted for years to fix prices. Casting the lawsuit as a political stunt,
Monsanto has rejected claims that genetically modified seeds and foods are
unsafe.

Bayer CropScience, a product of Bayer's acquisition of Aventis CropScience
last year, is a relatively minor player in the lawsuit, named in just one
of the case's nine counts, a spokeswoman said. If the case ever went to
jurors, "we're quite confident that they will find no activities
unwarranted >from us," said Peg Cherny, vice president of government
affairs and communications.

Messages left Wednesday seeking comment from Pioneer and Syngenta were not
immediately returned.

The suit alleges that Monsanto, using its biotechnology patents,
coordinated with the other accused biotech companies to fix prices and
force farmers into using genetically engineered seed. The lawsuit also
alleged there is "substantial uncertainty" as to whether the crops are
safe.

In a ruling released Friday, Sippel rejected negligence and "public
nuisance" claims by farmers who grew non-genetically modified corn and
soybeans but who argued, among other things, that their crops were tainted
by Monsanto's genetically modified seeds, and that the company wrongly
hawked seeds critics called environmentally unfriendly.

Those farmers offered no proof of their claims, Sippel ruled. The judge
has yet to rule on whether the lawsuit should have class-action status.
Such a declaration could expand the case to include more than 100,000
farmers, said Michael Hausfeld, another lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Corn and soybeans genetically designed to kill pests or withstand
herbicides have become widely popular in the United States, but they've
have met consumer resistance overseas. Genetic engineering involves
splicing a single gene from one organism to another.

Biotech opponents have focused on persuading food makers not to buy
genetically modified crops and getting governments to require the labeling
of altered foods.

USA Today, 9/24/2003

Coalition against BAYER-dangers
www.CBGnetwork.org
CBGnetwork@aol.com
Fax: (+49) 211-333 940 Tel: (+49) 211-333 911
please send an e-mail for receiving the English newsletter Keycode BAYER
free of charge

letters to editor: nigel@country-wide.co.nz

"MEAT NZ FORKS OUT $50,000 TO LIFE SCIENCES PRO GE LOBBY"

By Nigel Stirling

Levy-funded Meat NZ will have paid pro-GE lobby, the Life Sciences Network,
over $50,000 in subscriptions and support for advertising campaigns by the
end of next year.

Released under the Official Information Act, Meat NZ will have paid $37,500
in annual subscriptions to the 'Network' by the end of next year - $15,000
this year and next, and $7,500 last year.

On top of this is $7,500 for “research into public perceptions of GM" and
$4,800 for a newspaper advertising campaign prior to last year’s general
elections.

Meat NZ PR woman Katie Mathison told Farmers Weekly the newspaper
advertising featured Crop and Food Research scientist Mary Gilpin, whose
research on non-GM potatoes was destroyed by anti-GM activists in a break-in
at Lincoln University last January. GM potatoes were also destroyed in the
attack.

Life Sciences Network members paid $180,000 for the July 2002 campaign in
the run-in to last year's election, where one of the main issues was the
whether or not the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically
modified organisms should be lifted next month.

Meat NZ spokesman Katie Mathison told Farmers Weekly there was no
inconsistency in Meat NZ's funding of the proGE lobby.

She said the funding was designed to support an organisation that was
foccused on "keeping open opporturtunities." If this position was not
protected, NZ would lose potential investment funds and scientific
expertise.

Editor
Countrywide
1-10-03

Dear Sir

Your report (24 Sep) of $50,000 originating from compulsory levies,
paid by the meat board to pro-GM propaganda agency "Life" "Sciences",
should excite those who pay the levy to protest.

The 'technology' of gene-manipulation, in current versions, is so
crude that many prominent scientists have expressed grave misgivings
(glimpsed at www.psrast.org).

GM of meat animals is extremely primitive. It is virtually bound
to throw up a wide range of monster mutants. The prospects of any useable
'cloned' domestic animals from current experiments are negligible. The
attempts (AgResearch® Ltd and PPL {in receivership}) to make human proteins
in cow or sheep milk are doomed because conceived in defective science.

GM of crop and pasture plants is less extremely primitive;
nevertheless, deviant metabolism in gene-jiggered plants could harm
animals. The methods used in commercial experiments to insert synthetic
genes into plants do not produce stable or predictable behaviour.

Strong evidence suggests a couple of hundred people were killed,
and a few thousand maimed, in the late 1980s, by deviant metabolism in
bacteria gene-tampered to increase production of a food supplement,
L-tryptophan. Although this 'substantially equivalent' natural compound,
required in the human diet, was purer than 99%, novel trace impurities
poisoned about 10,000 people. The facts on this GM-disaster < http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/trypto.html> were drastically distorted
by the Eichelbaum commission. GM-plants can be poisonous in more ways than
imaginable. GM-feed is therefore a gamble we don't need.

The tragedy is that far more promising science is being starved.
Proven potato-breeding methods, mycology developing phosphate-releasing
soil fungi, meat-tenderising technology, etc etc - New Zealand's proud
tradition of agricultural research has been swept aside by the
gene-tampering bubble which is now bursting. To pay for hot air trying to
sustain this bubble of bull is a bad mistake.

yrs etc


-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

http://www.newswire.ca/releases/September2003/30/c6015.html

NGO's seek standing in Monsanto v. Schmeiser

OTTAWA, ON, Sept. 30 /CNW/ - Today, a coalition of NGOs, led by the
Council of Canadians, applied to intervene in the patent infringement
case involving Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser and
biotechnology giant Monsanto that will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Federal Court of Appeal found that Schmeiser had infringed on
Monsanto's patent rights to genetically engineered canola. The Supreme
Court has granted Schmeiser the right to appeal that ruling.
Intervener status would allow the Council of Canadians and its
coalition partners to make submissions to the Supreme Court countering
Monsanto's arguments.

"This will be the first time that an appellate court anywhere in
the world will consider what infringement means on a patent to a
genetically modified life form" says Steven Shrybman, the lawyer
representing the coalition. "The Court's decision is likely to have a
considerable impact on both the domestic and international debate
about patents to life."

The coalition also involves Canadian organisations such as the
Sierra Club of Canada and the National Farmers Union.

"This case is far greater than just Percy Schmeiser," says Terry
Boehm of the National Farmers Union. "Given the level at which
Monsanto's GE canola has contaminated Western Canada, the implied
liability for all Canadian farmers is enormous. We simply cannot allow
the current verdict against Schmeiser to stand."

The precedence associated with this ground-breaking case has also
attracted key international groups to the coalition. These include the
Action group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration, the
Washington-based International Center for Technology Assessment,
and the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, led by
renowned Indian environmentalist Dr. Vandana Shiva.

"If other jurisdictions were to follow the approach adopted by the
Federal Court of Appeal in this case, the result would undermine the
seed- saving practices of hundreds of million of farmers whose
livelihoods depend on this practice. Moreover, because seed saving
fosters biodiversity and increases productivity, any new constraint on
the practice of saving seeds is likely to harm both goals," says Dr.
Shiva.

"Unfortunately, a policy and regulatory vacuum continues to exist
in Canada when it comes to biotechnology and genetically engineered
foods," adds NadËge Adam of the Council of Canadians. "This is yet
another example of how our government has dropped the ball on these
issues."

The case is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court on January
20, 2004.

For further information: Laura Sewell, Media Officer, Council of
Canadians : (613) 233-4487 ext. 234 or (613) 795-8685

http://www.lifesciencenz.com/news-detail.asp?newsID=4877

Life® Sciences Network posting

New Zealand News > Proceeding with caution, by Dr Ashraf Choudhary

Source: New Zealand Labour Party Opinion, 1 October 2003

Nature is the master of genetic shuffling and is constantly sorting and
resorting DNA, causing both subtle and profound changes in all living
things. People first began their own DNA management thousands of years ago,
when they began crossbreeding plants to produce better foods or fibre.

Human and scientific intervention through plant breeding enhanced this
process. Tissue and embryo culture technologies allowed mass-production of
plant culture for many years. Splitting and inter- and intra-species
transferring of genes is the latest technology which allows production of
"designer plants and animals" of specific characters.

There is generally little disagreement as to the need for designer seeds and
animals for enhancing cost-effective food production. There are potential
environmental advantages of reduced fertiliser and pesticide use, economic
gains from increased yields, improved quality traits and reduced spoilage
between harvest and market. On the other hand, doubts have been raised as to
whether such designer animals and plants pass human health and environmental
pollution tests. Such concerns are neither new nor unwarranted; similar
views were often expressed when early chemical fertilisers or pesticides
were introduced.

As with most new technologies, genetic modification raises concerns,
including the potential for creating undesirable effects in the food
supplies of humans and wildlife and for creating herbicide resistance in
weeds and pesticide resistance in insects. A lot of research in controlled
conditions is now aimed at identifying just such possible health or
environmental risks. Such research is examining the environmental, social
and economic impacts of the use and release of genetically modified crops,
micro-organisms and animals

I totally agree with the view that we need to have a cautionary approach
when introducing new GMOs and more specifically the designer seeds or
animals with the specific characters. The Labour-led New Zealand government
agreed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic
Modification that we should proceed with caution. We put in place a
moratorium on the release of GMOs, a very blunt instrument indeed, for the
last two years, which is expiring at the end of October this year. To
strengthen the process of transition from moratorium to conditional release
of GMOs we have strengthened ERMA along with introducing the legislation to
regulate future introduction of new organisms.

The political process of consultation and discussions with stakeholders and
wider public has been exhaustive, more so than any other country in the
world. Major national institutions and corporations such as Fonterra, CRIs,
Universities and international biotech companies have supported this
process. Such institutions have agreed that with sensible safeguards in
place we should proceed with conditional release of GMOs into New Zealand
environment strictly on a case-by-case basis.

Since the initial release overseas of GM crops in the mid 1990's, there has
been astronomic global uptake of such crops. It is now believed that there
are over 58 million ha of major GM crops being grown in 16 countries around
the world. To date, there has been no evidence-based information reported in
any peer-reviewed scientific publications, which may suggest any adverse
impact on either human health or the environment. On the other hand there is
clear evidence of significant reduction in the amount of pesticide use in GM
crops. For example in Australia GM cotton is now widely grown and reports
suggest that this has allowed reduction of up to 50% of pesticide used.

In New Zealand, we have been at the forefront of many innovations in
agriculture, which have allowed us to maintain our living standards. We
cannot afford to be left behind and our scientists must continue to be at
the cutting edge of innovative technologies. Much future research is needed,
particularly in the ecology and population dynamics of wild relatives. The
challenge is to produce data of sufficient quality to allow reasoned
judgements to be made over the future of genetic modification in
agriculture. But, we need to do such research in New Zealand so that we have
the intellectual property rights of such technologies rather than us
becoming dependent on imported seeds of future harvests.

I fully support the government view of proceeding with caution in field
trialling and introducing GM crops on a case-by-case basis while protecting
our environment.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary QSO
Member of Parliament

Dr Ashraf Choudhary, QSO, is a Labour List Member of Parliament, a Member of
the Education and Science Select Committee and the Local Government and
Environment Committee

=======================Electronic Edition========================
. .
. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #777 .
. ---September 4, 2003--- .
. (Published October 1, 2003) .
. HEADLINES: .
. ORIGINS OF DEMENTIA, PT. 2 .
. ========== .
. Environmental Research Foundation .
. P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903 .
. Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org .
. ========== .
. All back issues are on the web at: http://www.rachel.org .
. in text and PDF formats. To subscribe (free), send E-mail .
. to listserv@lists.rachel.org with the words .
. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME in the message. .
. The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish; .
. to learn how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word .
. AYUDA in an E-mail message to info@rachel.org. .
=================================================================


ORIGINS OF DEMENTIA, PT. 2

by Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D.*

[Here we continue exploring early-life events that may lead to
late-life dementia. See Rachel's #776.]

On May 29, 2003, the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York
hosted an important conference on early-life environmental
origins of late-life neurodegenerative disorders, including
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. Presided over by the
redoubtable Philip Landrigan, M.D. -- a National Academy of
Sciences physician who has advised the White House on matters
ranging from lead poisoning in children to Gulf War Syndrome --
this gathering drew together leading researchers from around
the nation. Among the presenters were neurologists, physicists,
toxicologists, pediatricians, epidemiologists, obstetricians,
and geneticists.[1]

In Rachel's #776, we examined the conceptual rationale for
approaching late-life dementias from an environmental vantage
point, which was the focus of several of the conference
presentations. This week we examine the evidence itself. But
first, let's look more closely at the Barker Hypothesis, which
is emerging as an important paradigm of disease causation.

In a series of studies, British epidemiologist David Barker has
revealed the ways in which stresses encountered in early life
can predispose an individual to the development of certain
disease in elder life. He did so by painstakingly
reconstructing the medical histories of 16,000 individuals,
from birth through old age. What he found was an impressive
connection between birth weight and subsequent risk of heart
disease, stroke, and diabetes. The smaller the body at birth,
the larger the risk of these disorders in late life. He further
determined that grossly inadequate nutrition during pregnancy,
rather than premature birth, was the source of the
developmental stress that raises the risk of subsequent
disease.

Barker has also elucidated the anatomical and physiological
mechanisms by which disease susceptibility is created. For
example, undernourished fetuses increase blood flow to the
brain and decrease blood flow through the descending aorta.
This diversion spares the developing brain from damage when
calories and nutrients are in short supply. If fetal blood is
thus directed at the time when elastin deposition takes place,
the baby will be born with less pliable blood vessels. (The
protein elastin makes artery walls stretchy.) In addition, the
rerouting of blood away from the trunk and toward the brain
causes the ventricles of the heart to grow larger than they
otherwise would. And it causes the resting pulse rate to be set
higher than it otherwise would. High resting pulse rate,
enlarged ventricles, and less-elastic arteries are all risk
factors for high blood pressure and stroke in late life.[2]

Thus, the Barker Hypothesis posits that human fetuses, quite
apart from their genetic inheritance, are "programmed" by the
early environments in which they find themselves in ways that
can predict risk for late-onset diseases.

For some organ systems, this period of environmental
programming extends well into childhood. Consider sweat glands.
As is well known, the human ability to adapt to warm climates
is a widely variable trait. Some like it hot. And some like it
cold. Studies show that differences in heat tolerance among
individuals is related to the number of functioning sweat
glands they possess. No surprise there. People with more sweat
glands cool down faster. However, genes do not account for this
variability: at birth, all humans have similar numbers of sweat
glands, and none of them work. During the first three years of
life, a proportion of these glands become activated. As
documented by Japanese physiologists, their recruitment depends
on the temperature to which the child is exposed. The hotter
the climate, the greater the number of sweat glands that become
functional. After three years, the programming is fixed, and no
further alterations in ambient temperature affect the number of
functional sweat glands that individuals carry with them for
the rest of their lives.[2]

What does the Barker Hypothesis predict about late-life
neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinson's Disease and
Alzheimer's? This question, which conference participants took
up in earnest, is difficult to answer. Schizophrenia, a
psychiatric disease of young adulthood, almost certainly has
roots in the environment of fetal life.[3] By contrast,
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's cannot even be diagnosed
definitively unless an autopsy is performed after death. And
some forms of dementia are not yet uniformly classified as
distinct disease entities. Dementia with Lewy bodies, for
example, is the second most frequent type of dementia after
Alzheimer's. It is characterized by frequent delusions and
hallucinations.[4]) And yet in spite of its prevalence,
clinicians do not agree on its diagnostic criteria. Lewy-body
dementia is considered by some clinicians as a variant of
Parkinson's Disease, by others as a form of Alzheimer's, and by
some as a unique disease entity. These kinds of uncertainties
in ascertainment frustrate epidemiological investigations of
the kind practiced by Barker. (Dementia with Lewy bodies is the
tentative diagnosis given to my own father.)

Nevertheless, an emerging body of evidence suggests that
environmental exposures, in the form of toxic chemicals, can
cause or at least increase the risk of late-life
neurodegenerative diseases. Let's look at Parkinson's Disease
first.[5]

Neurologically speaking, Parkinson's Disease is the opposite of
schizophrenia.[6] In schizophrenia, psychiatric problems are
created by an oversupply of a brain chemical called dopamine.
In Parkinson's, the problem is lack of dopamine. The reason for
the deficit is the premature death of dopamine-producing nerve
cells in a part of the brain called the substantia nigra.
Because dopamine is a chemical messenger that helps coordinate
muscular activity, physical symptoms of Parkinson's Disease
include tremor, rigidity, slow movement, and a shuffling,
stooped-over gait. (The uncontrolled writhing seen in
Parkinson's patients is a side effect of the medications used
to treat the disease.) Other hallmark symptoms include small
handwriting and low volume of speech. Age of onset is usually
between 50 and 70 years.

In one-third of patients, for reasons not known, the disease
progresses to include dementia. Like Lewy-body dementia, which
Parkinson's dementia closely resembles, early symptoms include
hallucinations and delusions. And, curiously enough, these
often involve very particular themes. Among Parkinson's
patients, spousal infidelity is the most common delusion, and
visions of people or animals intruding into one's house a
common hallucination.[6] (My father suffers from both of
these.)

Here is what we know so far about the environmental links to
Parkinson's, as presented at the Mount Sinai conference. First,
the disease was originally identified in 1817, at the beginning
of the industrial revolution. There is no mention of "shaking
palsy" in ancient medical writings.[7] Second, severe
Parkinson's-like symptoms have been triggered in people who
took recreational drugs contaminated by a neurotoxic chemical
called MPTP. This chemical has been proven to produce
Parkinson's in both humans and animals.[7] Third, occupational
studies show that the metal manganese accumulates in the brain
of exposed workers where it produces symptoms similar to
Parkinson's.

Fourth, there appear to be links with pesticides. Rural living,
drinking well water, and being employed in farming are all
recognized risk factors for the disease.[8] Some studies show
that exposure to the herbicide paraquat is, all by itself, a
risk factor for Parkinson's. It is known to target the
dopamine-producing structures of the brain. While experimental
evidence for this is equivocal, toxicologist Deborah
Cory-Slechta of the University of Rochester, has demonstrated
that combined exposures to paraquat and the fungicide maneb can
create synergistic effects in laboratory animals. These
findings are important because paraquat and maneb are often
used in the same places.[9]

Now to Alzheimer's. If Parkinson's is the opposite of
schizophrenia, Alzheimer's is the opposite of cancer. Cancer is
runaway cell growth. Alzheimer's is runaway cell death.[10]
Primarily affected are neurons in the cortex of the brain,
which is the center for higher thought. This cascade of cell
death can eventually spread out to include almost every
cortical region except the primary visual cortex. Nevertheless,
Alzheimer's always originates in the same place: the
hippocampus, which is the seat of memory. Thus, Alzheimer's
invariably begins as an isolated memory problem and then
expands to affect language, judgment, personality, and
behavior. No one knows exactly what causes the cortical neurons
to die. Affected cells show two pathologies: they extrude
plaque on the outside, and they develop tangled fibers on the
inside. Which symptom is the more important one for disease
progression is a matter of heated debate within the
neurological community.[10]

The evidence for an environmental link to Alzheimer's is more
sketchy than for Parkinson's, but it points to some of the same
culprits. Alzheimer's has been associated with exposures to
glues, fertilizers, and pesticides, particularly the now-banned
organochlorine pesticide dieldrin. It has a higher prevalence
in rural environments than urban settings.[11] A recent French
study found links between risk of Alzheimer's and occupational
exposures to pesticides among men -- but not women.[12] By
contrast, a recent Canadian study found no risk of Alzheimer's
with exposure to pesticides.[13]

For all of us who dearly love someone lost in the white-water
rapids of a late-life dementia, the recent findings reviewed at
this conference are hardly satisfying. But they do mark the
beginning of a fresh new approach to a terrible scourge. We
cannot change our genes. But we can change our environment. And
in this, there is hope.

===========================================

*Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D., is a biologist and author (see
Rachel's #565). She is currently a Distinguished Visiting
Scholar in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program at Ithaca
College in Ithaca, New York.

Unless otherwise noted, all citations refer to presentations
made at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine conference, "Early
Environmental Origins of Neurodegenerative Disease in Later
Life: Research and Risk Assessment" (New York Academy of
Medicine, May 16, 2003). Conference proceedings are currently
in preparation for publication.

[1] A description of the conference, along with a complete list
of presenters, can be found at the web site of the Mt. Sinai
Center for Children's Health and the Environment:
http://www.childenvironment.org/conferences.htm.

[2] C. Osmond and D.J.P. Barker, "Fetal, Infant, and Childhood
Growth Are Predictors of Coronary Heart Disease, Diabetes, and
Hypertension in Adult Men and Women," Environmental Health
Perspectives Vol. 108 Supplement 3 (2000), pgs. 545-553. See
also http://www.som.soton.ac.uk/research/foad/barker.asp.

[3] A.S. Brown and E.S. Susser, "In Utero Infection and Adult
Schizophrenia," Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities Research Review Vol. 8 (2002), pgs. 51-57.

[4] E.K. Doubleday et al., "Qualitative Performance
Characteristics Differentiate Dementia with Lewy Bodies and
Alzheimer's Disease," Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and
Psychiatry Vol. 72 (2002), pgs. 602-07.

[5] See also Rachel's #635 (Jan. 28, 1999).

[6] Frederick Marshall, M.D., University of Rochester,
"Parkinson's Disease: Remembering to Recognize and Treat It,"
presentation at the Ithaca College Gerontology Institute
conference, "Meeting the Challenge of Dementia," May 29, 2003.

[7] C. Warren Olanow, Mount Sinai Medical Center, "New Research
in Parkinson's Disease."

[8] Giancarlo Logroscino, Harvard School of Public Health, "The
Epidemiology of Parkinson's Disease."

[9] Deborah Cory-Slechta, University of Rochester, "Animal
Models of Parkinson's Disease."

[10] John Morrison, Mount Sinai School of Medicine,
"Neurobiology of Aging and Dementia."

[11] Alan Lockwood, University of Buffalo, "The Epidemiology of
Neurodegenerative Disease."

[12] I. Baldi and others, "Neurodegenerative Diseases and
Exposures to Pesticides in the Elderly," American Journal of
Epidemiology Vol. 157 (2003), pgs. 409-414.

[13] E. Gauthier and others, "Environmental Pesticide Exposure
as a Risk Factor for Alzheimer's Disease: A Case-Control
Study," Environmental Research Vol. 86 (2001), pgs. 37-45.

################################################################
NOTICE
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.
Some of this material may be copyrighted by others. We believe
we are making "fair use" of the material under Title 17, but if
you choose to use it for your own purposes, you will need to
consider "fair use" in your own case and perhaps seek reprint
permission from the copyright owner. Environmental Research
Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S
ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS free of charge even though it costs
the organization considerable time and money to produce it. We
would like to continue to provide this service free. You could
help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can
afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your
tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0160. Please
do not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or
at (732) 828-9995, or fax us at (732) 791-4603.
--Peter Montague, Editor
################################################################

Fonterra Colostrum and Stolle Sales Get a Boost from SARS
1 October 2003

Fonterra's colostrum and Stolle milk sales have risen significantly in key
Asian markets, as consumers turn to health-boosting products following the
outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) earlier this year.

Stolle milk sales have risen 50% in the Taiwanese market, while Colostrum
sales have increased considerably in the Chinese market.

Stolle milk and colostrum are two of Fonterra’s specialty milk products.
Stolle milk is obtained from cows which are immunised to induce the
formation of antibodies in their milk. Liquid colostrum is taken from the
first four milkings (48 hours) after calf birth from pasture fed,
non-immunised cows.

Asian consumers believe use of these products can boost immune systems and
prevent disease.

Patrick Geals, Fonterra General Manager of Health and Nutritional
Solutions, says the SARS outbreak has boosted sales of colostrum well above
forecasted levels.

“The unfortunate outbreak of the SARS virus has boosted Chinese market
demand for Fonterra’s colostrum product by over five times forecasted
figures,” says Geals.

Mr Geals says positive consumer perception of colostrum and Stolle is the
main reason for increased sales.

“Chinese and Taiwanese consumers are drawn to natural remedies which they
believe can thwart and cure diseases. They use colostrum and Stolle as
preventative therapies,” says Geals.

Colostrum is manufactured into colostrum powder at Fonterra’s Hautapu
plant. Fonterra currently has over 500 colostrum suppliers and will
manufacture approximately 200 metric tonnes this season.

Stolle milk is manufactured into powder at Fonterra’s Te Awamutu plant.
Fonterra currently has 100 Stolle milk suppliers and will manufacture
approximately 500 tonnes this season.

Patrick Geals is General Manager of Fonterra Health and Nutritional
Solutions, which is part of Fonterra’s new Growth Business unit. Health
and Nutritional Solutions focuses on developing and commercialising novel
bioactive dairy ingredient solutions for eight key health platforms:
immune health, infant nutrition, gastrointestinal health, therapeutics,
dermatology, bone health, sports health and animal health.

Revenues for the Health and Nutritional Solutions group will exceed $150
million this financial year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1057598,00.html
Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Force-fed a diet of hype

The verdict of the market means nothing to the GM industry and its
government friends

George Monbiot
Tuesday October 7, 2003
The Guardian

It is curious that this government, which goes to such lengths to show
that it responds to market forces, appears to believe, when it comes to
genetic modification, that the customer is always wrong. Tony Blair may
have spent six years rolling back the nanny state, but he instructs us to
shut up and eat what we're given. The public has comprehensively rejected
the technology; the chief scientist has warned that pollen contamination
may be impossible to prevent; the field trials suggest that GM threatens
our remaining wildlife. Yet the government seems determined to force us to
accept it.

The best way of gauging its intentions is to examine the research it is
funding, as this reveals its long-term strategy for both farming and
science. It seems that the strategy is to destroy them both.

The principal funding body for the life sciences in Britain is the
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). It is
currently funding 255 food and farming research projects; 26 are concerned
with growing GM crops, just one with organic production.

We're not talking about blue-sky science here, but research with likely
commercial applications. We should expect it to respond to what the market
wants. The demand for organic food in Britain has been growing by 30% a
year. We import 70% of it, partly because organic yields in Britain are low
and research is desperately needed to find ways of raising them.
Genetically modified food, by contrast, is about as popular with consumers
as BSE or salmonella.

This misallocation of funds should surprise us only until we see who sits
on the committees that control the BBSRC. They are stuffed with executives
from Syngenta, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp &
Dohme, Pfizer, Genetix plc, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Celltech and
Unilever. Even the council's new "advisory group on public concerns"
contains a representative of United Biscuits but no one from a consumer or
environmental group. What "the market" (which means you and I) wants is
very different from what those who seek to control the market want.

All the major government funding bodies appear to follow the same line.
The Homegrown Cereals Authority spends £10m of our money every year to
"improve the production, wholesomeness and marketing of UK cereals and
oilseeds so as to increase their competitiveness". It lists 67 wholesome
research projects on its website. Only one is designed to increase the
competitiveness of organic farming. The Meat and Livestock Commission funds
no organic projects at all, but it is paying for an investigation into the
potential of the gene whose absence causes "double muscling" in cattle.
Deletion of the gene leaves the animal looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger,
though with rather more brains. When pictures of a double-muscled bullock
were published recently, the public responded with outrage, especially when
the welfare implications were explained. It is not easy to see how the
results of this research could or should ever be commercialised. But the
commission regards the possibility of engineering cattle with a defective
muscling gene as "an exciting development".

These distortions are as bad for the scientific community as they are for
farmers and taxpayers. As consumers continue to insist that there is no
future for these crops in Britain, the heads of the research institutes are
now warning that British scientists will be forced to leave the country to
find work.

Michael Wilson, the chief executive of the government-funded body
Horticulture Research International, recently told the Guardian that
"Britain is lining itself up to become an intellectual and technological
backwater". If so, it will be partly as a result of his efforts. Wilson,
who describes himself as "evangelical" about GM, has spent the past three
years switching his institute's research away from conventional breeding.
He can hardly complain about the brain drain when he has tied the careers
of his scientists to a technology nobody wants.

"The way things are going," according to Christopher Leaver, the head of
plant science at Oxford University, "plant biotechnology is going to be
stillborn here." Well, the way things are going is very much a result of
the way he has directed them. Until this summer, he sat on the BBSRC's
governing council. At the university, he has engineered a brain drain of
his own by closing the Oxford Forestry Institute (perhaps the best of its
kind in the world) and shifting the focus of his department from whole
organisms and ecosystems to molecular biology and genetic engineering.
Undergraduates want to study whole systems, so the few remaining lecturers
with this expertise are massively overworked, while the jobs of the rest
are threatened by the lack of demand for the technology he favours.

The shift is not entirely the fault of men such as Wilson and Leaver. The
government's research assessment exercise, which determines how much money
academic departments receive, grades them according to the numbers of
papers they produce and the profile of the journals in which they are
published. You can spend 30 years studying the ecology of coconut pests in
the Trobriand Islands, only to discover that you can't publish the results
anywhere more prestigious than the Journal of Trobriand Island Coconut
Science. But a good genetic engineering team can publish a paper in Nature
or Science every few months, simply by repeating a stereotyped series of
tests.

Because they cannot persuade us to eat what we are given, many of
Britain's genetic engineers are turning their attention to countries in
which people have less choice about what or even when they eat. The biotech
companies and their tame scientists are using other people's poverty to
engineer their own enrichment. The government is listening. Under Clare
Short, Britain's department for international development gave £13m to
researchers developing genetically engineered crops for the poor nations,
on the grounds that this will feed the world.

Earlier this year, Aaron deGrassi, a researcher at the Institute of
Development Studies at Sussex University, published an analysis of the GM
crops - cotton, maize and sweet potato - the biotech companies are
developing in Africa. He discovered that conventional breeding and better
ecological management produce far greater improvements in yields at a
fraction of the cost. "The sweet potato project," he reported, "is now
nearing its 12th year, and involves over 19 scientists ... and an estimated
$6m. In contrast, conventional sweet potato breeding in Uganda was able in
just a few years to develop with a small budget a well-liked
virus-resistant variety with yield gains of nearly 100%." The best
improvement the GM sweet potato can produce - even if we believe the
biotech companies' hype - is 18%. But conventional techniques are of no
interest to corporations, as they cannot be monopolised. If the
corporations aren't interested, nor is the government.

Those of us who oppose the commercialisation of GM crops have often been
accused of being anti-science, just as opponents of George Bush are
labelled anti-American, and critics of Ariel Sharon anti-semitic. But
nothing threatens science more than the government departments that distort
the research agenda in order to develop something that we have already
rejected.

www.monbiot.com

Dear Friends,
Has anyone surveyed NZ Agricultural Insurers to see what their policy is on
GM? Maybe you could send them the stories below when asking them.
Best wishes,
Robert Vint.
Genetic Food Alert UK.

EXTRACT: [The Companies] "said that too little was known about the long-term
effects on human health and the environment of growing GM for them to be able
to offer any form of cover." [2]

*****
1. GM 'could be another Thalidomide' - Evening Standard
2. Insurers 'would not cover' GM farmers - The Guardian
3. FARM Press Release - No-one will insure GM crops
4. Insurers 'say too little known for GM crops cover' - Yorkshire Post
5. No insurance cover for GM crops that 'could be like thalidomide - Daily
Telegraph.
*****

GM 'could be another Thalidomide'

By Victoria Fletcher, Consumer Correspondent, Evening Standard
7 October 2003

Plans for the future of GM crops in Britain suffered a massive blow today as
insurance giants issued dire warnings about the unknown dangers posed by the
supercrops.

Insurance firms are refusing to offer cover to farmers who want to plant GM
crops because they fear a public health disaster and huge compensation
payouts.

Such is their concern that they are comparing the use of GM crops to the
so-called wonder drug Thalidomide which led to £100 million in payouts to
babies born with deformities in the Sixties.

A study on behalf of farmers reveals that none of the top five farming
underwriters is prepared to risk insuring farmers against accidental
contamination with GM crops.

One broker said: "Fifty years ago they were writing policies for asbestos
without a care in the world. Now they are faced with bills of hundreds of
millions. There is a feeling that GM could come back and bite you in five
years time."

Another broker said: "The worry is that GM could be like Thalidomide - only
after some time would the full extent of the problems be seen." The news
comes just weeks before Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, decides whether the first batch of GM
seeds will get the go-ahead to be planted in Britain.

Her decision will be based on the results of the Government's three-year
trials on GM crops which will be published next week.

It is rumoured that she will prohibit the planting of oilseed rape because
of the damage it could do to the environment - but give GM maize the green
light.

In a further shock, one insurance firm said it would not offer insurance of
any kind to a farmer connected with GM crops, including buildings insurance.

BIB Underwriters Limited, which is owned by the insurance giant AXA, said it
feared that even farm buildings could become the target of anti-GM
protesters. The veto by insurance companies emerged in a survey carried out
by Farm, a group representing farmers.

They called five of the main farming insurance underwriters to discover
whether they could protect themselves against GM-contamination.

The firms included the Agricultural Insurance Underwriters Agency, owned by
Norwich Union/ Sun Alliance and Rural Insurance Group run by Lloyds. None
were willing to offer insurance against GM contamination or for GM farmers
who could be taken to court if their crops contaminate neighbouring farms.

Robin Maynard, the National Co-ordinator of Farm, said: "When insurers
quantify GM crops in the same category as Thalidomide, asbestos and
terrorism, no thinking farmer should risk their business by taking on this
unproven, unwanted and unnecessary technology.

"Time and time again, farmers have borne the brunt of someone else's
mistakes or short- cuts - BSE, organophosphates, salmonella, etc.

"If Government and their friends in the Biotech companies dispute the
judgment of the professional insurers, perhaps they will offer unlimited
cover to the few farmers willing to risk growing GM crops?"

©2003 Associated New Media

*****
Insurers 'would not cover' GM farmers
www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1057974,00.html
The Guardian
Sally Bolton and agencies
Tuesday October 7, 2003

The likelihood that genetically-modified crops will ever be farmed in the UK
was today greatly reduced after it emerged that farmers may not be able to
obtain insurance cover for the potential risks of GM farming.
A survey carried out by agricultural campaigning group Farm found that none
of the five main British insurance underwriters would be willing to offer
cover to farmers considering growing GM crops, or to non-GM farmers seeking
to protect their businesses from GM crop contamination.

All the companies surveyed said that they felt unable to insure farmers
against potentially huge compensation payouts if widespread fears about GM
food and farming proved to be realised.

They said that too little was known about the long-term effects on human
health and the environment of growing GM for them to be able to offer any
form of cover.

Some firms even compared the risks of GM to the Thalidomide scandal of the
60s - in which £100m compensation was paid out when babies were born with
deformities resulting from the drug - and payouts caused by the use of
asbestos.

One company said: "Fifty years ago, insurers were writing policies for
asbestos without a care in the world - now they are facing claims of
hundreds of millions of pounds.

"The insurance industry has learned to be wary of new things, and there is a
real feeling that GM could come back and bite you in five years."

The Farm survey found that opposition from the firms to insuring GM crops
was comparable to the public's hostility towards buying and eating them.

Robin Maynard, Farm's national coordinator, said: "When insurers quantify GM
crops in the same category as thalidomide, asbestos and terrorism, no
thinking farmer should risk their business and public reputation by taking
on this unproven, unwanted and unnecessary technology.

"Time and time again, farmers have borne the brunt of someone else's
mistakes or shortcuts - BSE, organophosphates, salmonella ... It's time
farmers got out of the firing line and let those seeking to force GM crops
into our fields and onto supermarket shelves take the flak.

"If the government and their friends in the biotech companies dispute the
judgment of the professional insurers, perhaps they will offer unlimited
cover to the few farmers willing to risk growing GM crops?"

Farm, a new organisation representing working farmers, surveyed the five
companies - Agricultural Insurance Underwriters Agency, Rural Insurance
Group, BIB Underwriters Limited, Farm Web and NFU Mutual - a week ago.

BIB Underwriters said that it would refuse to give insurance of any kind,
including buildings insurance, to GM farmers amid fears that they could be
targets for environmental protesters.

The survey comes only days before the government's publication next week of
the findings of its three-year field-scale GM crop trials.

Margaret Beckett, the head of the department of environment, food and rural
affairs, will base her decision over whether to allow GM farming on the
results of the trials.

Mr Maynard said: "For both farmers and consumers, [the government] needs to
guarantee what the insurers clearly believe isn't possible - that GM crops
can be grown without contaminating the crops of the majority of farmers who
want to remain GM-free."

A nationwide survey of public opinion, published last month, showed
overwhelming opposition to GM technology.

*****

FARM press release
7/10/03 - for immediate release
No-one will insure GM crops

"The worry is that GM could be like Thalidomide - only after some time
would the full extent of the problems be seen"
- Insurance company spokesperson

A survey of the principle insurance underwriters in the UK, carried out
by the new campaigning group FARM, found that neither farmers
considering growing GM crops or non-GM farmers seeking to protect their
businesses from contamination by GM crops would be able to find anyone
willing to give them insurance. [1]

The survey conducted by FARM staff and working farmer members revealed a
level of opposition from companies taking on the risks of insuring GM
crops, comparable to the public's hostility to purchasing and eating
them.

Insurance company spokespeople compared GM crops to 'Thalidomide',
'Asbestos' and 'Acts of Terrorism'. [2]

All the companies surveyed felt that too little was known about the long
term effects of growing these crops on human health and the environment
to be able to offer any form of cover:
"50 years ago insurers were writing policies for asbestos without a care
in the world - now they are facing claims of hundreds of millions of
pounds. The insurance industry has learned to be wary of new things, and
there is a real feeling that GM could come back and bite you in 5 years
time", said one company spokesperson.

National Coordinator, Robin Maynard said,
'When insurers quantify GM crops in the same category as thalidomide,
asbestos and terrorism, no thinking farmer should risk their business
and public reputation by taking on this unproven, unwanted and
unnecessary technology.

Time and time again, farmers have borne the brunt of someone else's
mistakes or short-cuts - BSE, organophosphates, salmonella etc. It's
time farmers got out of the firing line and let those seeking to force
GM crops into our fields and onto supermarket shelves take the flak.

If Government and their friends in the Biotech. companies dispute the
judgement of the professional insurers, perhaps they will offer
unlimited cover to the few farmers willing to risk growing GM crops? In
addition, for both farmers and consumers, they need to guarantee, what
the insurers clearly believe isn't possible, that GM-crops can be grown
without contaminating the crops of the majority of farmers who want to
remain GM-free.'

The survey is released in conjunction with a FARM briefing, 'GM Crops -
sorting the Wheat from the Chaff', which sets out the facts about GM
crops as they will affect practical, working farmers and the markets
they produce for - if the Government gives the go-ahead for commercial
planting in the UK.[3]

For further information contact:
Freddie Whitefield 0207 349 5833
Robin Maynard 0207 349 5832/07932 040452
A number of the working farmer members of FARM have direct experience of
the issues surrounding GM and agriculture and are available for interview.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. FARM staff and farmer members contacted the five main underwriters
and brokers for farm insurance in the UK, asking what their current
standpoint on GM was and whether there was any provision for changing
this, if commercialisation was approved. Individual brokers were unable
to offer any clarification to our farmers as to their options and
liabilities and referred us on to the main companies.

Summary of results and some notes on the comments made by the
spokespersons for each company:

AIUA (Agricultural Insurance Underwriters Agency) (Norwich Union/Sun
Alliance) Have an exclusion clause for liability arising from GM crops. Do
not anticipate any change in position.

Spokesperson said that the reason for this was that they had no idea
what the long term effects might be. There is such a degree of
uncertainty surrounding the potential risks, and the effects could take
generations to manifest.

Rural Insurance Group (Lloyds)
Also have a set exclusion clause - putting GM crops in the same bracket
as 'acts of terrorism'.

The reason they have this is because they have no track record which
they are willing to base assessments of risk on. They feel there is too
much fear surrounding the topic. Whenever it comes on TV, it raises
fears of mass problems associated with contamination. The insurance
companies have learned to be cautious about new things.

BIB Underwriters Limited (AXA)
Have set exclusion clause which was amended within the last year, and
will continue to apply if commercialisation is approved.
Basically they would turn down any policy that has any association with
GM. So that would include farm buildings and property insurance as well
as public liability. The reason for this is that alongside the problems
of cross contamination, they envisage problems associated with arson or
vandalism due to anti-GM protestors.

NFU Mutual
Have had a policy for some time now that they will not provide insurance
for farmers choosing to grow GM crops. Unless there is a serious
increase in the quality of available information there will be no change
in their standpoint.
They believe that the risks are not fully understood. They cannot see
this position changing in the near future despite the proximity of
possible contamination. Their recommendation to farmers considering
growing these crops is to approach the industry/seed companies and
obtain some liability insurance through them.

Business combined Policy Endorsements Part A 030A Genetically Modified crops
"NFU Mutual will not indemnify the insured in respect of any liability
arising from the production, supply of or presence on the premises of
any genetically modified crop, where liability may be attributed
directly or indirectly to the genetic characteristics of the crop. In
particular, no indemnity will be provided in respect of liability
arising from the spread or the threat of spread of genetically modified
organism characteristics into the environment or any change to the
environment arising from research into, testing of or production of
genetically modified organisms"

Farm Web
Are currently reviewing their position on this in light of the postions
taken by Re-insurance companies and developments in the EU. At the
moment they do not have a set statement but say they would have to
consider each case on its own context.

Quotes from insurance spokespeople collected by researcher during survey:

"The worry is that GM could be like Thalidomide - only after some time
would the full extent of the problems be seen"

"50 years ago they were writing policies for asbestos without a care in
the world. Now they are faced with bills of hundreds of millions. There
is a feeling that GM could come back and bite you in five years time."

"If a farmer approached us with any kind of insurance policy relating to
a farm associated with GM we would have to refuse their application -
whatever the kind of insurance applied for."

2. A number of the working farmer Board members of FARM have direct
experience of the issues surrounding GM and agriculture.

* Lincolnshire dairy farmer, John Turner was unable to grow a lucrative
crop of maize silks due to the threat of contamination from a
neighboring GM trial site. In the absence of any form of insurance
against the risk of contamination, the only option for the farmer was
not to grow any plants that could be vulnerable to cross-pollination.
The financial impact of these precautionary measures has been calculated
to be of the order of £2,500.

* John Sanderson, an arable and beef farmer from Suffolk, hit the
headlines three years ago when he was the first farmer in the country to
plough in the GM contaminated oilseed rape which he had inadvertently
planted on 27 acres after the government failed to notify farmers in
time about the contamination. The GM-contaminated seed had been sown on
over 30,000 acres in the UK, and following public and media pressure,
was all eventually destroyed.

* Lincolnshire arable farmer, Peter Lundgren fought a trial site
proposed next to his farm. He has also visited the US to see the effects
of GM crops first hand, and helped produce a detailed critique exposing
exaggerated claims of cost savings by Brooms Barn Research Station on
the economics of growing GM Sugar Beet.

All three farmers are available for interview. Photos are also available.

3. To obtain a copy of FARM's GM briefing please contact Freddie
Whitefield on 0207 349 5833 or at info@farm.org.uk

The survey and briefing come out at a critical time for the Government's
decision on whether or not to give the go-ahead for commercial planting
of GM crops in the UK. The results of the Government's Field Scale
Evaluations of GM crops are due to be published next week. Leaked
accounts suggest that the evaluations found that 2 of the 3 GM crops
first proposed for commercialization show negative impacts on the
environment. This study follows on from overwhelming public hostility to
GM crops confirmed by the GM Nation debate and the lack of any
short-term economic benefits identified by the No 10 Strategy Unit report.

*****

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticleMore2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=
671433&Page=1&ReturnUrl=NewsFrontMore.aspx

Insurers 'say too little known for GM crops cover'
Yorkshire Post
07 October 2003

Farmers seeking insurance cover could encounter problems following the
controversy over genetically modified crops, it is claimed.

The warning came yesterday after a survey of this country's main insurance
underwriters by new campaigning group FARM, set up as an independent voice
for farmers.

It said its survey found that neither farmers considering growing GM crops,
nor non-GM farmers seeking to protect their businesses from GM crop
contamination, would be able to find cover from any of the five main firms it
questioned.

Survey staff had found that opposition from the firms to insuring GM crops
was comparable to the public's hostility towards buying and eating them. All
the companies surveyed felt that too little was known about the long-term
effects of growing GM crops on human health and the environment to be able
to offer any form of cover.

FARM's national coordinator Robin Maynard said: "When insurers quantify GM
crops in the same category as thalidomide, asbestos and terrorism, no
thinking farmer should risk their business and public reputation by taking on
this unproven, unwanted and unnecessary technology.

"Time and time again, farmers have borne the brunt of someone else's mistakes
or short-cuts - BSE, organophosphates, salmonella etc...

"It's time farmers got out of the firing line and let those seeking to force
GM crops into our fields and on to supermarket shelves take the flak.
"If Government and their friends in the biotech companies dispute the
judgment of the professional insurers, perhaps they will offer unlimited
cover to the few farmers willing to risk growing GM crops?

"In addition, for both farmers and consumers, they need to guarantee - what
the insurers clearly believe isn't possible - that GM crops can be grown
without contaminating the crops of the majority of farmers who want to remain
GM-free."

The survey comes in advance of the results of the field-scale trials of GM
crops which are due to be published next week.

A nationwide survey of public opinion published last month showed
overwhelming opposition to GM technology.

FARM said it questioned the five main agricultural insurance firms last week.

07 October 2003

*****
5. No insurance cover for GM crops that 'could be like thalidomide'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/08/ngm08.xml&sSh
eet=/portal/2003/10/08/ixportal.html
Daily Telegraph

No insurance cover for GM crops that 'could be like thalidomide'
By Robert Uhlig Farming Correspondent
(Filed: 08/10/2003)

The major agricultural insurance companies are refusing to insure farmers who
intend to grow genetically modified crops, according to a survey that deals a
further blow to Government hopes of approving at least one crop for
commercial cultivation next year.

The survey, conducted by working farmer members of Farm, a campaign group,
found insurance companies unwilling to take on the risk of liability claims
against farmers who grew GM crops.

Leading rural insurance underwriters told the farmers that they were
concerned that "GM could be like thalidomide - only after some time would
the full extent of the problems be seen".

Some spoke of the potential of lawsuits akin to the big payouts for
asbestos-exposure victims.

"Fifty years ago, insurers were writing policies for asbestos without a care
in the world. Now they are facing claims of hundreds of millions of pounds,"
one underwriter told the farmers.

"The insurance industry has learned to be wary of new things, and there is a
real feeling that GM could come back and bite you in five years' time."

Rural insurers are so concerned at the scope for liability claims if the
Government approves GM crops that they are even refusing to insure non-GM
farmers against losses or liability due to contamination by GM pollen.

The problem of how to grow GM crops and conventional varieties has proved to
be such a difficult issue to resolve that the Prime Minister's advisers have
repeatedly failed to reach a consensus.

The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which advises the
Government, is expected to deliver a much-delayed report on co-existence by
the end of the month.

All the insurers surveyed felt that too little was known about the long-term
effects on human health and the environment to be able to offer any form of
cover for farmers growing GM crops.

Even NFU Mutual, the insurance arm of the National Farmers' Union, which is
in favour of GM crops, will not provide insurance for farmers wanting to
grow GM crops. A spokesman said the company believed the risks were not
fully understood and advised farmers to seek cover through the biotechnology
companies that own the patent to GM seeds.

Agricultural Insurance Underwriters Agency, which underwrites policies for
Norwich Union and Sun Alliance, said it had an exclusion clause for liability
arising from GM crops.

Rural Insurance Group, which underwrites Lloyds policies, puts GM crops in
the same bracket as acts of terrorism and excludes them from cover.

BIB Underwriters Limited, which underwrites AXA policies, said it would turn
down any policy that has any association with GM, including cover for farm
building and property insurance as well as public liability. A spokesman said
that aside from the problems of cross contamination, BIB anticipated a risk
of claims associated with arson or vandalism due to anti-GM protesters.

Robin Maynard, the national co-ordinator of Farm, said: "When insurers
quantify GM crops in the same category as thalidomide, asbestos and
terrorism, no thinking farmer should risk their business and public
reputation by taking on this unproven, unwanted and unnecessary technology."

*****

The following is a press release from ETC Group, formerly RAFI.

Main point: there's widespread contamination of Mexican maize crops with
GE varieties.

Background: recall that Ignacio Chapela published the first demonstration
of this in Nature 2 years ago. Recall that this unleashed a firestorm of
criticism against Chapela, his scholarship, his methods, showing just how
raw a nerve had been touched. Chapela was denied tenure at UC Berkeley and
the journal, rather than supporting the scientific method, stated that
they shouldn't have published the article.

Jim

- - -

ETC Group
Genotypes
10 October 2003
www.etcgroup.org

Maize Rage in Mexico
GM maize contamination in Mexico - 2 years later

Twenty-five months after the first scientific evidence became public, the
Mexican government and the scientific community have acknowledged that
Mexico's traditional maize crop is contaminated with DNA from genetically
modified (GM) maize despite a government prohibition on the planting of GM
seeds in Mexico. Mexico is the centre of origin for maize - one of the
world's most important food crops.

Yesterday, peasant farmers and indigenous communities along with civil
society organizations in Mexico publicly released the results of their own
testing that found GM contamination of native maize in at least nine states
- far more serious and widespread than previously assumed. (1) For a
detailed report of their findings see:
http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=407 and
http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=408 (The report will soon be
available in English.)

No fewer than four government-sponsored studies have been undertaken in
Mexico over the past two years to determine whether or not transgenes are
present in native maize (see details below). Although none of the studies
has yet been published, each study found varying levels of contamination in
two or more states. But acknowledgment of gene flow has not come with a
clear plan of action to address contamination and to prevent it from
continuing. Neither is there a plan to protect vital national and
international collections of crop germplasm stored in gene banks in Mexico
and elsewhere.

Given the appalling lack of action and follow-through by the Mexican
government, international plant breeding institutes and the multinational
Gene Giants, the true creators and custodians of maize decided to take
matters into their own hands. At a news conference yesterday in Mexico
City, indigenous and peasant farmer communities in Mexico joined with civil
society organizations, including ETC Group, to announce the results of
genetic testing of maize grown by traditional farmers in 138 communities.
The results show that contamination has spread to farmers' fields in nine
states, including Chihuahua, Morelos, Durango, Estado de Mexico, Puebla,
Oaxaca, San Luis Potosi, Tlaxcala and Veracruz.

Of 2,000 maize plants tested, samples from 33 communities in nine Mexican
states tested positive for contamination. In some cases as many as four GM
traits, all patented by multinational Gene Giants, were found in a single
plant. The organizations were especially alarmed to find traces of the
insecticidal toxin (Cry9c), the engineered trait found in StarLink maize
(formerly sold by Aventis CropScience). StarLink was never approved by the
US government for human consumption because of concerns it could trigger
allergic reactions. Illegal traces of StarLink were found in US food
products in 2000. Following a massive recall of tainted food products in
the US, Aventis withdrew StarLink from the market. Apparently, StarLink
sought asylum in Mexico.

Baldemar Mendoza, an indigenous farmer from Oaxaca, said at yesterday's
news conference that people had come to his community to tell them that
they needn't worry about GM contamination because transgenic crops have
been available in some countries for six or seven years and there is no
evidence that GM crops are harmful to health. "But we have our own
evidence," asserts Mendoza. "We have 10,000 years of evidence that our
maize is good for our health. To contaminate it with transgenics is a crime
against all indigenous peoples and farming communities who have safeguarded
maize over millennia for the benefit of humankind."

The coalition of indigenous communities, farmer and civil society
organizations demanded that the Mexican government make public the results
of all studies on GM contamination, stop all imports of transgenic maize,
continue its moratorium on the cultivation of transgenic maize, and scrap
the flawed "biosafety" bill crafted by biotech proponents, which is now
under discussion in Congress.

Safe Contamination? At events leading up to today's news conference, many
Mexican government officials and scientists acknowledged contamination, but
insisted that it wasn't a problem.

On September 7th Mexico's newly-appointed Minister of the Environment,
Alberto Cárdenas told the Global Biodiversity Forum in Cancún that there is
no doubt that GM contamination in Mexico is real but he insisted there is
no harm to native maize biodiversity or to public health. The Minister
offered no specific information on contamination levels, nor did he provide
evidence supporting his claim that public health and the environment had
not been compromised.

At a conference held September 29-30 in Mexico City, academics, and
government officials confirmed -and even Gene Giant corporations accepted-
that there has been a "flow" (contamination) of GM traits into traditional
maize varieties in at least two states. The conference, titled "Gene Flow:
What Does It Mean for Biodiversity and Centers of Origin," was organized by
the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (PIFB) and the U.S.-Mexico
Foundation for Science (FUMEC). www.maizegeneflow.org.

At the conference, Klaus Amman, Director of the University of Bern's
Botanical Garden (Switzerland), argued that there are no known
environmental impacts of transgenic gene flow. Amman cited data from
Novartis (one of the Gene Giants - now Syngenta) showing that under field
conditions genetically engineered Bt maize posed minimal risk to Monarch
butterflies in the United States. Jorge Soberón, the director of Mexico's
National Commission on Biodiversity (CONABIO) pointed out that a comparison
between field conditions in the US and those in mega-diverse Mexico may not
be relevant. He noted that the USA has around 60 butterfly species whereas
Mexico has more than 2,000. In the meeting, Soberón called for a strict
application of the precautionary principle.

A representative of the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture, Dr. Victor
Villalobos, recently described the GM contamination in Oaxaca as "a natural
laboratory" to study the effects of gene flow, and he complacently urged
that the moratorium on the planting of GM maize be lifted. (2)

"It is exasperating that many scientists refused to take action on gene
flow for more than two years, insisting that they required stronger
scientific evidence," said Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group. "Now those same
scientists admit gene flow but are claiming - in the total absence of
scientific proof - that gene flow poses no threat to biodiversity or to
people. Using Mexico and its people as guinea pigs is good science?"

Studies Concur: According to Ezequiel Ezcurra, the director of Mexico's
National Institute of Ecology of the Secretariat of Environment and Natural
Resources, four government-sponsored studies have been undertaken in the
past two years to determine whether or not transgenes are present in maize
in Mexico. Although none of the studies has yet been published, Ezcurra
stated that each study found varying levels of contamination in two or more
states:

* The National Institute of Ecology, an agency that operates under Mexico's
Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, conducted an initial
study that was released in September 2001.
* The National Institute of Ecology (INE) and the National Commission for
the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) jointly sponsored a study
that was conducted by scientists at the National Autonomous University of
Mexico (UNAM) and the Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the
National Polytechnic Institute (CINVESTAV). The results of this study were
announced in December 2002.
* The Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (SAGARPA)
conducted a study that was commissioned by the Intersecretarial Commission
for Biosafety and Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM). The results of
this study have not been made public.
* The National Institute for Agriculture and Forestry Research (INIFAP).
The results have not been made public.

The studies corroborate the independent findings of two University of
California (Berkeley) researchers who first reported their conclusions in
Nature in September 2001. In an unprecedented move, the editor of Nature
later disavowed the Berkeley scientists' peer-reviewed report in his own
journal.

Traveling transgenes are a global problem, not one confined to maize in
Mexico. Among others, GM contamination of traditional varieties of cotton
in Greece,(3) canola (rapeseed) in Canada,(4) soy in Italy,(5) papaya in
Hawaii have been reported.(6)

International Action Needed: In February 2002 La Via Campesina (the
international organization of small farmers) and several hundred other
civil society organizations worldwide joined forces to call upon the UN
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and CGIAR (Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research) to address the issue. Although FAO has
expressed concern, it has only been in touch with CIMMYT (International
Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre), the CGIAR institute in Mexico, which
has global responsibility for maize breeding and for the world's most
important maize gene bank. CGIAR has refused to take decisive action until
they are convinced there is solid scientific proof of contamination.
However, CIMMYT did decide to halt its maize collection program in the
region for fear that it could inadvertently introduce GM traits into its
gene bank, and began to test for the presence of transgenes in its seed
collection.

At yesterday's press conference in Mexico City, indigenous people and small
farmers described CIMMYT's failure to acknowledge and take action on the
contamination of traditional maize as "deplorable," and urged that
responsibility for the CIMMYT gene bank as well as other banks in the CGIAR
network be surrendered to an intergovernmental body such as FAO, under
conditions that will make it more responsive to the concerns of small
farmers and indigenous people. The group also condemned the Convention on
Biological Diversity for its failure to effectively address GM
contamination in centers of genetic diversity.

Next Steps:

The long-term impacts of GM contamination on crop genetic diversity are not
known. Neither governments nor international institutions have taken action
to stop GM contamination and to protect farmers and indigenous peoples'
livelihoods. In February 2002 hundreds of civil society organizations
called for a moratorium on the shipment of GM seed or grain in countries or
regions that form part of the center of genetic diversity for the species.
The communities and CSOs meeting yesterday in Mexico City repeated demands
for a global moratorium.

ETC Group believes that a number of issues urgently require further study.
Most obviously, studies are needed to determine the impact of GM
contamination on traditional maize varieties in Mexico, not only looking at
the traits that are currently contaminating the crop but also consider
future introductions that might include traits for industrial or
pharmaceutical compounds. Most importantly, we need to understand not only
how to prevent further contamination but whether or not it is possible to
de-contaminate without further harming diversity. Peasant farmers
throughout the world, those who hold intimate knowledge of local farming
systems and crop diversity, are the only ones capable of undertaking the
task, but must have the support of the international community in this
process. Globally, there is a pressing need to study more broadly the
impacts of gene flow, which are already affecting other crops and regions.
Most urgently, FAO and CGIAR need a specific strategy and procedure to
ensure that gene bank accessions are protected from contamination and that
the vitally important exchange of genetic resources between gene banks and
breeders is not imperiled by concerns about contamination. Because all GM
traits are patented, the intellectual property implications of accidental
contamination and dissemination should also be studied. Until the studies
can be completed and evaluated by farmers' organizations and the
international community, existing national moratoria on GM crops should
remain in place. These issues should be discussed at the next meeting of
the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and
at the FAO Conference in November.

Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico) siliva@etcgroup.org -- +52 55 55 632 664
Hope Shand or Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group (USA) hope@etcgroup.org -- +919
960-5223
Jim Thomas, ETC Group (UK) jim@etcgroup.org -- +44 (0)18652 07818
Pat Mooney, ETC Group (Canada) etc@etcgroup.org -- +204 453-5259

The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI,
is an international civil society organization headquartered in Canada. The
ETC group is dedicated to the advancement of cultural and ecological
diversity and human rights. www.etcgroup.org. The ETC group is also a
member of the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme
(CBDC). The CBDC is a collaborative experimental initiative involving
civil society organizations and public research institutions in 14
countries. The CBDC is dedicated to the exploration of community-directed
programmes to strengthen the conservation and enhancement of agricultural
biodiversity. The CBDC website is www.cbdcprogram.org .

Endnotes:
(1) The document released yesterday is a collective effort prepared by
indigenous communities and peasant farmers from Oaxaca, Puebla, Chihuahua,
Veracruz and CECCAM - Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo
Mexicano, CENAMI - Centro Nacional de Apoyo a Misiones Indígenas, Grupo ETC
- Grupo de Acción sobre Erosión, Tecnología y Concentración, CASIFOP -
Centro de Análisis Social, Información y Formación Popular, AJAGI -
Asociación Jaliscience de Apoyo a Grupos Indígenas, UNOSJO - Unión de
Organizaciones de la Sierra Juárez de Oaxaca.
(2) Lourdes Rudino, "Aprueban experimentos con maiz transgenico - Tiene
SAGARPA 'laboratorio natural' en Oaxaca," El Financiero, October 3, 2003.
(3) Dina Kyriakidou, "Greece to further test, destroy any GM cotton crops,"
July 4, 2000, Reuters News Service. Available on the Internet:
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=7343
(4) See www.percyschmeiser.com
(5) David Brough, "Italy police seize more Monsanto seed in raid," April
10, 2001, Reuters News Service. Available on the Internet:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Italy-Seizes-Monsanto.htm
(6) Greenpeace, "Genetically Engineered (GE) Papaya -- Unknown Plant," June
2003.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/multimedia/download/1/290394/0/papaya_unknown_plant.pdf

From 10/2/03


USA: ANTI-BIOTECH EFFORT TAKES ROOT IN MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIF., BALLOT

26 September

A campaign to make Mendocino County the first in the United States to ban GM
crops is brewing inside a century-old building in downtown Ukiah where
organic brew pub owners Allen and Els Cooperrider are collecting signatures
for an initiative they hope will resonate in a region known for alternative
farmers.

Their goals are both local and global -- preventing genetic contamination of
Mendocino County's robust organic produce industry and defying the seemingly
unstoppable worldwide spread of genetically engineered crops.

"What we know so far from genetically engineered crops is that they create
more problems than they solve," said Els Cooperrider, 58, a retired medical
researcher.

Already, similar efforts are taking root in neighboring counties, drawing
Northern California deeper into the international debate about the benefits
and dangers of crops engineered to resist pests or withstand herbicides.

The Mendocino movement -- aimed at the March ballot -- likely will draw
opposition from the biotechnology industry, which doesn't want crop bans to
get a foothold in the nation's largest farm state.

The movement is not entirely surprising in a county that has long attracted
free thinkers, that now boasts the second-largest Green Party registration
in the state, behind neighboring Humboldt County.

The Mendocino Organic Network, a loose-knit group the Cooperriders belong
to, reports it has 3,100 of the 4,000 signatures it set as its goal. To
qualify for the March ballot, the network had to file 2,579 valid signatures
by last Wednesday.

If the current effort falls short, the organic network will target next
fall's ballot. "We plan to win," said Allen Cooperrider, a retired federal
agency biologist.

Among those behind the Mendocino movement is Marc Lappé, director of the
Center for Ethics and Toxics in Gualala and co-author of failed California
legislation in 2000 that would have required labeling of genetically
engineered foods.

Lappe described opposition to his bill as an "incredible deluge." He
predicted that if the Mendocino initiative makes it to the ballot, it will
pass. "If it does so," he said, "it's going to rock the establishment."

California's food crops remain mostly free of biotechnology, in part because
biotech companies have focused on more Midwest-friendly field crops, such as
corn and soybeans. Only a few modified fruits and vegetables -- papayas,
cantaloupe and squash -- have been commercially released.

However, California is among the most popular places for biotech field
trials and a hotbed of companies trying to genetically manufacture
pharmaceuticals in plants.

The California Farm Bureau Federation backs biotechnology as a way to
"improve the quality and marketability of our products and to solve
environmental concerns," according to its 2003 policy handbook.

5 to 1 against GM crops in biggest ever public survey

John Vidal and Ian Sample
The Guardian (UK) Sep 25, 2003)

The widest formal public debate ever conducted in Britain has found an
overwhelming percentage of people uneasy, suspicious or outrightly hostile
to the introduction of genetically modified crops.

More than 650 public meetings were held around the country, and about 37,000
people responded to questionnaires, with 54% saying they never want to see
GM crops grown in the UK. A further 18% said they would find the crops
acceptable only if there was no risk of cross-contamination; and 13% wanted
more research.

In a clear message to government and supermarkets, only 2% of people said GM
crops were acceptable "in any circumstances" and just 8% said they were
happy to eat GM food.

"Every single group was broadly negative in its feelings about every GM
issue," said the report which found the numbers opposed to GM outweighed
those who may support it by 5 to 1.

The environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, promised to take the results
seriously, but said the government would give its formal response to the
consultation at a later date.

"I will reflect carefully on the findings of today's report, along with
those of the science review and our costs and benefits study, before
publishing our response. We said that we will listen, and we will," she
said.

Sue Meyer, of Genewatch, said the debate had confirmed that the country is
sceptical about GM food. "The public believe it is being driven by profit
and don't trust the government to act fairly.

"People see possible dangers for themselves and for the environment, while
industry reaps the benefits. The more people learn, the more anxious they
become."

The blow to the government comes as a Guardian investigation reveals a
crisis looming in GM science in Britain. A stream of leading GM crop
researchers have quit the country, while others are preparing to leave in
the next few months, threatening to damage Britain's world-class reputation
in the field. "The really committed people who have underpinned our
excellence are moving out and that's a real worry," said Professor Chris
Leaver, head of plant sciences at Oxford.

Scientists said weak leadership from the government and public opposition to
GM, stirred up by anti-GM pressure groups, were largely to blame.

The plant biotechnology industry has already taken a big hit in Britain.
High-profile GM research companies such as Monsanto, Bayer and Dow have all
closed down research facilities in Britain in recent years, drastically
diminishing the career prospects of scientists working on GM crops. Only one
multinational company, Syngenta, remains.

Yesterday's report uncovered deep suspicion about government motives, with
people following earlier studies which suggested there were few economic
benefits from growing the crops, and increasing concerns by its own
scientists.

The authors - a team drawn from universities, business and consumer groups -
found that "people believe that the multinational [GM] companies are
motivated overwhelmingly by profit rather than meeting society's needs . . .
People are suspicious about any information or science which emanates from
GM companies."

The prime minister had hoped that the national debate on GM crops would
soothe widespread anxieties over their safety, paving the way for their
commercialisation in the UK.

The report comes on the back of an economic analysis by the No 10 strategy
unit, which showed little benefit to Britain from growing the crops, and a
scientific analysis which urged more caution.

A decision on whether to allow the crops was to have been made within the
next month but has been put back to the new year following impasse on legal
liability and whether they can be grown next to conventional crops. A report
on their environmental effects is expected next month.

"If the process is so damn safe, why is it that this company is
raising this crop 3,000 miles away from home?" Wuerthele said. "It's
like hazardous waste. You go where the least regulations are, dump it
there and run."

Biopharming reaps fear
By Diane Carman
Denver Post, September 28, 2003

The leaves are just beginning to turn in Phillips County, but any farmer
knows that means spring is just around the corner. And next spring
likely will be a bitter one on the Eastern Plains.

A mysterious farmer at a secret location somewhere in northeastern
Colorado is expected to plant a corn crop that must never be eaten by
humans or animals, must never come in contact with other crops, and is
so volatile, a 1-mile buffer must surround it to prevent pollen from
contaminating other crops.

The biopharm corn has been genetically engineered to produce lipase, a
fat-digesting enzyme used in the treatment of cystic fibrosis and other
conditions. Meristem Therapeutics of France won approval from the state
Department of Agriculture to contract with a Colorado farmer to produce
the crop.

Biopharming is a cheap means for producing substances such as lipase
that traditionally have been extracted from animals or formulated in
laboratories.

But though the permit has been approved, it hasn't put an end to the
controversy. While the industry lobbies for support, farmers and
environmentalists have mobilized to protest the pharm-corn farm.

"There are still too many unanswered questions," said John Stencel,
president of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.

Stencel returned last week from a trip to Clermont-Ferrand, France, to
visit the Meristem labs. The Colorado Corn Growers Association paid to
send Stencel, three state legislators and others on the six-day trip.

The group talked to scientists, reviewed research data and toured a
Meristem farm.

State Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, said he went to France "skeptical of
the entire situation," but the trip changed his mind. "I thought, 'Yes,
we can do it safely.'

"There were apples, grapes and other crops growing right around it" with
no adverse effects, Rose said. "There's a lot of fear out there, but
those fears are not based on any scientific platform. They're pure
emotion."

Suzanne Wuerthele, a toxicologist who chairs the genetic engineering
committee for the Sierra Club, disagreed. She said the risks are
potentially devastating for farmers, consumers and the environment. And
she criticized the permit process in Colorado.

"It was conducted in secret and considered in a very ignorant fashion,"
she said. The Department of Agriculture "handpicked" friends of
biotechnology to review the application and withheld critical
information. "They decided the public's right to know was superseded by
the company's desire for confidentiality."

Wuerthele said the male sterile corn used on the biopharms still
produces up to 10 percent of the pollen typically released by fertile
corn plants, and that winds easily could carry the pollen to nearby food
cornfields.

Furthermore, the effect on wildlife and humans who eat the pharm
corn is unknown - even Meristem officials emphasize the need for
segregating the crop - and the risk to farmers who inhale the
lipase-laced dust during the harvest is great, Wuerthele said.

"Alveoli in the lungs are damaged by enzymes like lipase," she said.

Producing pharmaceutical compounds in food crops is "a really,
really bad idea. The chance of it contaminating the food supply is
great," Wuerthele said. "And once that happens, it will destroy our
export markets."

Stencel is equally concerned about the impact on the commodities
market. "Our exports are still off 30 to 40 percent from what they were
six years ago," primarily because many foreign countries refuse to buy
genetically modified foods, he said.

And while "a dozen, maybe two dozen" farmers in the state could be
enriched by the production of the lucrative biopharm crops, "thousands
of other farmers could be hurt."

But since Meristem already has the go-ahead, Stencel and other
farmers are exploring the question of liability in the event that food
crops are contaminated, as they were in biopharm mistakes in Iowa and
Nebraska in 2002.

Some farmers are insisting on triple damages for any crops that
must be destroyed because of biopharm contamination.

It's not greed, Stencel said. "You may not be able to grow a crop
again on the same soil for a year or two. And who will pay? The research
company? The farmer? We need to know the answer."

Rose said protocols are in place that reduce the dangers from
biopharming, and that the benefits to society from the production of
cheaper pharmaceuticals outweigh the risks.

But if that's the case, somebody needs to tell the food industry.
Among the most vocal skeptics of biopharming are food giants Frito-Lay,
Campbell Soup and Kraft Foods.

When StarLink genetically modified corn found its way into taco
shells and other foods in 2000, it cost the industry more than $1
billion in recall expenses, lawsuits and lost sales.

"If the process is so damn safe, why is it that this company is
raising this crop 3,000 miles away from home?" Wuerthele said. "It's
like hazardous waste. You go where the least regulations are, dump it
there and run."

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1659809,00.html

The final para is interesting. Klark takes many leads from the top
PowerHarpies of Scandinavia, so perhaps she'll reflect on this one ...

R

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
GM Crops Giant Monsanto Pulls Out of Europe

- Robert Uhlig, Telegraph (UK), Oct. 16, 2003,

Monsanto, the American pioneer of genetically modified crops, said
yesterday it was pulling out of its European cereal seed business.

The move was widely seen as a sign that it has given up hopes of
introducing GM cereals in Europe. It announced its decision on the eve of
today's publication of results of farm-scale evaluations of GM crops, the
final and most influential part of the Government's investigation into
whether to allow GM crops to be grown commercially.

The trials, which investigated the effect of GM maize, oilseed rape and
sugar beet on farmland wildlife and biodiversity, are expected to give a
mixed verdict on the technology.

Two other Government reports on the economic benefits of growing GM crops
and on scientific understanding of their environmental and health effects
have also failed to present a strong case for rushing into commercial GM
cultivation. There are also questions about the value of the GM maize
trials, which did not take the vital factor of crop yield into account.

Monsanto's announcement that it wants to sell its cereal development
stations at Cambridge and in France, Germany and the Czech Republic,
follows hardening resistance to GM crops throughout Europe. Insurers are
not prepared to underwrite GM farmers and 98 per cent of 37,000
participants in GM Nation?, a public consultation, told the Government
that they did not want GM crops or food.

Jeff Cox, Monsanto's general manager for northern Europe, said the
withdrawal from Europe was to allow the company to realign its business to
"focus on those projects that will best capitalise on in its market and
technological strengths". He said the company needed to save up to £65
million and would be making one in 11 of its workers redundant worldwide.

When Monsanto bought Plant Breeding International Cambridge from Unilever
in 1998, Hugh Grant, then president of Monsanto's agricultural division,
said that GM crops would be commercial reality in Britain by this year.

Anti-GM lobbyists said the withdrawal was a sign that Monsanto was
"throwing in the towel" in Europe. They said that with Canadian farmers
campaigning hard against licensing Monsanto's GM wheat, the company was
also facing severe resistance in North America.

Pete Riley, of Friends of the Earth, said Monsanto was "pulling out after
five years with no products to show and no test sites for Monsanto GM
cereals in Britain this year". He said: "They are clearly backing off GM
wheat in Europe, where until now they were the pioneer."

This week Margot Wallstrom, the EU's environment commissioner, accused
American biotechnology firms of lying about the benefits of GM technology
and "trying to force it on people".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3529365&thesection=news&thesubsection=world&thesecondsubsection=

From lab to table: how biotech breeds hope, doubt and fear

17.10.2003
5.30pm - By ARIFA AKBAR
LONDON - The Independent asked four people to comment on a study linking GE
crops with damage to the environment.

The Producer

Name: Dr Colin Merritt
Position: Head of Biotechnology at Monsanto UK

I have been responsible for our part of the trials and we were looking at
the indirect effects of managing these crops.

At this stage, we need weeks to study the data properly before coming to any
conclusions.

We also need to be aware that when we measure the insect population, the
higher or lower number of insects depends on when we measure.

We need to monitor this kind of information for conventional agriculture,
the effects of other chemicals, fertilisers and ploughing, and not just for
GM.

We also have to keep in mind the idea of scale.

If you have one field in 100 that contained GM crop, the insects can live in
other fields and their population is unlikely to be affected.

For those who are frightened of the so-called 'Frankenstein Foods', most
people are unaware that in every spoonful of food, they eat DNA which comes
from plants or animals.

There's nothing different about GM plants.

The Scientist

Name: Professor Chris Lever
Position: Head of plant science at Oxford University and on the GM review
panel chaired by Sir David King

The aim of farming is to maximise crop productivity which is competing
against pests, disease and weeds.

The more we can grow on one square acre, the less acres we need to grow.

The question I would pose is that is it better to have higher yielding crops
on a smaller amount of land or far less yield on a larger area of land? GM
crops kill the weeds that compete with crops and some insects are lost
because they live on the weeds.

But we can return insects to the environment so the potential is there for
GM to benefit wildlife.

If we do not have GM in the case of sugar beet, we will have to import it
from elsewhere.

We are already farming intensively but the world's population is estimated
to increase from six to eight billion and we have to find a way to
accommodate this growth.

Organic farming is a lovely idea but in Britain alone, it can only support
up to 10 million people but we need enough food for 60 million.
The Farmer

Name: Nick Wells
Position: Arable farmer who specialises in sugar beet in North Lincolnshire.

I have no real qualms about GM crops so far but I would emphasise the 'so
far'.

I take a scientific approach to this report by saying that if we can have
higher yields through having less weed in sugar beet crop, then I am
satisfied.

We can overcome the reduction of insects by taking some land out of
production and planting vegetation specifically for butterflies and bees to
feed on.

If we are competing with the world market where GM is used in other
countries, it is possible we may not be able to grow sugar beet in Britain
if we carry on with the conventional crop.

The way we farm sugar beet now also requires much higher labour input.

It needs intensive monitoring and it has to be sprayed more times with crop
chemicals than GM sugar beet.

The sugar we extract is highly refined from the plant so the consumer is not
getting any GM residue through that.

The sugar beet pulp is fed to cattle.

Some might argue that GM crops enter the food chain this way, but it is not
a worry for me because the pulp is highly processed and goes through a lot
of heat treatment and has no connection to the original modification."

The consumer

Name: Stella Cridge, 27, from Vauxhall, London
Position: Business development consultant

When I heard about the results of the trials on the radio, I felt it was a
surprise victory for environmentalists.

I believe that it is a commitment to short-term gains that is leading us
down the GM path.

It is important to balance growth in the economy - which can deliver good
quality food to a growing population - with its social and environmental
impact.

Productivity and ecology are not mutually exclusive and a balance has to be
met.

In the case of GM, I don't think the environmental and social effects are
worth the gains.

Some may dismiss this as naive but I would like to see all farmers use
organic methods.

Others may say that there is no other way of feeding the world than by using
intensive farming but we need to study the long-term effects and we need to
find another system whose side effects are not so damaging.

All the processed food I buy is organic but, at the same time, I don't think
it is the individual consumer's responsibility.

We need to heed caution with this report and this issue can always be
revisited in another 10 years.

- INDEPENDENT

"No wonder Monsanto is leaving the country." - Guardian Leader

The Guardian's coverage - some of it!
*Two GM crops face ban for damaging wildlife
*Case not proven
*Birds and the bees: how wildlife suffered - scientists surprised
*How the debate unfolded

The Farm Scale Evaluations of spring-sown genetically modified
crops
A themed issue from Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences
Series B Volume 358 Issue 1439 29 November 2003
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/phil_bio/news/fse_toc.html ---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1064966,00.html
Two GM crops face ban for damaging wildlife
Paul Brown and John Vidal
The Guardian, Friday, October 17, 2003

Two GM varieties, oil-seed rape and sugar beet, face a Europe-
wide ban after long-awaited field-scale trials showed that the crops damaged
wildlife, and would have a serious long-term effect on bee, butterfly
and bird populations.

Three years of trials growing GM crops alongside conventional
crops, the largest field study undertaken, has provided a legal basis for
banning the two crops under European Union rules, which say that
either health or environmental detriment must be proved.

The government is now faced with an embarrassing about-turn on its
enthusiasm for GM technology. Loss of birdlife in the countryside has
been put forward as a key "quality of life" indicator by the
government and it is pledged to reverse the trend.

Scientists from the independent panel set up to conduct the field
trials were surprised that the results - revealed in the Guardian
earlier this month - were so dramatic. In the case of conventional
oil-seed rape, five times as many weed seeds survived, providing food
for birds like skylarks, than in the GM field. The results were
uniform across the country, giving Professor Chris Pollock, chairman
of the scientific panel, confidence that the results would be the same
across all of Europe.

David Gibbons, another panel member, said the results were
"unexpectedly dramatic. There were very big differences, three to five
times more seeds, for example. There will be less food for birds if
[the GM crops] are grown commercially".

Ministers were cautious although Elliot Morley, the environment
minister, said the results showed "GM crops had severe implications
for wild birds". The government would await advice from the Advisory
Committee on Releases to the Environment (Acre) but he said: "I cannot
see any European government ignoring these results and their affect [yep,
it's still the Grauniad even tho' it's moved from Manchester] on wildlife."

There has been huge public hostility to GM crops found in the widest
public consultation on a single issue. The government also has to
contend with other recent scientific findings that GM genes could
disperse in the countryside and create superweeds. It has been told by
the Cabinet Office that there is no economic benefit to Britain from
the technology now, and to grow GM crops might cause civil unrest.

Acre recommended GM oil-seed rape in 1997, saying it could see no
danger to the environment.

A question mark hangs over a third crop, GM maize, which did well in
the trials compared to conventional maize. At least part of the trials
will have to be repeated if they are to be conclusive, another
scientific panel member, Dr Geoff Squire, from the Scottish Crop
Research Institute, said.

Conventional crops which did so badly in the maize trials in
conserving wildlife compared with GM crops had been treated with a
powerful herbicide called Atrazine which is to be banned. New tests
will be done with a less virulent herbicide before deciding which of
the two types of maize is better for the environment.

Michael Meacher, the former environment minister who set up the trials
with industry in 1998, said that two of the three crops had been shown
to be indisputably bad for the environment, and the third would have
to be re-tested with another herbicide.

"The government said that if the trials showed harm to the environment
then they would not proceed with GM. We've always known the public is
hostile, and now the science shows the same. That settles the
argument," he said.
g
Almost all Britain's leading environment, conservation, wildlife,
countryside and consumer groups called for the banning of GM crops or
for more tests. "We now have confirmation that GM crops harm the
environment, make no economic sense and are deeply unpopular. Tony
Blair must stand up to US pressure and declare Britain GM-free," said
Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth.

Scientists were more cautious. Professor John Lawton, head of the
Natural Environment Research Council, said: "We have a wealth of new
information about the biodiversity of the UK's major habitat,
agricultural land, and rigorous data that will be of great value to
decision makers."

The GM industry took a different view. "This evidence shows that GM
crops are more flexible and can enhance biodiversity," said Dr Paul
Rylott, of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which represents
Monsanto, Syngenta and other leading GM companies. ---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1064999,00.html Case
not proven Leader, The Guardian, Friday October 17, 2003

No wonder Monsanto is leaving the country. Just a day after the US
company closed its UK cereal business, the government's field trials
into GM technology found that Monsanto's genetically modified
sugar-beet product produces fields with fewer butterflies, bees and
weed seeds than conventional crops. The results cannot be easily
discounted. They also found that GM spring rape, this time sold by
another multinational Bayer, reduced wildlife and wild vegetation
where grown. The one piece of good news for the industry - that that
GM maize might attract more wildlife than its unmodified equivalent -
was undermined by the fact that more work was needed to confirm this.
If the government wanted more reasons not to embrace commercial
cultivation of genetically modified crops then it need look no further
than yesterday's findings.

What the field trials demonstrate is the price of farming practices
which intensify production. The crops tested in the field trials were
designed to be herbicide-resistant - allowing weeds to be killed even
among standing crops. But the last few decades have seen less space
for wild plants and wildlife, which means less habitat and less food
for animals and birds. This is an irreplaceable loss to the
countryside which once teemed with the sights and sounds of creatures
on and above the ground. Given that a government study has already
cast doubt as to whether there are are any positive economic benefits
to farmers or consumers from the current batch of GM crops, there
appears to be a better case to give up than go on with the technology.
Certainly when the Guardian broke the news of these field trials
last week, the European health commissioner made it clear that any
threat to wildlife would be enough reason to keep Britain's moratorium
on growing GM crops. Such a move would be popular - given the depth of
public hostility to GM. Retaining the ban for the two GM crops with
proven malign effects on biodiversity seems easily within ministerial
grasp. Yet the government, led by a prime minister who is sympathetic
to GM technology, is still pondering the subject. Ministers could
justifiably argue that since we are in the middle of a process they
would not want to pre-judge its conclusions.

It must be clear to anyone weighing the evidence for and against GM
what the judgment should be. Maybe the reason government is only
inching towards a decision is that it is being pulled in two different
directions at once. In Europe and at home, the public is antipathetic
to the idea of GM crops. In the US, the opposite is true. As a result
the EU has not seen commercial growing of GM crops since 1998, while
America is the world leader in biotech crops. The result of Europe's
moratorium is that American farmers cannot export their seeds or their
model of agribusiness across the Atlantic. They are becoming
increasingly determined to do so.

This week the EU's environment commissioner Margot Wallstrom accused
US biotech interests of trying to "force" GM crops on Europe. Caving
in to American trade threats will certainly not inspire consumer
confidence. Nor will industry-inspired research or slick PR campaigns
by big business. Ministers have to realise that new technologies make
people uneasy - especially in agriculture where their track record is
patchy. People worry about food safety and are concerned about
constant change that overturns all that went before. It is also true
that nothing can be completely safe and introducing too many
safeguards carries a risk that useful innovations are discarded. The
government has yet to find an argument that has convinced the public
that GM is a green revolution that we can ill afford to miss out on.
Until ministers do so GM crops will remain a much talked about idea,
but never an eaten foodstuff. ---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1064716,00.html
Birds and the bees: how wildlife suffered Result of £5m trial surprised
scientists Paul Brown, environment correspondent The Guardian, Friday
October 17, 2003

The farm scale trials were the largest and most thorough of their kind
in the world. Scientists had never previously been able to observe how
changing farm practices are affecting wildlife across the country.
They cost £5m and lasted four years.

The trials were designed to test whether weeds and insects fared
better in fields of conventional crops or crops which had been
genetically altered to be resistant to a single herbicide.

In GM crops it meant that the farmer could use one application of
herbicide to kill a large spread of weeds in one go without harming
the crops. Conventional crops might need several applications of
different herbicides at different stages in order to keep weeds under
control.

The trials were held because there had already been a steady decline
since the 60s in the number of weeds because of intensive agriculture.
As a result, there had been a reduction in a wide range of animal
species, including bumblebees, grey partridges and corn buntings. They
were losing both their food sources and their habitats.

Scientists were surprised to find considerable differences between
conventional and GM crops and that they were so marked - as much as
five to one in the number of weed seeds produced in conventional
oil-seed rape compared with the GM variety. The results were also
remarkably consistent across England, Scotland and Wales, although
scientists had expected regional variations. This led them to believe
the results would apply across the whole of Europe.

There were 273 field trials, 68 fields of maize, 67 of spring oil-seed
rape and 66 of beet, both for sugar and fodder. Studies on winter
oil-seed rape are still to come.

The GM maize and rape were resistant to Liberty (glufosinate-ammonium)
made by BayerCropScience, and the GM beet to Roundup (glyphosate) made
by Monsanto. Each trial field was divided into two, half sown with the
GM crop and half with its conventional equivalent. Farmers were
allowed to treat the crops as they would normally, deciding when to
plough and when to plant crops, and when to treat with herbicides.

The researchers monitored the plants and animals in the fields, around
the ploughed edges of the fields, before, during and after the crops
were grown. Each field was visited 15 to 20 times a year.

Researchers measured the number of grasses and broad-leaved weeds and
calculated the weight of the dried weeds. This gave a good measure of
the quantity of foliage, flowers and stems that were above ground and
available for animals to eat, as well as how many seeds the weeds
produced. Another measure was how many seeds fell from the weeds on to
the soil surface, known as "seed rain". This allows scientists to
predict how many seeds would be available for insects and birds to
eat. This is particularly important because some farmland birds -
skylark, corn bunting and yellow hammer - which rely on weed seeds in
the autumn and winter have been declining. The number of weed seeds
left to provide plants for the future was also measured.

The researchers monitored the numbers of insects in and around crops
including butterflies, bees, ground beetles, springtails (which live
in the soil), and true bugs (which eat other bugs), as well as
spiders.


Crops

Beet

In spring the density of weed seedlings in the GM beet fields was four
times that in the conventional crops because many farmers had sprayed
to kill weeds in conventional crops before the beet had emerged.
However, applying Roundup to the GM crops in May halved the weed
density compared with conventional crops. After this the biomass of
the remaining weeds was six times lower and the "seed rain" was three
times lower compared with conventional crops.

Although there were
never many bees and butterflies in beet crops, there were even fewer
in the GM beet crops, probably because there were fewer flowering
weeds to attract them. There were also fewer butterflies in the tilled
margins. Bee numbers, generally low everywhere, were even lower in the
GM crops. Growing GM beet is likely to affect populations of weeds in
the long term as seed stores will shrink, and will be unlikely to
recover.

Spring oil-seed rape

There was 70% less volume of weeds in GM crops and 80% fewer
broad-leaved weed seeds. Springtails were significantly more abundant
in GM crops in July, and spiders in August, just before the harvest.
This was probably because the springtails feed on rotting weeds, which
were more abundant in GM crops late in the year. The GM herbicides are
used later in the year so the weeds are bigger when they are killed,
providing more food for springtails. The spiders were probably feeding
on the springtails.

Maize

Both the density and size of broadleaved weeds was three times higher
in the GM maize fields than in conventional maize fields. Taken
together the weeds in the GM crops produced twice as many seeds as the
weeds in the conventional crops. Over the growing season butterflies
were attracted to the GM maize fields and field margins in the same
numbers as conventional fields. There were three times as many
honeybees in the GM field boundaries because of more flowering plants,
but researches stress that even in GM fields numbers were low. Insects
were found in similar numbers in both.

Growing GM maize would be an option for farmers wanting to replace
more intensive and persistent herbicides such as atrazine, which is
being phased out as too toxic. More weeds and seeds were produced in
GM fields, suggesting that birds as well as small mammals like mice
might benefit.


Species

Butterflies

The trials found fewer weeds in spring rape and beet fields and
butterfly numbers were significantly lower. In the short term
butterflies could move elsewhere to find plants to feed on but in the
longer term the effect might be important. There were one third fewer
butterflies in GM beet crops in July than in conventional crops and in
GM spring rape it was half.

Farmland birds

Numbers of birds were not studied directly but farmland birds rely
heavily on weed seeds for survival, especially over the winter. For GM
beet, weed seeds were reduced by 70% and for GM oil-seed 80%. In
addition, for GM spring rape the reduction in seed meant that while
the seedbank (the number of seeds in the soil) doubled following
conventional crops, it did not increase at all following GM crops.
This suggests that GM spring rape plantings will make worse the long
term decline in plants, some of which will be important to the diets
of farmland birds.

The results for GM maize were the opposite with twice as much "seed
rain" on the GM halves of the field.

Bumblebees

These thrive where there are weeds in grassland and uncultivated
farmland but are generally low in arable fields. There were no
differences in the numbers of bumblebees on margins in conventional or
GM crops for beet maize or spring rape. While numbers are unlikely to
be affected by a lack of weeds in any one year, because they will
search elsewhere for food, in the longer term it could have an impact
by seriously depleting weed populations within fields. Any reduction
in long-term weed numbers could exacerbate the current decline in
bumblebee populations in the UK.

Beetles

One species of seed-eating ground beetle, Harpalus rufipes, is common
in arable fields all over the UK. The beetles flourished in
conventional spring rape and beet crops later in the season when weeds
were producing lots of seeds, but did less well in the GM equivalents
because there were fewer weeds and seeds. However, the researchers
observed more beetles in GM, rather than conventional, maize crops. If
GM crops were grown more extensively than conventional crops the
effect on this beetle could be significant over years. ---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1064739,00.html
Outright ban, caution or green light? All sides draw comfort from
report John Vidal The Guardian, Friday October 17, 2003

Reactions to the report varied from calls by environment groups for an
immediate ban on GM crops to pleas by biotechnology companies for the
government to decide in their favour.

Consumer

Consumer groups urged the government to do more tests and not bow to
industry pressure. Monique Warnock, of the Consumers' Association,
said: "Today's results have confirmed our concerns that
commercialisation of GM will destroy consumer choice once and for all.
The GM crops evaluated cannot exist side by side with conventional
crops without contamination."

Environment

Environment groups wanted immediate bans on the crops. Stephen
Tindale, head of Greenpeace and a former adviser to the environment
minister, Michael Meacher, said: "These trials clearly show that the
alleged benefits of GM do not exist. For years the GM corporations
have been claiming that their crops would reduce weedkiller use and
benefit wildlife. Now we know how wrong they were."

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "These trials
have shown that GM oil-seed rape and beet cause more damage to the
environment than even conventional crops. The results will force Tony
Blair to show who he really represents - the British people or Bush
and the multinationals.

Industry

The Agriculture Biotechnology Council, which represents GM companies
Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta, said the tests
"were not GM on trial". "As this report shows, genetic modification is
a tool which can be used in different ways with different management
practices resulting in different outcomes."

Cropgen, an industry-funded pressure group, said the government should
decide in favour of the crops. "Millions of farmers across five
continents are taking advantage of GM technology. Are British farmers
to be told that they cannot have access to these same benefits?"

Wildlife

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, with more than a
million members, said that two of the crops should be banned because
of their adverse effects on wildlife. "Ministers have no choice now
but to ban GM beet and GM spring oil-seed rape", said Dr Mark Avery,
RSPB head of conservation.

Countryside

The National Trust, with three million members, urged caution. "These
... inconclusive results highlight how much more work is required
before the government can draw any definitive conclusion on the
introduction of GM crops."

Political

Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, said the results would
"inform" the government's position and would be forwarded to all other
EU member states. "I shall reflect carefully on these results. The
government is neither pro- nor anti-GM crops. Our overriding concern
is to protect human health and the environment, and to ensure genuine
consumer choice."

The Conservative party urged caution. "The evidence published today
would not justify a decision to authorise the commercial growing of GM
crops. There should be no blanket approval," said David Lidington,
shadow environment secretary.

Local groups

Local groups have taken part in the destruction of many of the trial
crops over the past few years. "[The tests] represent a huge setback
to the GM crop industry, and vindicate everything the anti-GM
campaigners in Fife and elsewhere in Britain have been saying", said a
member of Fife Against GMOs.

Agriculture

Sir Ben Gill, president of the National Farmers Union, said: "The
decision on whether to allow these crops to be grown commercially must
be taken on a case-by-case basis. Studies to develop best practice for
the management of these crops ... will be important if farmers are to
deliver maximum environmental benefits."

Patrick Holden, of the Soil Association, speaking for organic farmers,
said: "GM is taking farming in a direction irrelevant to wildlife and
to consumers. The UK should develop its farming industry in line with
government policy, which is to respond to the wishes of consumers -
who definitely don't want GM."

Activists

Kathryn Tulip, who has been acquitted of crop damage several times,
said: "If Tony Blair ignores public opinion on GM as blatantly as he
did on Iraq he can expect widespread direct action in the fields."

Science

Dr Mark Tester, senior lecturer, department of plant sciences,
Cambridge University, said: "To generalise and say all GM is bad, or
all GM is good is a crude over-simplification, and these new results
provide classic evidence of the complexity of the real issues."

Dr Sue Mayer of science watchdog group Genewatch, urged caution.
"These results should not be seen as a green light for GM maize. Two
unsustainable systems were being compared and experience in the US
shows the trials were not representative of what would happen in
reality." ---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1064774,00.html How
the debate unfolded The Guardian, Friday October 17, 2003

1997 Widespread public opposition to government plans for early
introduction of GM crops. Concern expressed by the government's
advisory committee on novel foods and advisory committee on releases
to the environment that plans for GM commercial farming were happening
too quickly. Both urged caution

March 1998 English Nature fears that GM crops might damage wildlife

May 1998 Royal Society concluded that the use of GM plants potentially
offered benefits in agricultural practice, food quality, nutrition and
health

October 1998 Farm-scale trials set-up by Michael Meacher, environment
minister, to see whether there was more wildlife in fields with GM
crops than conventional

January 1999 Voluntary agreement with bio-tech companies to suspend
all commercial planting of GM crops for three years until farm trials
completed

August 1999 28 Greenpeace volunteers arrested destroying GM crop
trials

September 2000 Jury acquits Greenpeace protesters who claimed they
were acting to prevent genetic pollution

2001/2002 Crop destruction continues but scientists say enough remain
standing to get good scientific results

February 2002 Royal Society issues more cautious second report on GM
and says more work is required on health and environment

July 10 2003 Cabinet Office report says no financial or consumer
benefit to grow GM crops in UK at present, warns of potential civil
unrest.

July 21 Committee under Sir David King, government's chief scientist,
says caution required and that there is a need to protect both the
consumer and the countryside.

24 September Results of government sponsored GM Nation public debate
comes out 5 to 1 against GM crops being grown in UK

October 10 Scientists warn GM oil seed rape would create hybrids and
possibly weeds resistant to herbicide

October 14 Research shows that GM pollen from oil seed rape could not
be contained by separating crops

October 16 GM trial results released by Royal Society

November Professor King to reconvene science review panel to consider
new evidence since its first report

November 25 and December 4 Government advisory committee on releases
to the environment holds two public meetings of scientists to consider
the results of the trials

December The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to
report on separation distances needed between crops and liability and
compensation schemes required to prevent conventional and organic
farmers losing their livelihoods as a result of GM

Spring 2004 Government to decide which GM crops can be grown in
Britain - if any

John Vidal, environment editor
Wednesday October 15, 2003
The Guardian

Bill Gates is to donate at least $25m (£14.95m) to research into whether GM
food can provide 840 million malnourished people with extra vitamins and
micro-nutrients.

But the first move by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world's
largest private philanthropic organisation, into controversial food
biotechnology for developing countries was yesterday criticised by
development groups which said the research was "scientifically unnecesary".

The Gates foundation, which has been praised for its generosity to Aids and
malaria research, is to channel what is expected to be a first tranche of
money through several publicly-owned international science research groups.
The 10-year programme aims to "bio-fortify" - add nutrients and vitamins -
to staple crops, including beans, wheat, cassava, maize, rice and sweet
potatoes.

The project will combine conventional and GM techniques. Almost 3 billion
people suffer from iron deficiencies in their diet, 127 million pre-school
children lack vitamin A, and 4.4 million people have eye damage or blindness
caused by lack of vitamins.

An umbrella group, Harvest Plus, will run the programme with the
International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (Ciat) and the International
Food Policy Research Institute.

The project brings together the US Department of Agriculture and several of
its research arms, the World Bank, and the US food aid programme, which
distributes GM food to the world's poorest. A committee has also been set up
which includes major GM companies.

Sue Meyer, of Genewatch, said: "This is a Trojan horse to make GM foods
acceptable to poor countries." Patrick Mulvaney, of Intermediate Technology,
said: "Mr Gates is investing in hi-tech solutions for a serious problem that
could be solved by investing in proven methods."
David Fleming, of the Gates Foundation, argued that the programme had the
potential "to dramatically improve the lives of poor children and their
families who depend largely upon these staples for their diets". Joachim
Voss, director general of Ciat, said he was aware that GM companies might
try to take advantage of the public science that would be done. "If it is
not for the public good then we're not interested.
We are determined not to be abused by private companies," he said.

The lndependent October 14, 2003
US Firms 'Tried to Lie' Over GM Crops, Says EU
by Michael McCarthy

American biotech companies tried to lie to Europe in an attempt to force
genetically modified crops upon them, Margot Wallström, the European
environment commissioner, said yesterday.

Far from developing GM crops to solve the problem of starvation in the
world, as they claimed, the biotech companies did so to "solve starvation
amongst their shareholders", said the European Union's leading green
politician.

Speaking to journalists in London, the 49-year-old Swede followed her
broadside over GM with an attack on the US over the so-called ghost fleet
of rusting and polluted American ships being sent to Britain for
dismantling, saying they should be kept in America.

She further suggested that the US government had been putting pressure on
Russia not to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Mrs Wallström's unusually outspoken remarks will add to the ill-feeling
between Europe and the US over genetic modification, which has led to the
American government launching a legal action through the World Trade
Organization on the basis that European nations are dragging their feet
over GM crop authorization.

Her comments raise the political stakes before the publication on Thursday
of Britain's farm-scale trials of GM crops, which may provide evidence of
environmental damage that could lead to the crops being banned.

At a lunch with journalists, the commissioner spoke of the "legitimate
concerns of European citizens and farmers and other groups about the
effects of GM crops on human health and the environment".

Asked if US biotech companies had chosen the wrong products to introduce
into Europe - meaning crops that were modified to take more powerful
weedkillers, rather than give any other benefit - she replied: "Of course
they have. Absolutely. They have to face that. They have to realize that
they have chosen the completely wrong approach from the beginning.

"They tried to lie to people, and they tried to force it upon people.
It's the wrong approach. You cannot force it upon Europe. So I hope they
have learnt a lesson from this, especially when they now try to argue that
this will solve the problems of starvation in the world and so on. But
come on ... it was to solve starvation amongst shareholders, not the
developing world."

Today's Washinton Post has yet another article on Monsanto, this one
saying that the gov't slapped Monsanto's wrist a few times in 2001 but kept
it small and private.

Monsanto Fined for Crop Tests
Modified Corn, Cotton Improperly Handled

By Justin Gillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 18, 2003; Page E01

Monsanto Co. and its research partners paid $63,000 in fines for previously
undisclosed violations in 2001 in testing genetically modified crops, the
government said yesterday.

The fines, though small for a multibillion-dollar company, were far higher
than any previously known to have been levied against Monsanto in similar
circumstances, and they raised fresh questions about how tightly the
biotechnology industry can control test crops not yet proven safe.

. . .

As part of a push to tighten biotech regulation, the Agriculture Department
announced the formation of a new unit, with a few additional staff members,
that will oversee testing of unapproved biotech crops. The unit is to be
part of a larger office that regulates biotechnology and that office will
eventually double, to about 50 people, the department said. Government
inspectors will receive additional training and the level of scrutiny will
rise, said Cindy Smith, the department's lead biotech regulator.

. . .

The newly disclosed Monsanto violations occurred in 2001 and involved tests
of unapproved, gene-altered varieties of corn and cotton. At a test plot in
Illinois, the government said, Monsanto violated rules designed to keep its
test corn out of commercial cornfields. The company was ordered to destroy
the commercial corn and paid a $12,500 fine, while a small seed company
collaborating with Monsanto was fined $3,750.

That same year, the company failed to ensure correct planting of cotton
test plots in Tennessee and Georgia and was ordered to destroy those crops,
the government said. Monsanto was fined $25,000. A collaborator, Delta and
Pine Land Co., paid $15,000 in fines, while the University of Georgia and
the University of Tennessee each paid $3,750.

Both the cotton and corn varieties involved in those cases have since been
deemed safe and approved for sale, but that determination had not been made
at the time Monsanto broke government planting rules.

COMMENT: There were 44 violations noted. Monsanto claims to have discovered
and reported the violations itself. Monsanto's share of these
infractions appears to be just $37,500. It seems safe to assume that
planting of transgenic crops is regulated about as stringently as
jaywalking. Additional evidence for this point of view is that Monsanto
has previously confessed that its non-GE seed varieties of crops for which
it sells GE seeds are all contaminated.

Jim



Jim Diamond, M.D. / Genetic Engineering Committee

http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Pusztai/puszta_4.html

Dr Pusztai talks to GM-FREE

Dr Pusztai kindly agreed to interrupt his summer vacation to give us an
exclusive interview. Here are his views on his suppressed research and the
dubious science driving the introduction of GM technology.

On why GM is not safe, predictable or precise

GM-FREE: The rats in your experiment who ate potatoes genetically engineered
to produce GNA lectin suffered reduced organ weights and immune damage. Why
do you think this was?

Dr Pusztai: I think the reason is not the GNA lectin itself, but the
technique. Probably the CaMV (Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter used to
switch on the introduced gene) had a part in it. It's a problematic thing.

The other problem is the positioning of the inserted gene. Our experiment
showed up how imprecise the technique is, because we had two GM potatoes,
both contained GNA lectin, and both came from the same pot. They were both
grown in greenhouses or in fields in tunnels under identical conditions and
at the same time. Yet they came out different. The only explanation is that
the incorporation of the transgene (inserted gene) into the host genome
happened at two different places. And the effect on the genome was
different.

These positioning effects are not simple to predict. Think of William Tell,
shooting an arrow at a target. Now put a blindfold on the man doing the
shooting and that's the reality of the genetic engineer when he's doing a
gene insertion. He has no idea where the transgene will land in the
recipient genome.

Meanwhile, while we are all arguing in Britian, scientists in other
countries are getting on with the job. There are two new papers by Japanese
scientists, on GM rice and GM soya. They say that the positioning effect has
to be taken into consideration because we don't know which genes in the host
organism the inserted genes will make silent or reactivate. It is clear from
their evidence that some of the changes cannot be predicted on the basis of
the gene insertion.

On substantial equivalence

Dr Pusztai: The idea of "substantial equivalence" is that there is no need
for biological safety tests because the plants must be of similar
composition as the parent line. This is the basis on which GM crops are
being released. However, they cannot be substantially equivalent to the
parent because you've introduced new genes. That's why I don't give tuppence
for substantial equivalence.

We had two transgenic lines of potato produced from the same gene insertion
and the same growing conditions; we grew them together along with the parent
plant. With our two lines of potato, which should have been substantially
equivalent to each other, we found that one of the lines contained 20% less
protein than the other. So the two lines were not substantially equivalent
to each other. But we also found that these two lines were not substantially
equivalent to their parent. This could not be predicted. It demonstrates
that the unpredictability is inherent in the GM process on a case by case
basis - and also at the level of every single GM plant created.

Our project should have ended right there, in my opinion, but we had to
develop new testing techniques useful for all GM plants.

In genetic engineering, a lot of GM plants never see the daylight, because
for one reason or another they don't grow or they have an unpleasant colour
like the GM salmon which turned green. Where unpredictable effects show up,
you throw them out. But from the point of view of science, these are
important. Because if GM is such a predictable, precise science, then you
should be able to produce the same thing again and again. But you can't.

Regarding our potatoes, even after many lines were thrown out, the ones
which we retained were still all different from each other. Even though they
all came from the same pot, using the same genetic construct, and were grown
in identical conditions. So this is my challenge: if it is so predictable,
so precise, they should not be any different. They must not be different.
Causative logic says that they ought to be the same. That is for me the most
worrying aspect.

On the allergy threat

GM-FREE: This lack of predictability is worrying for people with food
allergies. These people can only live their lives on the basis that they
know which foods to avoid. Biotech companies claim they test for "known
allergens", like peanuts. But there are thousands of other foods that can
cause serious allergies but which are not classed as known allergens. On top
of this, there may be new toxins or allergens in GM foods that are not
spotted because they are not looked for.

But what you are saying means that even if you test three potatoes and find
that they do not cause an allergic reaction, a fourth potato of the same
kind, produced by the same technique, could cause a toxic or allergic
reaction.

Dr Pusztai: You are quite right. The only thing you could do is find a
stable GM organism, which has been put through tens of generations and still
comes out the same, and which is not crossed with any other potato. You keep
the purity of the line.

GM-FREE: In the real world, this is impossible.

Dr Pusztai: I fully agree. We are storing up problems for the future.

On the "sound science" behind the GM push

Dr Pusztai: GM foods have been introduced on the back of just one published
paper. Just one, in fifteen years of GM. It was written by a Monsanto
scientist and published in 1996. The study was a feeding trial of Roundup
Ready soya on rats, catfish, chicken and cows. I don't want to say anything
about it because it's a published paper, but I could take it apart in 10
seconds.

GM-FREE: Ah, go on.

Dr Pusztai: Well, the main problem is that the researchers appear to have
done their utmost to find no problem. They were using mature animals which
are not forming body tissues and organs. Adults only need a small amount of
protein because their bodies are in equilibrium, in homeostasis. But a young
growing animal needs a great deal more protein because it's laying down
muscle and tissues, and forming its organs.

With a nutritional study on mature animals, you would never see any
difference in organ weights even if the food turned out to be
anti-nutritional. The animals would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show
anything. In this study. They gave the rats a commercial feed that contained
20% protein, of which only one-tenth was replaced by GM soya protein. Most
of this high overall dietary protein was used by the rats for energy, thus
masking any possible effect of the GM soya protein. You need to stress the
animals if you want to see the effects of a feeding trial in a short enough
time. This is my field, so you can take it for granted that if I had had the
chance of refereeing that paper, it would never have passed.

Another problem was the way they did the post-mortem. They never weighed the
organs; they just looked at them - what they call "eyeballing". I must have
done thousands of post-mortems so I know that even if there is a difference
in organ weights of as much as 25%, you wouldn't see it. In my lectures I
used to put up two identical computer-drawn rats side by side and put two
different sized organs in them, and I asked the audience which rat was
bigger, and they always got it wrong. You have to weigh them.

On the British Medical Association's call for a GM moratorium

Dr Pusztai: It stands to reason that they would take a strong line. If there
is any problem, the doctors will have to deal with it. It's easy for a
gene-basher to say, "I've got some fantastic product," because he doesn't
have to see the consequences. He can only see that this or that insect is
killed and as far as he is concerned that's the end of the story.

But this is a very unfair and unscientific attitude. It is close to being
irresponsible, because we are playing God. You can call it God, evolution,
natural selection, natural law, whatever - but this is what it is.

On the scientific and political establishment's tactics

GM-FREE: In May this year, four major reports, all trumpeting the safety of
GM foods and all condemning your work, were released within two days of each
other. They were the Donaldson/May report; the House of Commons Science and
Technology Committee report; the Royal Society review; and the Nuffield
Council on Bioethics' report. What's your view on the timing of these
reports?

Dr Pusztai: Can you believe that four major reports could come out, all
condemning me, within two days? That is stretching belief.

It's clear that there was a concerted effort to discredit me. The only body
that invited me for discussions, the Environmental Toxicology Committee,
gave me just eleven days' notice. I explained that on that day I would be on
a plane, so could they please suggest an alternative day. They obviously
were not interested, because they did not come back to me. The Royal
Society, despite the fact that I offered my full cooperation, refused it;
they just wanted to have pieces of paper which they could shred to bits to
condemn me.

In 1956, when I was living in Hungary, I got a Ford Foundation Scholarship
and they said I could go wherever I wanted. I chose England because I
thought the British were fair, and that they would tolerate even an oddball
like me. But then I found out about these machinations and duplicity.

On the Royal Society review of his research

Dr Pusztai: The Royal Society report was totally negative and unhelpful, and
obviously made to cut me down, to give the political masters the backing
they required from an august body.

You see, if you submit a paper to a journal, in 7 out of 10 instances, the
reviewers are helpful. For example, they say, "I don't think you have done
this well; could it not have been done this way instead?" Then there is a
dialogue. The point is not to steam-hammer some poor soul, but, as I said in
a letter to the Royal Society, to arrive together at the truth. But in this
case, there has been no attempt whatever to discover the truth.

The Royal Society, instead of going back to last August and all that
history, should be concentrating on how to make the experiments better.
There is not a single word in their review that addresses this, apart from
saying it should be better designed. My PhD students would have laughed at
me if I said anything like that. Sanctimonious phrases are not enough - if
you criticise an experiment, you have to say how you would go about doing it
better.

I have published everything in my life. I make a solemn promise that I shall
try my best to publish my research. If I fail, I shall put it on the
Internet. I owe it to the people who have been supporting me that they
should know all the facts. No matter how the Royal Society or whoever else
machinates against me, I will do it.

On his decision to go public with his findings before peer review and
publication

Dr Pusztai: The British tax payer has spent £1.6m for this Rowett-based
research. You have paid for it. Yet if I had not spoken out, the information
would have stopped at the Rowett.

Other scientists often ask me why I went against the code of practice and
spoke out before publication in a peer reviewed journal. I made my
150-second testimony on TV's World in Action because I had facts that
indicated to me there were serious problems with transgenic food. It can
take two to three years to get science papers published and these foods were
already on the shelves without rigorous biological testing similar to that
of our GM potato work. I did indicate my concern and it cost me my job but I
would do it again. If I had not done it, we would now be eating these
potatoes and not discussing the safety of GM food.

GM-Free - August/September 1999

see also
The Gagging of Science
http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Pusztai/puszta_1.html

The Empire Strikes Back
http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Pusztai/puszta_2.html

Tuesday, October 21, 2003
By Randy Fabi, Reuters

WASHINGTON — U.S. biotech companies and research universities have violated strict federal regulations on planting experimental genetically modified crops more than a hundred times in the last decade, the Agriculture Department said recently.
The USDA said none of the 115 infractions since 1990 resulted in any harm to U.S. agriculture, the food supply, or the environment.

The department published for the first time the number of violations the biotech industry has committed when planting GM corn, soybeans, wheat, and other crops not yet ready for commercialization.

With more and more biotech companies targeting GM crops for uses other than feeding humans and animals, the USDA said it wanted to make its enforcement actions more transparent to the public. Companies are experimenting with GM crops as a cheaper way to mass produce medicines and industrial products.

Environmental groups said they have sought these documents for more than four years through the Freedom of Information Act.

"For an industry that has claimed to the public that ... they follow the law and protect the environment, 115 infractions seem large and is disturbing," said Gregory Jaffe, biotech director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The USDA said the 115 infractions represent less than 2 percent of the 7,400 field tests authorized since 1990. The USDA considered most of the infractions as minor violations like dirty farm equipment and not enough isolation between conventional crops.

Eight of the infractions led to fines ranging from $500 to $250,000. Biotech powerhouse Monsanto Co.was involved in four of those eight cases, with fines ranging from $2,500 to $25,000.

Eric Sachs, Monsanto's director of scientific affairs, said the company had a total of 44 infractions out of 2,500 field test permits. "The majority of these infractions were for minor issues," he said.

Although none of the experimental GM crops made it into commerce, Monsanto said there were some instances where buffer crops surrounding the test field were inadvertently harvested and used.

"We take the matter of compliance infractions seriously and make our related obligations a priority," the company said in a statement.

Only a $250,000 fine to ProdiGene was previously made public. The USDA last year accused the Texas biotech firm of mishandling its experimental corn crop and contaminating nearby crops, which have since been destroyed.

Biotech companies welcomed the release of USDA enforcement actions, saying it would help build more public confidence in biotechnology. Following USDA's announcement, Monsanto said it would publish a list of its infractions on the company Web site.

Environmental groups and consumer advocates said they believed many infractions have gone unreported due to the lack of USDA resources and personnel.

"I think there is reason to believe there are many, many infractions that go unreported," said Richard Caplan of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

The USDA also announced it has established a new compliance and enforcement office within the USDA's Biotechnology Regulatory Services. The office, with a staff of four people, will seek to boost inspections, auditing, and training.

Source: Reuters

Below, Devinder Sharma comments on the context of the $25 million gift
of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI) to be used in developing "biofortification."

Bill Gates rescue package
FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE

By Devinder Sharma

Bill Gates donation of US $25 million for biofortification - breeding crops
with higher levels of micronutrients - is an effort to provide a
life-saving shot to the dying family of public-sector international
agricultural research institutes. The Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), responsible for ushering in
the green revolution technology, is now seriously grappling for survival.

Faced with huge staff layoffs, drastic cut in research programmes,
declining research output, vanishing financial commitments, the CGIAR is
contemplating a series of mergers to stay afloat. Gasping for breadth, the
CGIAR is even considering the merger of two of its premier institutes - the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) at Los Banos, in the
Philippines, and the International Crop Research Centre for Wheat and Maize
(CIMMYT), in Mexico City.

Such has been the desperation that the CGIAR deviated from its stand of
public good when in 2002 it decided to take on board Syngenta Foundation.
This major shift in its known public image had prompted the CG's committee
of non-government organisations to freeze its relationship with the
organisation. The NGOs believe that the CG has abdicated
its responsibility of ensuring food security for the world's poor by
bringing in technologies that lead to economically viable and sustainable
farming systems. Instead the CGIAR has become a service centre for the
corporate interests.

Bill Gates donation therefore comes as a blessing in disguise for the
failing CGIAR. Ever since the release of the dwarf wheat and rice crop
varieties, which was some 25-30 years ago, the international agricultural
research centres have only been engaged in maintenance research - trying to
protect what has already been evolved and released. With no clear-cut
direction and vision, the donors had drifted away. The CGIAR therefore
attempted a number of options - suggesting special thematic research
programmes under the 'challenge programmes' - and then remained undecided
on the approach to follow.

Biofortification was one of the misplaced research priorities that CGIAR
had proposed earlier but was unable to undertake in the light of the public
outcry. Nor did it make any research sense - research programmes are no
longer based on common sense - to breed for crops that supplement
micronutrients. The much-touted 'golden rice', which contains a miniscule
addition of beta-carotene in rice, has now been widely accepted to be a
misadventure. Scientists, including Dr M.S.Swaminathan, father of India's
green revolution, and Dr Robert Cantrell, director general of the IRRI,
have already gone on record saying that golden rice cannot address the
problem of Vit A deficiency.

In any case, fortified crops cannot eradicate nutrient deficiency. Whether
the newly evolved genetically-modified crops contains supplements of Vit
A, iron or zinc, these foods will not be helpful for those who need it
desperately - the malnourished. The reason is simple. The human body
requires adequate amount of fats to absorb these nutrients, which is
conspicuously absent in the malnourished populations. The hungry therefore
gain nothing by eating these food supplements - in turn would be able to
afford less food because of the high price as a result of more strict
intellectual property control. The biofortification programme in reality
therefore is aimed at restoring the credibility of the discredited
biotechnology industry, which is receiving a severe drubbing in Europe and
elsewhere in Asia.

Bill Gates was probably not properly advised, and for obvious reasons.
Harvest Plus, the CGIAR public relations outfit, is in dire need of
financial resources and therefore used the emotional card of hunger and
malnutrition to seek funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Not realising that 'hidden hunger', as nutrient deficiency is generally
referred to, cannot be removed by providing the poor and hungry with an
'informed choice' of novel and functional foods. What the poor need is
food - and which is abundantly available - and that too rich in nutrients.
In India, for instance, which is home to one-third of the world's hungry
and malnourished, more than 30 million tonnes of wheat and rice (which was
a record 65 million tonnes a year ago) are rotting in the open. The surplus
food contain an average of nine percent proteins - four to nine times more
than any fortified GM crop that scientists have developed so far.

A much more humanitarian purpose would have been served if Bill Gates had
instead donated grants to institutes and groups that would have helped
reach the available food to the poor, to ensure that the hungry are
adequately fed. The reality is that the poor and hungry do not have the
means to buy the food that is available, much of it rotting in front of
their dry eyes. If the hungry cannot afford to buy their normal dietary
requirement of rice (or for that matter any other staple food) for a day,
how does the CGIAR propose to make available 'golden rice' to them is
something that Bill Gates probably forgot to ask. What is not being
realised by the global scientific and development community (including
CGIAR) is that if they had aimed at eradicating hunger in the first place,
there would be no 'hidden hunger'.

Bill Gates has to understand that biotechnology, the way it is being
promoted by corporate interests, has the potential to further the great
divide between haves and have-nots. The twin engines of economic growth -
technological revolution and globalisation - will only widen the existing
gap between the well fed and the hungry masses. Biotechnology will, in
reality, push more people in the hunger trap. With public attention and
resources being diverted from the ground realities, hunger will only grow
in the years to come.

CGIAR's blind support the corporate agenda, therefore, is a pointer to the
growing irrelevance of the international agricultural research institutes.
Such is the poverty of ideas to meet the growing food needs of the world
that the CGIAR has been gradually made to die a premature death, much if it
because of its own undoing. It is high time the CGIAR board, which
is firmly in the grip of the World Bank and the Japanese government,
follows what is enshrined in its original mandate. The CGIAR should
handover the 16 research centres to the respective countries where these
are located. This is what the forefathers of the research system had said
at the time of creating the CGIAR, and they were so right.

Nothing can revitalise this dying horse. Not even Bill Gates with his
millions, unless of course the CGIAR is made to stand up for the cause of
the poor and marginalized farming communities #


(Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To view
the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

The article below shows that it is finally accepted that gene therapy
causes cancer by insertion mutation. The advocates still believe that
gene therapy is a good treatment because the affected children responded
well to cancer treatment! Corporate stockholders were relieved to hear
that .

October 20, 2003 the scientist
Gene therapy 'caused T-cell leukemia'
Insertional mutagenesis pinpointed as cause of T-cell leukemia in X-SCID
gene therapy trial
| By Jo Lyford

An unanticipated complication of gene therapy has been confirmed as the
cause of T-cell leukemia in two boys receiving the pioneering treatment
for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (X-SCID). In the October
17 Science, an international research team confirms that inappropriate
insertion of the retroviral vector near the proto-oncogene LMO2 promoter
led to uncontrolled clonal proliferation of mature T cells (Science,
302:415-419, October 17, 2003).

This is the nightmare scenario, said Terry Rabbitts of the Medical
Research Council's (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge,
whose previous work on LMO2 played a key role in the investigation.
It's time to step back and give ourselves some breathing space.

The affected children were the youngest of 10 boys with X-SCID enrolled
in the gene therapy trial at Hôpital Necker Enfants Malades under the
direction of Alain Fischer. Inherited X-SCID, the so-called baby in the
bubble disease, is characterized by a lack of both T and B cells. The
only certain cure at present is a bone marrow transplant from a
histocompatible sibling. For the vast majority of children, however, an
allogenic transplant is the best option, which carries a 5-year success
rate of just 65%.

Building on the discovery that X-SCID was due to a defect in the common
? (? c) chain of the interleukin 2 receptor on chromosome Xq13, Fischer
and colleagues at the Necker Hospital developed an alternative therapy
based on the ex vivo transfer of the ?c gene into autologous
hematopoietic precursor cells, employing a vector derived from a
defective Moloney murine leukemia virus.

Fourteen children with X-SCID10 in France and four at Great Ormond
Street Hospital in Londonwere subsequently treated and showed an
impressive and sustained clinical response. These children are coping
with lots of infections, have a fully functioning immune system, and are
effectively cured, said Professor Rabbits.

In October of last year, the first serious side effect in a trial
subject who exhibited a leukemia-like syndrome 30 months after therapy
was reported. In January, the development of similar complications in a
second participant in the French trial triggered a moratorium and
frantic investigations aimed at discovering what had gone wrong.

The Science paper, a collaboration among Fischer's team, the MRC, and
experts in the United States and Australia, confirms that insertional
mutagenesisoriginally perceived as a possible but remote
complicationcaused both children's leukemias. Using molecular
techniques, Hacein-Bey-Abina et al. observed that clones from the
patients showed retrovirus insertion in proximity to the promoter of
LMO2, which encodes a transcription factor required for hematopoiesis.

Until this report, retroviral insertion in the context of gene therapy
has been considered an untargeted and largely random event, comment
David A. Williams and Christopher Baum in an accompanying Perspectives
article. Indeed, such insertional leukemogenesis without widespread
viral replication was reported in just one of thousands of preclinical
experiments.

What remains unclear is why the viral vector inserted near the LMO2
promoter locus in just two of 14 children treated with the same
technique. Fischer believes that disease- and protocol-specific issues
may have played a part.

These patients were the youngest to be treatedjust 1 and 3
monthswhile the others were all at least 6 months old, Fischer told
The Scientist. They also received the highest number of corrected
cells. So, statistically speaking, the more you inject, the higher the
probability.

Professor Hidde Haisma, from the Department of Therapeutic Gene
Modulation at the University of Gronigen, agreed that the patients' age
may be significant. Very young infants have a different subset of stem
cells, with a higher proportion of precursor T cells, so they may be at
higher risk of insertional mutagenesis, he said. The Necker team is
already testing the age hypothesis in mice.

Another worrying aspect of the study is the apparent preference of the
retrovirus vector to insert in or near active genes. Professor Christine
Kinnon, head of the Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease at
Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, commented that gene therapy
in X-SCID children involves introducing a strong selective advantage,
which would inevitably carry a theoretical risk of leukemia.

The insertional activation of the LMO2 locus in two independent
leukemias suggests an essential event that is required for the
initiation of a malignant cascade, add Williams and Baum. Given the
lack of similar side effects in previous studies, a combinatorial
process seems to be the likely culprit.

In addition to identifying patient-related risk factors, attempts are
also underway to develop a vector with a reduced propensity for
insertional genotoxicity. Retroviruses were the logical choice, as they
had a good track record and can relatively easily infect bone marrow
cells, said Haisma. But we could use lentiviruses or adenoassociated
viruses, or even artificial systems in which DNA is combined with
proteins to do the same job.

Fischer said his team is already making progress toward the next
generation of highly selective vectors. I expect that by next year, we
will be in a position where we have a safer therapeutic approach and can
start treating patients once again, he said.

Kinnon agrees that vector modifications hold the key to success. In the
meantime, the Great Ormond Street trial is continuing to recruit X-SCID
children for gene therapy, albeit on a case-by-case basis and only when
authorized by the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee.

I still believe gene therapy has a relatively good riskbenefit ratio,
Kinnon said, noting that all 14 children treated to date are alive and
well, and the two boys who developed leukemia responded well to
chemotherapy and are in complete clinical remission. With a mismatched
bone marrow transplant, at least one third would have died by nowthat's
four or five children versus noneso it's still an huge improvement on
current options. If it were my child, I would give them this treatment.
Links for this article
S. Hacein-Bey-Abina et al., LMO2-associated clonal T-cell proliferation
in two patients after gene therapy for SCID-X1, Science, 302:415-419,
October 17, 2003.
http://www.sciencemag.org/

Medical Research Council (MRC)
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/

MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/

Hôpital Necker Enfants Malades
http://www.necker.fr/

M. Noguchi et al., Interleukin-2 receptor g chain mutation results in
X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency in humans, Cell, 73:147-157,
April 9, 1993.
[PubMed Abstract]

M. Cavazzana-Calvo et al., Gene therapy of human severe combined
immunodeficiency (SCID)-X1 disease, Science, 288:669-672, April 28, 2000.
[PubMed Abstract]

B.A. Maher, Gene therapy trials hit obstacle, The Scientist, 16:26,
October 28, 2002.
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/oct/maher_p26_021028.html

D.A. Williams, C. Baum, Gene therapy: New challenges ahead, Science,
302:400-401, October 17, 2003.
http://www.sciencemag.org/

Z. Li et al., Murine leukemia induced by retroviral gene marking,
Science, 296:497, April 19, 2002.
[PubMed Abstract]

Department of Therapeutic Gene Modulation
http://www.rug.nl/farmacie/onderzoek/basiseenheden/therapeuticg
enemodulation/?lang=en

Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/ich/html/academicunits/mol_imm/cgt/ind ex.html

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children
http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/index.html

UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee
http://www.doh.gov.uk/genetics/gtac/index.htm

October 20, 2003

Prof. Joe Cummins

e-mail: jcummins@uwo.ca

Roundup Ready sudden death

For a number of years there has been investigation of the impact of
herbicides, particularly glyphosate (Roundup®) on soil microbial
communities. Increased colonization of the roots of RoundupReady® (RR)
soy with the fungus, Fusarium, was observed in midwestern fields during
1997 to 2000 (1,2). Large scale cropping with herbicide resistant
cultivars increased soil born plant pathogens (3). Brazilian soils
showed increased microbial activity after for several seasons (4). There
is clear evidence that repeated glyphosate application over several
seasons increases soilborne pathogens.

Sudden death syndrome of soya bean is a disease of
economic importance in North America. During the first year of use of
glyphosate on RR soy a severe sudden death syndrome epidemic occurred in
several RR cultivars. The RR®
cultivars were susceptible to suddenddeath from infection by the fungus
Fusarium solani (5). Follow-up studies showed that
different cultivars of soy showed different levels of resistance to the
sudden death fungus and suggested that glyphosate tolerant and
non-tolerant cultivars responded similarly after to infection by
Fusarium solani (6,7).

Jeremy Bigwood reported on mycoherbicide.net that a scientist from
Agriculture Canada, Myriam Fernadez, had reported as yet unpublished
studies showing that wheat fields treated with glyphosate
had elevated levels Fusarium head blight, a serious disease of wheat. A
report by Andy Coghlan of the New Scientist further reports:

The potential problem was spotted a few years ago by Myriam Fernandez
of the Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre run by Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. She noticed that in
some fields where glyphosate had been applied the previous year, wheat
appeared to be worse affected by fusarium head blight - a devastating
fungal disease that damages grain and turns it pink. In Europe alone,
fusarium head blight destroys a fifth of wheat harvests. The fungi that
cause the disease also produce toxins that can kill humans and animals.
In a follow-up study, Fernandez measured levels of the blight in wheat
fields. "We found higher levels of blight within each tillage category
when glyphosate had been used in the previous year," says her colleague
Keith Hanson . And his lab study showed that Fusarium graminearum and F.
avenaceum, the fungi that cause head blight, grow faster when
glyphosate-based weedkillers are added to the nutrient medium.î(9).
Unfortunately, Agriculture Canada has not fast tracked publication of
such important results while they are advocating registration of RR wheat.

In conclusion, there seems to be a clear link between the use of
herbicide and accumulation of pathogenic fungi in the soil. The RR soy
cultivars fared poorly in the impact of the sudden death fungus. Wheat
fields treated with round-up appear to be sensitive to the head blight
disease. Such findings should have triggered prompt and extensive
reviews by North American regulators. Instead, the two governments of
North America appear to be advocating registration of RR wheat.

References

1.Kremer,R,Donald,P,Keaster,A and Minor ,H. ìHerbicide impact on
Fusarium spp. And Soybean Cyst nematode in Glyphosate tolerant Soybeanî
American Society of Agronomy abstracts s03-104-p 2000
http://www.biotech-info.net/fungi_buildup_abstract.html

2.Editors ìGlyphosate wed killer benefits soil fungusî Progresive Farmer
http://www.biotech-info.net/soil_fungus.html

3.Termorshuizen,A. and Lotz,A. ìDoes large scale cropping of
herbicide-resistant cultivars increase soil born pathogensî Oulook on
Agriculture2002 31,51-4

4.Araujo,A., Monteiro,R.and Abarkeli,R. ìEffects of glyphosate on the
microbial activity of two Brazilian soilsî Chemosphere 2003 , 52,799-804

5 Njiti,V,Myers,O,Schroeder,D. and Lightfoot,D. ìGlyphosate effects on
Fusarium solani root colonization and sudden death syndromeî Agron. J.
2003,95, 1140-5

6. Sanogo,S,Yang,X and Sherm,H ìEffects of herbicide on Fusarium solani
f. sp glycines and development of sudden death syndrome in
glyphosate-tolerant soybeanî 2000 ,90, 57-66

7.Sanogo,S.,Yang,X. and Lundeen,P. ìField response of
glyphosate-tolerant soybean to herbicides and sudden death syndromeî
Plant Disease 2001,85, 773-9

8.Bigwood,J. ìGlyphosate-Fusarium storyî 2003
http://mycoherbicide.net/NEWS/glyphosate.htm

9. CropChoice News ìGlyphosate may encourage wheat blightî 2003
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=1959

Human fertility experiment prompts wrath

Babies made by cloning-type technique die prematurely

14 October 2003
HELEN PEARSON

The embryos contained nuclear DNA from one mother, and mitochondrial
DNA from another.

US doctors have created the first pregnancies using a controversial
technique related to cloning. The babies died before birth.

Other experts have condemned the procedure because the health risks are
unknown. "You'd find it hard to find people that support it," says
reproductive-medicine researcher Chris Barratt of the University of
Birmingham, UK.

James Grifo of New York University School of Medicine created and
implanted the human embryos in China, working with colleagues at Sun
Yat-Sen University of Medical Science in Guangzhou1. Grifo will discuss
the results today at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine's
annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas.

The team fertilized eggs from two women in test tubes. They then sucked
out the nucleus of one egg and injected it into the other, which they
had stripped of its own nucleus. The idea is that the second egg will
better direct the growth of an embryo.

Grifo's team implanted five embryos into a 30-year-old mother who had
already undergone two failed attempts at in vitro fertilization (IVF).
Three embryos grew large enough for doctors to hear their heartbeats.

After a month, doctors reduced the pregnancy to two for the mother's
safety, but one fetus died at 24 weeks and the other by 29 weeks.
Whether the process was responsible for their deaths is not known.

The technique - called human nuclear transfer - is outlawed in many
countries, including Britain and the United States. "It's extraordinary.
You wouldn't get away with it anywhere else," says IVF doctor Allan
Templeton of the University of Aberdeen, UK.

Templeton argues that there was no compelling reason for using the
technique on the woman, because further rounds of IVF might have worked.
"The clinical justification is extremely dubious," he says.

Grifo and his colleagues say that they hope to help women whose own eggs
are unable to undergo successful IVF, or who carry damaging mutations in
their mitochondrial DNA.

Close to cloning

Grifo's method comes close to human reproductive cloning, which is
banned in many countries. In cloning, the nucleus of an adult cell,
rather than of a fertilized egg, is injected into another egg so that
the embryo is genetically identical to its parent. Grifo's technique
creates embryos with genes from both mother and father.

Like cloning, critics warn, Grifo's method might damage or incorrectly
programme the mother's DNA. What's more, the embryos carry genetic
material from two mothers: nuclear DNA from one, and small packages of
DNA in the mitochondria from the other.

The clinical justification is extremely dubious
Allan Templeton
University of Aberdeen

The effect of inheriting DNA from two mothers is unknown. Proteins made
from the two sets of genes may be incompatible, perhaps even stopping
the embryo's cells working.

A handful of children have been born through a related technique, in
which one woman's eggs are pepped up by injections of the cell cytoplasm
and mitochondria from another, fertile woman's eggs. This technique is
also now outlawed in many countries.

References
Zhang, J. et al. Pregnancy derived from human nuclear transfer.
Fertility and Sterility, 80, Suppl. 3, S56, (2003).

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22602/story.htm

British Government Seen Postponing GM Decision
----------------------------------------------------------

UK: October 21, 2003

LONDON - Britain is likely to have to wait several years before it sees
genetically modified crops being grown commercially, if at all, because of
the high political risk, analysts said Monday.


Test results are starting to stack up against the introduction of so-called
Frankenstein Food crops, and public opinion is moving even more strongly
against them.
"I think the government is going to prevaricate. There will be no decision
for at least a year, and by then you are getting close to the next likely
election," said Michael Meacher, Blair's environment minister from 1997 to
2003.

Political pollster Peter Kellner told Reuters: "The government will play
safe on this until after the next election."

The popularity of the once unassailable Prime Minister Tony Blair has been
steadily declining since the Labor Party's second successive landslide
electoral victory in 2001, and it has been in free-fall since the Iraq war
in March this year.

"Blair has lost public confidence. To go ahead with GMs in the face of all
the science would be an absolutely needless own goal," Meacher told Reuters.
"It would be explosive if they go ahead with GM crops."

Most of the pressure in favor of GM crops is from across the Atlantic and is
being fronted by President Bush.

But that in itself could militate against Blair going out on a limb to
endorse GM crops.

"Blair has already done a huge favor for Bush on Iraq and paid heavily for
it. His political instincts will stop him doing Bush another big favor,
especially as it is by no means clear that he is guaranteed re-election next
year," Meacher said.

The government, which professes to be neutral on the issue but which is
widely felt to be fundamentally in favor, launched a series of trials of
genetically modified crops well before the last election.

The latest results last week on trials of oilseed rape and sugar beet found
that they were harmful to wildlife.

That followed revelations days earlier that GM contamination of conventional
crops several miles away had been discovered.

"The tests were set up to buy time and allow opposition to cool. But if
anything, opposition has hardened," Meacher said.

Major agrochemical manufacturers like Monsanto, who have invested heavily in
GM crops, are pushing strongly for their approval.

But The European Union is dithering and the timetable for an announcement by
Britain has been steadily slipping.

Even British farmers who have been told there are great cost advantages to
GM crops are keeping quiet.

"They won't do or say a thing because they fear a consumer backlash," said
Robert Bojduniak, editor of industry newsletter Farm Brief. "The UK industry
will simply sit and wait.

Story by Jeremy Lovell

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22606/story.htm

FACTBOX - What is genetic modification?
--------------------------------------------------------------

UK: October 21, 2003


LONDON - Results of field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops have
brought fresh demands for the government to keep so-called Frankenstein
foods away from already sceptical shoppers.

After more than three years of testing, scientists concluded in a report
last week that GM rapeseed and sugar beet were more harmful to local
wildlife than conventionally grown plants, but that fields grown with GM
maize fared better.
Following are some facts about genetically modified organisms:

- Genetic modification is a technique where individual genes can be copied
and transferred to another living organism. It changes the genetic makeup by
adding or removing specific characteristics.

- GM crops are plants that have been genetically altered to improve
resistance to diseases caused by insects or viruses and to increase
tolerance towards herbicides or extreme weather conditions.

- One of the best known examples is GM soya which is tolerant to the
herbicide glyphosate. It allows for better weed control and fewer lost
plants.

- Supporters of GM technology say it will lower costs, increase yields,
decrease the need for chemicals and help to feed a hungry world.

- Opponents are concerned about the health risks and the threat to the
environment and say not enough studies have been done to prove it is safe
and will not harm natural species.

- The United States is the world leader in biotech crops, with gene-spliced
varieties accounting for 75 percent of U.S. soybeans, 71 percent of cotton
and 34 percent of corn.

- The European Union has not allowed the experimental or commercial growth
of any new gene crops since October 1998, by which stage 18 GM plant
varieties had been approved, including maize, rapeseed, chicory and
soybeans.

- But as consumer fears grew in the late 1990s, EU states including Austria,
France, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg banned already approved GM crops.

- EU governments also restricted GM field trials, and between 1998 and 2002
the number of GM crop trials dropped by nearly 90 percent.

- The United States, with Argentina and Canada, decided to challenge the de
facto EU ban within the World Trade Organisation. It said there was no
scientific basis for the moratorium and that it was illegal.

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

I'm forwarding this from ISIS. I haven't seen any other account of this
research and apparently it's still unpublished. Further comments below.

-- Jim

Transgenic Lines Proven Unstable

The insert in every commercially approved GM line has undergone
rearrangement. The cauliflower mosaic virus promoter plays a major role.
This should be the final nail in the coffin for GM crops, says
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, who has, for years, challenged
scientific committees advising governments over this very issue.

There is plenty of evidence that transgenic lines are unstable, which is
why ISIS has long recommended that appropriate molecular methods must be
used to document the stability of the GM insert before any transgenic line
is released into the environment. The characterization of the insert must
be "event-specific", which not only gives the structure of the insert, but
also the host genome sequences flanking the insert, proving that the insert
remains stable in successive generations. This recommendation has been
incorporated into the current European Directive (2001/18 /EC) on
deliberate release of GMOs.

But to this day, pro-GM scientists advising the UK and other governments
have refused to acknowledge the evidence on transgenic instability, and
worse. In its latest reply to ISIS, the UK Advisory Committee on Releases
to the Environment (ACRE) has gone as far as to say that event-specific
molecular characterization is not necessary, thus going against the
European Directive (see ISIS’Äô final
response to ACRE: Let the people decide ).

ISIS has reiterated 5 experiments which should be done to address the
"areas of uncertainty", one of which calls for full event-specific
molecular characterization of all transgenic lines to establish uniformity
and genetic stability of the transgenic DNA insert(s), and "comparison with
the original data supplied by the biotech company to gain approval for
field trials or for commercial release."

I am pleased to report that some effort has recently been made to do such
experiments by French scientists from the Laboratory of Methods for
Detecting GMOs in Versaille, and the Laboratory of Biometry and Artificial
Intelligence, Domaine de Vilvert in Jouy-en-Josas. And they have presented
their results in a poster at a conference in June 2003 [1].

The scientists recognized that, as labeling laws and thresholds are
established for foods containing GMOs in Europe, Japan, Australia, New
Zealand and elsewhere, "reliable GMO identification and quantification
methods are needed to comply with the regulations." And "in order for
these tests to be specific, the sequence and detailed characterization of
the GMO inserts and their edges are required."

Five different commercially approved GMOs in Europe were analyzed: three
from Monsanto, one from Bayer and one from Syngenta. All inserts were
rearranged from their intended gene order. Moreover, all five inserts
showed further rearrangements from the original structure submitted by the
companies. In other words, either the companies were mistaken about the
original structure, or more likely, further rearrangements had occurred
after the crops had been commercially grown. The details are given in Box 1.

Box 1

Scrambling and further scrambling of GM inserts

T25 maize LibertyLink (Bayer)

Modified for tolerance to herbicide glufosinate. Company data showed insert
includes a truncated ampicillin resistance bla gene in the plasmid vector
pUC18, a CaMV 35S promoter (hereafter referred to as P35S) driving a
synthetic pat gene (glufosinate tolerance) terminated by CaMV 35S
terminator (hereafter referred to as T-35S). On analysis, the insert was
found to have undergone further rearrangement, so that a second, truncated
and rearranged P35S has been joined to the 5' (left, or head) end of the
insert, while additional pUC18 sequences were found at the 3' (right, or
tail) end.

Edges flanking the insert show homologies (similarities) with Huck
retrotransposons (a class of mobile genetic elements) in the maize genome.

Mon 810 maize YieldGard (Monsanto)

Modified for resistance to lepidopteran insects (butterflies & moths).
Company data showed insert has a P35S driving a CrylAb synthetic gene with
terminator T-nos. Analysis revealed however, that T-nos and part of the 3'
(tail) end of the CrylAb gene have been deleted. T-nos has been detected
elsewhere in the genome, indicating that it has moved from its original
position.

The 5' (head) end of the insertion site shows homology to the long terminal
repeats (LTR) of the maize alpha Zein gene cluster, but no homology to the
maize genome was detected at the 3' site, indicating that there has been
scrambling of the maize genome at the insertion site.

GTS 40-3-2 soybean (Monsanto)

Modified for tolerance to herbicide glyphosate (Roundup Ready). Company
data showed insert with P35S driving a composite gene containing the
N-terminal chloroplast transit peptide (CPT4) joined to modified epsps gene
with T-nos terminator.Analysis revealed that a 254bp piece of DNA
homologous to the epsps gene and 534bp of unknown DNA have been joined to
the 3' end of the insert.

It was not possible to identify the insertion site at all, indicating
substantial genome scrambling or deletion at the insertion site.

Bt 176 maize (Syngenta)

Modified for tolerance to herbicide glufosinate, male sterility and insect
resistance. The structures of two inserts, originating from two GM
constructs, were provided by the company. Only the simpler construct was
analyzed. Company data showed insert contains P35S driving the bar gene
(glufosinate tolerance) terminated by T35S, followed by the ampicillin
resistance (bla) gene plus bacterial promoter, and plasmid origin of
replication, ori. Analysis revealed several fragments, all containing CaMV
35S promoter, one with P35S joined to T35S, a second with P35S joined to an
unknown sequence, and a third with P35S joined to the bar gene with the
T35S deleted.

There were at least three insertion sites.

GA 21 maize (Monsanto)

Modified for tolerance to herbicide glyphosate (Roundup Ready). Company
data indicated insert contains multiple copies of the cassette with the
rice actin gene promoter (P-ract) driving the composite gene containing the
N-terminal chloroplast transit peptide (CPT4) joined to modified epsps gene
and T-nos. There were three complete cassettes flanked by a cassette with
P-ract partially deleted at the 5' end, and one cassette with 3' deletion
of epsps plus a lone P-ract at the 3' end. Analysis found partial deletion
of P-ract and deletion of T-nos in two different cassettes.

The insertion site at the 3' end is flanked by sequences of pol polyprotein
gene belonging to a PREM2-retrotransposon.

The results revealed that,
* All GMO inserts had rearranged from the structure provided by the
company. * Many of the breakpoints for rearrangement involve the CaMV 35S
promoter, as can be predicted from its known recombination hotspot. *
Scrambling of the genome at the site of insertion occurred in at least two
out of five inserts. * GMO inserts appear to show a preference for mobile
genetic elements (retrotransposons), with Long Terminal Repeats containing
strong promoters, which would result in "altered spatial and temporal
expression patterns of genes" nearby. In addition, it increases the chances
that the inserts will move with the retrotransposons, resulting in further
genome scrambling and horizontal gene transfer.

With considerable irony, whether intended or not is unclear, the authors
conclude: "Studying GMOs' structure is necessary to develop reliable
quantification and detection tests complying with the different
regulations, but it also leads [one] to ask fundamental questions about
genome fluidity. Many of the mechanisms involved in recombinant DNA
integration are similar to those underlying genome evolution. Therefore,
characterized GMO inserts are a very good model to study the molecular
system involved in DNA rearrangements in general."

1. Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N,
Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO
inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster
courtesy of Pr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du
CRII-GEN,

COMMENTS: We all know from reading the newspaper that genetic material
changes over time. More than one sequence was obtained for the SARS virus,
for instance, even though the human form of the disease is assumed to have
begun very recently from a single source.

Living cells have error checking mechanisms which, depending on the
species, are more or less effective in detecting and repairing errors.

Most plants are much better at error checking than are viruses, so the
genetic makeup is conserved better from generation to generation.

The degree of instability referenced in the above article, therefore, is
very important -- it shows that the assumption that the genetic construct
which the GE seed companies splice into their products is stable from one
generation to the next is wrong.

That, in turn, makes safety evaluations much more difficult because
future generations of the plant can have novel characteristics. The
possibility that some plant metabolic process will be up- or down-regulated
is much greater.

As thousands of GE products are patented and licensed, the mobility of
the introduced genetic elements will make surprises more common. Some of
those surprises will be negative.

Looked at in a different way, we've often said that every new
technology has its own form of pollution and the transgenic agriculture
leads to genetic adulteration.

The fact that the added genetic material doesn't stay put and behave
itself means that the level of adulteration needs to be monitored
continually, just as chicken is monitored for campylobacter and beef for E.
coli O:157.

This new preliminary information showing that the genes which are
spliced are apt to change or wander means that a higher degree of suspicion
is warranted, a higher degree of regulation needed.

I believe the costs to properly regulate this new technology are greater
than any gains it's likely to deliver -- and so far, of course, there
hasn't been a net agronomic benefit and consumers don't want it.

Animals turn up their noses when given a choice and humans haven't been
given a choice (in North America, at any rate) since the FlavrSavr® tomato.

If these genetic rearrangements are indeed occurring, it's time to say No
To Genetically Adulterated Food.

Jim Diamond, M.D.
Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee (chair)
jim.diamond@sierraclub.org

Blair will ignore the scientific evidence against GM and still maintain
that he represents the "true" science while he, in fact, represents the
"true believers" who surround him.
The question for NZ is, how will Hobbs, Klark be informed that Conner,
Rolleston etc are falsifying science. It is tiresome that those PR liars
get away - so far - with their chronic chant that GM 'technology' is
based on good science.

Blair will ignore public opposition to GM technology
By Geoffrey Lean Environment Editor
26 October 2003 the independent

Tony Blair has signalled that he is ready to ignore the public campaign
against GM crops and to proceed with the technology. In language
reminiscent of his pronouncements in the run-up to the Iraq war he said
that his only interest was in trying "to do the right thing".

The Prime Minister's reaction, in the week after the results of the
Government's own trials proved that growing at least two GM crops
damaged wildlife, has amazed and angered senior officials. They are
bewildered that his views seem to have remained unchanged even though a
series of reports from his own advisers has progressively demolished the
case for the technology.

In an exchange at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Mr Blair
appeared to take issue with the reports, which concluded that genes
would inevitably escape from modified crops to create
herbicide-resistant superweeds and contaminate organic and conventional
produce, that the technology conferred no immediate economic advantages,
and that the public rejected it by a majority of nine to one.

Asked by the Liberal Democrat MP Andrew George whether he accepted their
conclusions, he acknowledged that the crops posed "problems" for
wildlife, but added: "I know that there is a huge campaign against GM
but, to be frank, the Government have no interest in the matter one way
or the other, other than to try to do the right thing.

"The biotechnology in- dustry is a vital part of this country's
industry. Many people believe that the science of genetics will be the
most important science of the 21st century, and other countries are
piling investment into this area. We must allow that science to be
carried out."

Mr Blair's comments appear directly to contradict a report in July by
his own Cabinet Office which concluded that it could find no economic
benefit to Britain or its people from current modified crops.

Exasperated officials also point out that Mr Blair seems unable to
distinguish between the biotechnology industry as a whole, which has
immense potential in developing medicines and industrial products, and
the relatively tiny proportion of it devoted to GM agriculture, which
employs only about 1,150 people in Britain.

Senior officials say that Mr Blair's reponse shows he is still
determined to press ahead with the technology despite massive public
opposition.

Downing Street hopes that GM maize could be given the go-ahead, as the
trials suggested it was less harmful than its conventional counterpart.
But as The Independent on Sunday reported two weeks ago, the results
would not apply to GM maize grown in Britain, where conventional maize
was formerly treated by a now-banned herbicide.

Last night, Pete Riley of Friends of the Earth, said that Mr Blair's
response on GM was "like the run-up to the Iraq war all over again". He
added: "Once again he is professing caution and even-handedness, but
failing to see the full picture, disregarding public opinion, and
insisting that he must do what he himself believes to be right ... This
blinkered approach will lead to disaster."

Among a growing number of anecdotes of domestic and wild animals
avoiding GE food.

Excerpt from Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government
Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're
Eating by Jeffrey M. Smith http://www.SeedsofDeception.org

p. 76 WISDOM OF THE COWS

In 1998, Howard Vlieger harvested both natural corn and a genetically
modified Bt variety on his farm in Maurice, Iowa. Curious about how
his cows would react to the pesticide-producing Bt corn, he filled
one side of his sixteen-foot trough with the Bt and dumped natural
corn on the other side. Normally, his cows would eat as much corn as
was available, never leaving leftovers. But when he let twenty-five
of them into the pen, they all congregated on the side of the trough
with the natural corn. When it was gone, they nibbled a bit on the
Bt, but quickly changed their minds and walked away.

A couple of years later, Vlieger joined a room full of farmers in
Ames, Iowa to hear presidential candidate Al Gore. Troubled by Gore's
unquestioning acceptance of GM foods, Vlieger asked Gore to support a
recently introduced bill in Congress requiring that GM foods be
labeled. Gore replied that scientists said there is no difference
between GM and non-GM foods. Vlieger said he respectfully disagreed
and described how his cows refused to eat the GM corn. He added, "My
cows are smarter than those scientists were." The room erupted in
applause. Gore asked if any other farmers noticed a difference in the
way their animals responded to GM food. About twelve to fifteen hands
went up. 1

"If a field contained GM and non-GM maize, cattle would
always eat the non-GM first." -Gale Lush, Nebraska

"A neighbor had been growing Pioneer Bt corn. When the cattle
were turned out onto the stalks they just wouldn't eat them." 2
-Gary Smith, Montana

"While my cows show a preference for open-pollinated corn over
the hybrid varieties, they both beat Bt-corn hands down."
-Tim Eisenbeis, South Dakota

According to a 1999 Acres USA article, cattle even broke through a
fence and walked through a field of Roundup Ready corn to get to a
non-GM variety that they ate. The cows left the GM corn untouched. 3

News Feature
Nature 426, 10 - 11 (06 November 2003); doi:10.1038/426010a

Intellectual property: This protein belongs to...

The early days of genomics were marked by concerns that wide-ranging
gene patents would restrict research and medical discovery. So far,
proteomics hasn't toiled under the same cloud. But don't get complacent,
warns David Cyranoski.

AL GRANT/CELLTECH/RIKEN
GENOMIC SCIENCES CENTER

A simple claim of ownership rarely sparks a wave of widespread panic.
But in 1991, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) managed just
that when it claimed intellectual-property rights on some 3,500 genes,
based on sequences of tiny fragments of their DNA. The news pushed the
NIH researcher who had obtained the sequences, Craig Venter, into the
limelight - a position that this pioneer of genomics has delighted in
ever since. And it stirred fears around the world that the scientific
and medical advances promised by the human genome sequence would be
restricted by overarching patent claims.

So in December 2001, when the British biotechnology company Oxford
GlycoSciences (OGS) announced that it was trying to patent more than
4,000 proteins linked to disease, you might have expected more howls of
outrage. In the event, the news generated barely a ripple of interest -
most probably because protein patents have been around for a century or
so, without causing anyone a major headache. "We are used to them," says
Richard Gold, director of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy at
McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Indeed, patents are generally
thought to provide an appropriate financial reward for those who devise
useful applications for proteins, while stimulating further research.

But some experts warn that this happy balance might soon be disturbed.
Massive projects are promising to solve the structures of thousands of
proteins in record time. And recent rulings in US courts, where
intellectual-property trends often begin, have set precedents that could
make protein patents more obstructive in the proteomic era than they
have been in the past. "These trends bode ill for the future of
biomedical research," says David Korn, senior vice- president for
biomedical and health-sciences research at the Association of American
Medical Colleges in Washington DC.

Although they were ultimately denied, the NIH's 1991 gene patents caused
alarm because of their huge potential reach. They could have meant that
anyone who developed a useful product, such as a drug, by studying a
particular gene would have to pay royalties to the researcher who first
sequenced a tiny fragment of that gene's DNA. This, many experts argued,
would provide a major disincentive to investment in research and
development - the exact opposite of what the patent system is supposed
to achieve.

Clamp-down on claims

Since then, the US patent office has raised the bar on gene patents.
Guidelines issued in December 1999 made the condition of 'utility' a
tougher nail to hit. Those hoping to claim a patent on a DNA sequence
because it might be useful as a molecular probe or because it can make a
protein now have to answer some specific questions. A probe for what,
exactly? A protein that does what? "You can't just say you found a gene
that might have some value," says Tim Caulfield, an expert in healthcare
law at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada.

Decades of experience with patents on proteins have suggested that they
don't cast such a long shadow over research and innovation. And so far,
at least, the fate of OGS has reinforced the general view that its
aggressive patent announcement was nothing to worry about. Less than a
year after claiming rights to 4,000 proteins, identified by comparing
diseased with healthy tissues, OGS cut one-fifth of its staff. This
spring, the cash-strapped company was bought out by Celltech of Slough,
west of London. Celltech is retaining OGS's work on cancer, but is
trying to sell off the rest of its proteomics operation.

Indeed, protein prospecting has turned out to be a very tough business.
Large Scale Biology, based in Vacaville, California, similarly hoped to
make a fortune by identifying and patenting a large number of medically
important proteins. But it is now concentrating on the narrower goal of
producing animal proteins in genetically engineered plants. "When you do
the figures, it's just not worth it," says Tom Gallegos, the company's
senior director of intellectual property.

It costs a couple of hundred thousand dollars to patent something
worldwide. "It's easy to find a lot of proteins and get patents, but
with costs like that, you have to be pretty sure that your protein has
commercial value," says Yoshiji Fujita, who heads Tokyo Medical
University's new Clinical Proteome Center.

Such value isn't easy to come by. Most proteins are initially patented
as diagnostic markers to identify patients suffering from a particular
disease or from a drug's side effect. "But diagnostic markers often
don't even make enough money to pay for the patent," says Gallegos.
"It's a lean market."

The economics change if your protein is a drug target or can itself be
used as a drug. The protein erythropoietin, or EPO, for instance, is
marketed as a treatment for anaemia and earns billions of dollars a year
for Amgen of Thousand Oaks, California, which holds the patent on it.
But to figure out whether a protein has therapeutic value generally
requires extensive research in the Petri dish and in live animals. "You
need hard-working people injecting things into mice," says Gallegos.

ID parade
Massive projects now under way could make identifying therapeutically
important proteins much easier. The factory-like approach of Japan's
'Protein 3000' programme and the US Protein Structure Initiative should
rapidly determine the structure of thousands of proteins. In theory,
this explosion of structural data should help researchers home in on
candidates for drug development. In August, the Japanese project, based
at the RIKEN Genomic Sciences Center in Yokohama, reported that it had
cranked out structures of 613 proteins in its first 18 months.

RIKEN GENOMIC SCIENCES
CENTER

Production line: Japan's
Genomic Sciences Center in
Yokohama aims to churn out
the structures of 3,000
proteins over the next few
years.

Structural data alone are not sufficient to claim a patent, however,
thanks to an agreement reached in November 2002 by representatives of
patent offices from Japan, the European Union and the United States.
This has eased fears about overarching protein-patent claims. But
projects such as Protein 3000 could still change the
intellectual-property landscape. The data from the Japanese programme,
for example, will be made available through partnerships to companies in
Japan before they are released internationally.

"The fear is that some proteins that have great importance in terms of
research on potential therapies will be patented," says Arti Rai, an
intellectual-property expert at Duke University in Durham, North
Carolina. A company might then attempt to claim ownership of any
approach to knocking out the protein, she says.

Some recent court rulings have started to raise concerns that patents on
proteins are being interpreted too broadly. In January, Transkaryotic
Therapies of Cambridge, Massachusetts, failed to break Amgen's grip on
EPO when the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that
its rival EPO product infringed Amgen's patents. These patents describe
the production of human EPO in hamster ovary cells. Transkaryotic
produces a slightly different version of EPO using genetically
engineered human cells. So far, the court has broadly supported Amgen's
claim that its patent covers any use of mammalian cells for the
production of EPO.

Some observers are concerned by this turn of events. "The court is
constructing a 'protect R&D investment' strategy without thinking
through the implications," says Robert Cook-Deegan, director of the
Center for Genome Ethics, Law, and Policy at Duke University. Such
precedents could discourage companies from trying to make better
versions of protein-based drugs, he says.

For most academics, even broadly interpreted patents have held few
fears. US patent law has allowed a 'research exemption' for work with
patented tools or materials "solely for amusement or to satisfy idle
curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry". Traditionally, this
has been interpreted as covering all academic research - a recent survey
led by John Walsh at the University of Illinois at Chicago confirmed
that researchers at US universities routinely fall back on this
exemption without worrying about being charged patent royalties (J. P.
Walsh, A. Arora and W. M. Cohen Science 299, 1021; 2003).

Exempt no more
But in the light of a recent ruling from the US Supreme Court, says
Cook-Deegan, it is unclear whether this 'gentleman's agreement' can
continue. On 27 June, America's highest court ruled on the case of Duke
University versus Madey - and according to many intellectual-property
experts, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the research exemption
means that most academic research would now infringe any relevant
patents.

The case relates to a dispute over the use of laser technology developed
by John Madey, who worked at Duke until 1998, when he left for the
University of Hawaii at Manoa. Madey objected to Duke continuing to use
the technology covered by his patents. When Duke cited the research
exemption, Madey countered - and the Supreme Court agreed - that the
university was using the technology in the business of teaching and
getting grants, not to satisfy idle curiosity.

The ruling could have onerous implications for anyone who wants to
conduct research on a patented protein - and, indeed, on academic
research more generally. "The case says that whether you're at the
university or anywhere else, research is not just playing around.
Research in and of itself is infringement," says Masashi Miyano, who
heads the RIKEN Structural Biophysics Laboratory in Harima, Japan. At
the very least, says Cook-Deegan, it may require extensive legal
groundwork before researchers are given the green light to work on a
patented protein.

The NIH is also worried about the implications of broadly interpreted
patents on proteins and other biological molecules. In September, it
awarded a $1.2-million grant to Steve Merrill of the National Academy of
Sciences in Washington DC for an 18-month study of the issue.

Merrill's team will consider various recommendations to policy-makers,
including a stronger research exemption and the encouragement of
toned-down licensing agreements that give users the freedom to use
patented molecules as they wish. Policies will have to be set soon,
Merrill says: "The longer we wait, the more doors will become closed to
us."

DAVID CYRANOSKI
David Cyranoski is Nature's Asian-Pacific correspondent.

http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/news/news_main.asp?PRID=612

GREENPEACE PRESS RELEASE

GE onions: stupidity and shoddiness layered on pointlessness and risk

Christchurch, Tuesday 4 November, 2003: “These GE onions are a stupid
idea (1), shoddily proposed (2) for an experiment that won’t even answer
any important questions, it is both pointless and risky and ERMA will do
themselves the final dishonour if they approve it," said Greenpeace GE
Campaigner Steve Abel today.

“GE onions pose economic, environmental and health risks, are unwanted and
are likely to lead to more herbicide use in contradiction of their claimed
purpose," said Abel on the second day of oral hearings on Crop and Foods
application to grow genetically engineered onions resistant to Monsanto's
Roundup herbicide.

Onion geneticist Elvira Dommisse (PhD) will today appear as an expert
witness for Greenpeace in support of their submission (expected to be
heard before midday) that the GE onion trial should not be approved by
ERMA.

Yesterday, during first day hearings, “key points were drawn out that
confirmed the pointlessness of the experiment," said Abel. “The primary
claimed benefit of these GE onions are that they will reduce herbicide use
and will therefore be more sustainable. Yet the total elimination of
synthetic chemicals is already being achieved in organic onion production
in New Zealand - which is right now attracting huge premiums in export
markets."

On top of that; the chemical cocktail that conventional onions are subject
to includes insecticide and fungicide sprays which herbicide resistant GE
onions won’t even eliminate. “Cap this off with the fact that the same GE
onions are being developed in field trials in the USA already and you have
to wonder why Colin Eady and Crop and Food are even bothering" said Abel.

“If these GE onions represent the cream of Helen Clark's "science
innovation wave"’ she'd better start investing more in the arts."

“The New Zealand public don't want GE onions, our three major onion export
markets don’t want them (UK, Europe and Japan (3), and yet Crop and Food
want to throw ten more years of good taxpayers money after bad, its stupid
and pointless."

(1) Herbicide resistant crops were designed by chemical companies as a way
of selling more herbicide not less - this is GE biology 101. The idea
that making a plant immune to herbicide will somehow reduce herbicide use
in the medium to long term is ridiculous. The proof is in the pudding
with roundup resistant crops, such as soy and canola in the Americas,
compounding weed resistance problems and leading farmers to re-instate
older more toxic chemicals such as paraquat and 2,4-D to kill the roundup
resistant weeds.
(2) One scientist described the Crop and Food GE application as; “The
worst lot of pseudo-scientific rubbish I have ever read."
(3) UK (25.61%), Europe (48.87%) and Japan (5.45%) are New Zealand’s
biggest export markets for onions with 80% of onion exports going to these
regions in 2002 (NZ Department of Statistics). These are all markets
renowned for their sensitivity and aversion to GE foods.

For more information contact: Steve Abel, GE Campaign, 021 565 175.
If unavailable contact Suzette Jackson Communications Officer 021-577-556

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3532582&thesection=news&t
hesubsection=general


US firm mystery GM ally
NZ HERALD
05.11.2003


The state-owned Crop & Food research institute has unveiled the mystery
collaborator on its genetically modified onions project.

California-based Seminis, which describes itself as the world's largest
developer, grower and marketer of fruit and vegetable seeds, signed a deal
with Crop & Food's Lincoln researchers yesterday.

In addition to giving the Government scientists an undisclosed sum of money,
it has provided access to the herbicide-resistant gene used by Crop & Food.

A row over the identity of the US backer erupted on Monday at the opening of
a three-day hearing by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) on
a bid by Crop & Food to field test GM onions.

Crop & Food's market development general manager, Peter Barrowclough, said
the research institute had hundreds of commercial relationships and "most
have confidentiality clauses".

Following speculation on its identity, Seminis agreed to waive this clause.
The firm is doing parallel trials on GM onions in the US.

Erma's three-day hearing continued in Christchurch to consider Crop & Food's
proposal to trial GM onions over 10 years at a secret location in Lincoln.

Researcher Dr Colin Eady has asked for consent to plant up to 13 plots, each
less than 15sq m.

Crop & Food has done 33 field trials of GM plants; the latest on potatoes
was pulled up only this year. But Dr Eady's is the first new application for
three years and attracted a record 1900 submissions.

Yesterday, Federated Farmers and the Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation
backed the research aimed at cutting the use of herbicides by up to 70 per
cent.

California-based genetics professor David Williams told Erma that Dr Eady's
onion used outdated technology and urged him to do more work in the lab
before field trials.

Speaking by phone from California, Professor Williams said not enough was
known about inadvertent genetic changes which could be made when the
herbicide-resistant gene was added.

"You don't know what you're doing when you throw this gene into the genome,"
he said.

Many other submitters raised concerns about the effects of GM crops on soil
bacteria.

AgResearch soil microbiologist Dr Maureen O'Callaghan said studies had found
only small and/or short-term changes in soil bacteria caused by GM crops.

- NZPA

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/science/earth/04ENER.html?th
New York Times November 4, 2003
As Earth Warms, the Hottest Issue Is Energy
By KENNETH CHANG

Suppose that over the next decade or two the forecasts of global warming
start to come true. Color has drained from New England's autumns as maple
trees die, and the Baltimore oriole can no longer be found south of
Buffalo. The Dust Bowl has returned to the Great Plains, and Arctic ice is
melting into open water. Upheavals in weather, the environment and life
are accelerating around the world.

Then what?

If global warming occurs as predicted, there will be no easy way to turn
the Earth's thermostat back down. The best that most scientists would hope
for would be to slow and then halt the warming, and that would require a
top-to-bottom revamping of the world's energy systems, shifting from fossil
fuels like coal, oil and natural gas to alternatives that in large part do
not yet exist.

"We have to face the fact this is an enormous challenge," said Dr. Martin
I. Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University.

But interviews with scientists, environment advocates and industry
representatives show that there is no consensus in how to meet that
challenge. Some look to the traditional renewable energy sources: solar and
wind. Others believe use of fossil fuels will continue, but that the
carbon dioxide can be captured and then stored underground. The nuclear
power industry hopes concern over global warming may help spur a revival.

In an article in the journal Science last November, Dr. Hoffert and 17
other experts looked at alternatives to fossil fuels and found all to have
"severe deficiencies in their ability to stabilize global climate."

The scientists believe that technological fixes are possible. Dr. Hoffert
said the country needed to embark on an energy research program on the
scale of the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb during World War
II or the Apollo program that put men on the moon.

"Maybe six or seven of them operating simultaneously," he said. "We
should be prepared to invest several hundred billion dollars in the next 10
to 15 years."

But to even have a hope of finding a solution, the effort must begin now,
the scientists said. A new technology usually takes several decades to
develop the underlying science, build pilot projects and then begin
commercial deployment.

The authors of the Science paper expect that a smorgasbord of energy
sources will be needed, and they call for intensive research on radical
ideas like vast solar arrays orbiting Earth that can collect sunlight and
beam the energy down. "Many concepts will fail, and staying the course
will require leadership," they wrote. "Stabilizing climate is not easy."

The heart of the problem is carbon dioxide, the main byproduct from the
burning of fossil fuels. When the atmosphere is rich in carbon dioxide,
heat is trapped, producing a greenhouse effect. Most scientists believe the
billions of tons of carbon dioxide released since the start of the
Industrial Revolution are in part to blame for the one-degree rise in
global temperatures over the past century. Carbon dioxide concentrations
are now 30 percent higher than preindustrial levels.

With rising living standards in developing nations, emissions of carbon
dioxide are increasing, and the pace of warming is expected to speed up,
too. Unchecked, carbon dioxide would reach twice preindustrial levels by
midcentury and perhaps double again by the end of the century. That could
force temperatures up by 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, according to
computer models.

Because carbon dioxide is colorless, odorless and disperses immediately
into the air, few realize how much spills out of tailpipes and smokestacks.
An automobile, for example, generates perhaps 50 to 100 tons of carbon
dioxide in its lifetime.

The United States produces more carbon dioxide than any other country by
far. Each American, on average, generates about 45,000 pounds of carbon
dioxide a year. That is about twice as much as the average person living in
Japan or Europe and many times more than someone living in a developing
country like Zimbabwe, China or Panama. (Even if the United States achieves
President Bush's goal of an 18 percent reduction in the intensity of carbon
dioxide emissions by 2012, the output of an average American would still
far exceed that of almost anyone else in the world.)

Even if all emissions stop, levels of carbon dioxide in the air will
remain high for centuries as the Earth gradually absorbs the excess.

Currently, the world's energy use per second is about 12 trillion watts -
which would light up 120 billion 100-watt bulbs - and 85 percent of that
comes from fossil fuels.

Of the remaining 15 percent, nuclear and hydroelectric power each supply
about 6.5 percent. The renewable energy sources often touted as the hope
for the future - wind and solar - provide less than 2 percent.

In March, Dr. Hoffert and two colleagues reported in Science that to limit
the temperature increase to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit,
non-carbon-dioxide-emitting sources would have to generate 7 trillion to 25
trillion watts by midcentury, 4 to 14 times as much as current levels. That
is roughly equivalent to adding a large emissions-free power plant every
day for the next 50 years.

And by the end of the century, they wrote, at least three-quarters and
maybe all of the world's energy would have to be emission-free.

No existing technology appears capable of filling that void. The
futuristic techology might be impractically expensive. Developing a solar
power satellite, for example, has been estimated at more than $200 billion.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham cited the Science paper from last
November in a speech at the American Academy in Berlin two months ago. Mr.
Abraham said that merely setting limits and timetables on carbon dioxide
like those in the Kyoto Protocol could not by themselves solve global
warming.

"We will also need to develop the revolutionary technologies that make
these reductions happen," Mr. Abraham said. "That means creating the kinds
of technologies that do not simply refine current energy systems, but
actually transform the way we produce and consume energy."

Too Far Away

Some long-hoped-for options will almost certainly not be ready. Fusion -
producing energy by combining hydrogen atoms into helium, the process that
lights up the sun - has been heralded for decades as a potentially
limitless energy source, but scientists still have not shown it can be
harnessed practically. Experimental fusion reactors do not yet produce more
power than they take to run.

Increased energy efficiency - like better-insulated buildings, more
efficient air-conditioners, higher mileage cars - is not a solution by
itself, but it could buy more time to develop cleaner energy.

The much-talked-about hydrogen economy, in which gasoline-powered engines
are replaced by fuel cells, is also not a solution. It merely shifts the
question to what power source is used to produce the hydrogen.

Today, most hydrogen is made from natural gas, a process that produces
carbon dioxide that is then released into the air. Hydrogen can also be
produced by splitting apart water atoms, but that takes more energy than
the hydrogen will produce in the fuel cell. If the electricity to split the
water comes from the coal-fired power plant, then a hydrogen car would not
cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Exploiting What's Here

A fundamental problem remains: how to produce electricity without carbon
dioxide.

Hydroelectric power has reached its limits in most parts of the world;
there are no more rivers to dam.

Nuclear power is a proven technology to generate large amounts of
electricity, but before it could be expanded, the energy industry would
have to overcome longstanding public fears that another accident, like
those at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, will occur. Solutions also need to
be found for disposing of radioactive spent fuel and safeguarding it from
terrorists.

Marvin Fertel, senior vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an
industry group, said warming had become such a worry that some
environmental groups were becoming amenable to new nuclear plants. "In
private, that's what we get from them," he said.

Researchers at the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif.,
espouse a major expansion of nuclear power, coupled with a switch from
gasoline to hydrogen to power cars and trucks. Electricity from the nuclear
plants would split water to produce hydrogen, and then cables made of
superconductors would distribute both electricty and hydrogen, which would
double as coolant for the cables, across the country.

"I think in 30 to 50 years there will be systems like this," said Dr.
Chauncey Starr, the institute's founder and emeritus president. "I think
the advantages of this are sufficient to justify it."

In the short run, fossil fuels will still be widely used, but it is still
possible to control carbon dioxide.

In his Berlin speech, Mr. Abraham highlighted two projects the Energy
Department was working on: carbon sequestration - the capturing of carbon
dioxide before it is emitted and storing it underground - and FutureGen, a
$1 billion prototype coal power plant that will produce few emissions. The
plant will seek to demonstrate by 2020 how to convert coal to hydrogen on a
commercial scale that will then be used to generate electricity in fuel
cells or turbines. The waste carbon dioxide would be captured and stored.

The technology for injecting carbon dioxide is straightforward, but
scientists need better knowledge on suitable locations and leak prevention.

Sequestration, however, will probably not be cost-effective for current
power plants. The filters for capturing carbon dioxide from the exhaust gas
will by themselves consume 20 percent to 30 percent of the power plant's
electricity.

Renewing Renewables

Solar is still a future promise. The cost of energy from solar cells has
dropped sharply in the past few decades. One kilowatt-hour of electricity -
the energy to light a 100-watt bulb for 10 hours - used to cost several
dollars when produced by solar cells. Now it is only about 35 cents. With
fossil fuels, a kilowatt-hour costs just a few cents.

But solar still has much room for improvement. Commercial cells are only
10 to 15 percent efficient. With much more research, new strategies to
absorb sunlight more efficiently could lead to cells that reached 50 to 60
percent efficiency. If the cells could be made cheaply enough, they could
produce electricity for only 1 or 2 cents a kilowatt-hour.

Dr. Arthur Nozik, a senior research fellow at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., said the advanced solar concepts were
scientifically feasible. But, echoing Dr. Hoffert, Dr. Nozik said: "We need
like a Manhattan Project or an Apollo program to put a lot more resources
into solving the problem. It's going to require a revolution, not an
evolution. I wouldn't expect to get there in 2050 if we're going at the
same pace."

But if scientists succeed with a cheap, efficient solar cell, "you'd be on
Easy Street," Dr. Nozik said.

Wind power is already practical in many places like Denmark, where 17
percent of the electricity comes from wind turbines. The newest turbines,
with propellers as wide in diameter as a football field, produce energy at
a cost of 4 or 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. Further refinements like lighter
rotors could drop the price by another cent or two, making it directly
competitive with natural gas.

Dr. Robert W. Thresher, director of the National Wind Technology Center at
the energy laboratory, envisions large farms of wind turbines being built
offshore. "They would be out of sight," he said. "There's no shortage of
space and wind."

Solar and wind power will be hampered because the sun doesn't always shine
and the wind doesn't always blow. The current power grid is not well suited
for intermittent power sources because the amount of power produced at any
moment must match the amount being consumed. To exploit the sun and wind,
utilities would have to develop devices that could act as giant batteries.

One concept is to pump compressed air into an underground cavern. When
electricity was needed, the air would be released, and the air pressure
would turn a turbine to generate electricity.

The Big Ideas

Then there are the big ideas that could change everything. To get around
the problem of the intermittency in solar power, solar arrays could be
placed where the sun shines 24 hours a day - in space. The power could be
beamed to the ground via microwaves.

Another big idea comes from Dr. Klaus S. Lackner, a professor of
geophysics at Columbia University: what if carbon dioxide could be scrubbed
out of the air? His back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate it may be
feasible, although he is far from being ready to demonstrate how.

But if that were possible, that would eliminate the need to shift from
gasoline to hydrogen for cars. That would save the time and cost of
building pipelines for shipping hydrogen, and gasoline is in many ways a
superior fuel than hydrogen. (Hydrogen needs to be stored under very high
pressure or at very cold temperatures.) Owners of gas-guzzling S.U.V.'s
could assuage their guilt by paying for the scrubbing of carbon dioxide
produced by their vehicles.

Eventually, the captured carbon dioxide could be processed to create an
artificial gasoline, Dr. Lackner said. Then the world would discover, much
to its surprise, that everything old would be new and clean again.

"Carbon may actually be just as clean, just as renewable," Dr. Lackner
said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3532345&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=&reportid=53009

GM onion details kept secret

04.11.2003
By MONIQUE DEVEREUX

The commercial benefits of a field trial of genetically modified onions and
the name of the secret partner involved have been kept under wraps at a
Government hearing.

Crop & Food Research has applied to the Environmental Risk Management
Authority (Erma) to begin field trials of the onions which it wants to run
over 10 years at a secret location near Lincoln.

It wants to assess the impact of the onions, which have been designed to be
resistant to Roundup, and says the outdoor trial is required to test their
effects in a normal environment.

Field trials like the Crop & Food's project were not covered by the
moratorium lifted last week and have been allowed to continue.

The scientists involved in the project say the risk of GM contamination to
other plants is extremely minimal and the benefits of such a crop would
outweigh any risk. They believe an engineered onion crop would require 70
per cent less herbicide treatment.

At the first day of a three-day hearing in Christchurch yesterday, one
scientist involved told the Erma panel he "could not imagine a simpler
application for you to consider".

The application concerns onions modified for tolerance to glyphosate, a
low-toxicity, biodegradable herbicide. Glyphosate is the active ingredient
in Monsanto's big-selling Roundup herbicide.

But the proposal came under tough scrutiny from the panel, forcing the
scientists to admit that the finer details of the proposal had yet to be
worked out.

The leader of the project, Dr Colin Eady, was asked who would own the
intellectual property rights to the seed production should the field trials
go ahead and be successful.

Dr Eady said those details had not been worked out.

He was also asked about the possible scenario of the modified gene spreading
into other crops nearby and if that happened who would own those crops.

Dr Eady said he did not know as that had not been worked out.

Asked what obligation he would have towards other growers if any
"contamination" sparked a significant economic effect, Dr Eady debated the
risk factor of the trial.

He said he was confident there would be no contamination, but was told he
was "not asked about risk analysis, but what if it did happen".

Dr Eady conceded he could not answer that question without further
discussion with others at Crop & Food.

The scientist's estimation that the engineered crops would eventually lead
to a 70 per cent reduction in herbicide use was challenged by an Auckland
consultant, Richard Wood, contracted by Erma. He said the reduction would
more likely be 40 to 50 per cent.

Erma received more than 1900 submissions on the proposed trial after it was
publicly notified in July.

But only a handful of submitters were invited to speak during the hearing,
which left many anti-GM groups frustrated.

GE Free New Zealand president Claire Bleakley said the timeframe was unfair
and the inflexibility of the hearings being held only in Christchurch meant
many people who made submissions could not personally speak to their
concerns.

However, she and a colleague, Susie Lees, were able to ask questions of Crop
& Food during the hearing and put to Dr Eady that the secret collaborator
was the US seed company Seminis.

Seminis has already undertaken work on making onions tolerant to glyphosate
but it made headlines by developing a fluorescent green protein and
inserting it in vegetables like onions - essentially making them glow in the
dark.

The Seminis website confirms it does have research partnerships with Crop &
Food Research but does not say what that research looks at.

Yesterday's hearing was also attended by a group of protesters, one of whom
scaled the foyer at the Christchurch Convention Centre and hung a banner
saying "No dodGE onions". He removed the banner and climbed down when police
asked him to.

The hearing continues today with more submissions.

The application

The Environmental Risk Management Authority will consider an application to
plant onions modified for tolerance to glyphosate, a low-toxicity,
biodegradable herbicide.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's popular Roundup herbicide

More than 1900 people and organisations have made submissions on the Crop &
Food Research plans.
ENDS

next item:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3532167&thesection=news&t
hesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=&reportid=53009

Hundreds shut out of hearing, says anti GE group
NZ HERALD
03.11.2003
11.45am

Hundreds of concerned New Zealanders have been shut out of a public hearing
into whether field trials of genetically engineered (GE) onions should go
ahead, a leading anti-GE group says.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) hearing, which begins
today, will consider an application to plant onions modified for tolerance
to glyphosate, a low toxicity, biodegradable herbicide. Glyphosate is the
active ingredient in Monsanto's popular Roundup herbicide.

More than 1900 people and organisations have made submissions on the Crop
and Food Research plans, and Erma said 427 of the submitters had asked to
speak at the public hearing which starts tomorrow.

But GE Free New Zealand spokesman Jon Carapiet told NZPA today the hearing
was structured in a way that meant only about 40 of those who wanted to make
an oral submission would be able to do so.

He said the hearing was based solely in Christchurch, meaning it was very
difficult for people who lived in other parts of the country to make their
submission and Erma had said it would not allow people to make an oral
submission by teleconference.

Compounding the problem was the fact that the hearing was set down for three
days and times had not been allocated for particular submitters.

"People would have no idea when they would have a chance to speak. They
might get down there and then have to wait around for two days and pay for
their food and find somewhere to stay."

Mr Carapiet said parliamentary committees often allowed people to make
submissions by teleconference but Erma had ruled that out.

"They said it would be too difficult, but I think it's just shutting people
out of the process. One in 10 people who want to can make their submission;
the rest just cannot."

The group believed there was no market for GE crops so there was no need for
the trial to go ahead, he said.

New Zealand would do better to concentrate its resources on organic crops
which required no use of toxic herbicides.

The application is the first for a field trial of a GE crop since 2000.

Erma chief executive Baz Walker today told National Radio the hearing was
being held in Christchurch because that was where the Crop and Food trial
would take place if it were approved.

He said Erma had tried hard to make the process as open as possible and
would consider all of the written submissions as well as those that would be
made orally over the next three days.

Federated Farmers' spokesman on GE, Hugh Ritchie, said yesterday the
application by Crop and Food Research had the potential to benefit
producers, consumers and the environment, he said.

Mr Ritchie said Federated Farmers backed the application, and considered the
proposed field trial presented "the most negligible risk possible" for this
type of work.

"It will also generate valuable information in the context of New Zealand
agriculture."

Mr Ritchie said farmers saw potential advantages in GE technology, but added
that controls must be in place to ensure other agriculture is not put at
risk.

"We consider the containment procedures put in place by Crop and Food
Research are sufficient to manage any risk of escape," he said.

He said glyphosate-resistant onions had the potential to reduce herbicide
use on onions by 70 per cent. Current practices can require up to 30 spray
passes on one crop, using around 13 different herbicides.

Many of these substances are classified as toxic or poisonous and persistent
in the environment.

"By using modified onions it will be possible to control weeds with only two
or three applications. This is better for the environment and for growers
concerned about risks from exposure to more toxic herbicides," Mr Ritchie
said.

- NZPA

Herald Feature:

The super pox virus described below follows the earlier Australian
experiment.; The pox is particularly lethal because it introduces an
engineered cytokine gene that suppresses the immune system allowing the
virus to spread rapidly. In Canada a cytokine that suppresses the immune
system was introduced into a crop plant and field tested with minimal
safety monitoring and great secrecy to avoid having to deal with
human and animal victims. There is a strong likelihood that dangerous
engineered viruses will escape from the laboratory.

NY Times November 1, 2003
Bioterror Researchers Build a More Lethal Mousepox
By WILLIAM J. BROAD

Scientists have created a highly lethal virus in an effort to develop
stronger protections against supervirulent forms of smallpox that
terrorists might turn on humans, researchers said yesterday.

The genetic engineering involved a virus known as mousepox, which
infects mice but is not known to hurt people. Into that virus the
scientists spliced a single gene that made it superlethal, then tested
it on mice treated with different combinations of a smallpox vaccine and
drugs.

The scientists said the results showed that the best defenses proved
quite effective in preventing deadly disease not only in mice, but
probably in humans exposed to customized smallpox of similar design.

This type of research has been debated for years, with critics arguing
again yesterday that superviruses created in laboratories could inspire
terrorists to create their own deadly diseases. The mousepox scientists
countered that the research could help deter terrorism by demonstrating
the emergence of more potent medical defenses.

The mousepox research was done at St. Louis University as a project
financed by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
meant to find new protections against smallpox, which kills one in three
victims.

The leaders of the research said that the lethal mouse virus would have
no effect on humans even if it somehow escaped from the laboratory,
which they said was safeguarded at biosafety level three, the
second-highest degree of security.

"To my knowledge, there's no scientific evidence to suggest that this
kind of research poses any sort of human health risk," said Mark Buller,
a professor of molecular microbiology at St. Louis University who
directed the mousepox research. Many experiments have shown that
mousepox does not cause disease in humans, he said.

It goes beyond similar research on mousepox that Australian scientists
reported in early 2001. They warned that their genetic technique, which
they said they stumbled onto, could overpower existing vaccinations and
produce deadlier kinds of biological weapons. The news prompted heated
scientific debate internationally.

Yesterday, Dr. Buller said the St. Louis researchers had also made a
designer form of cowpox, another cousin of smallpox, to better
understand how easy or difficult it would be to apply the same kind of
genetic engineering to the human smallpox virus and make it more lethal.

Experts said both the threat of such developments and the federal
response seemed part of a theoretical debate, not something to worry
about for now. They split over whether the research was prudent. Some
argued that, given the accelerating pace of advances in genetic
engineering, it was wise to investigate worst cases and responses.

"If we do not act across a wide range of areas we will be failing in our
responsibilities as global citizens," said Ken Alibek, a former leader
of the Soviet Union's germ weapons program.

Other experts called such research a slippery slope that could aid
terrorists, and argued that the research should have had the kind of
rigorous peer review that a National Academy of Sciences panel called
for last month in new recommendations.

"This is bigger than the original Australian work," said Elisa D.
Harris, a Clinton administration arms control official now at the
University of Maryland. "They knew the mousepox results and deliberately
set out to build upon that work in a way to create a more deadly virus."

"There was a need here," she added, "for consequential research to be
reviewed to weigh the potential risks and benefits before the work
proceeded, and that apparently didn't happen here."

Dr. Lawrence D. Kerr, a senior official at the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, agreed, noting that the research began
before the recommendations were issued and would have undergone such
scrutiny if begun now.

"This is the exactly the kind of scenario" that federal officials worry
about, he said in an interview.

Eradicated two decades ago, smallpox no longer exists in nature or human
populations. Officially, only the United States and Russia have stocks
of the virus, under tight security. But federal experts suspect that
clandestine supplies of the virus exist or could be fabricated.

The mousepox research was first reported in the current issue of New
Scientist, a British magazine.

It involved inserting into the mousepox virus a mouse gene that controls
interleukin-4, a primary chemical in the immune system's response to
invaders. In the Australian case, the designer virus so crippled mice's
immune system with extra production of interleukin-4 that the microbe
reproduced wildly, killing mice that had been vaccinated and leaving
others permanently disabled.

Yesterday, Dr. Buller said the St. Louis research made the killer germ
more lethal by inserting the interleukin-4 gene into an unimportant
region of the virus's DNA, unlike the central part of the genome that
the Australians chose. That allowed the virus to multiply even faster,
he said.

"It can't affect humans," he emphasized repeatedly.

The human smallpox vaccine offered no protection to mice exposed to the
superlethal virus. "They all died," Dr. Buller said.

The antiviral drug cidofovir similarly failed to give protection. But a
combination of the drug and vaccine, he added, saved some mice. The
researchers found that the best protection was a combination of
cidofovir with a monoclonial antibody drug that fought the effects of
interleukin-4. "We protected all the mice from a very high dose" of the
virus, he said.

He added that he planned to submit the research for publication and had
no qualms about disclosing the exact location of the gene transfer.
"It's irrelevant" to the design of a human weapon, he said.

Dr. Buller said that colleagues at the Army's biodefense institute at
Fort Detrick, Md., were planning to test the superlethal cowpox virus on
mice. Yesterday, neither the White House nor Fort Detrick would comment
on whether those plans had been approved.

The cowpox virus can infect humans, though the resulting disease is
usually mild. Still, critics worry about the ramifications of such
research, for safety and for precedent. "The issue here," Dr. Harris
said, "is the potential of this research being misapplied for
destructive purposes."

The article below deals with Monsanto and their domination of courts and
politicians. Soy, unlike canola, is mainly self pollinating and pollen
isn't easily spread by wind. However, the beans are mobile and spread by
humans and animals along with farm machines, trucks and cars (through
wheel wells). Unfortunately, the academic "experts" serve Monsanto and
not the truth.

November 2, 2003 ny times
Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Patent
By ADAM LIPTAK


UPELO, Miss., Oct. 30 - Homan McFarling has been farming here all his
life, growing mostly soybeans along with a little corn. After each
harvest, he puts some seed aside.

"Every farmer that ever farmed has saved some of his seed to plant
again," he said.

In 1998, Mr. McFarling bought 1,000 bags of genetically altered soybean
seeds, and he did what he had always done. But the seeds, called Roundup
Ready, are patented. When Monsanto, which holds the patent, learned what
Mr. McFarling had sown, it sued him in federal court in St. Louis for
patent infringement and was awarded $780,000.

The company calls the planting of saved seed piracy, and it says it has
won millions of dollars from farmers in lawsuits and settlements in such
cases. Mr. McFarling's is the first to reach a federal appeals court,
which will consider how the law should reconcile patented food with a
practice as old as farming itself.

If the appeals court rules against him, said Mr. McFarling, 61, he will
be forced into bankruptcy and early retirement.

"It doesn't look right for them to have a patent on something that you
can grow yourself," he said.

Janice Armstrong, a Monsanto spokeswoman, said the company invested
hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the seed. "We need to protect
our intellectual property so that we can continue to develop the next
wave of products," she said.

Were farmers allowed to replant the seed, the company said in its
appeals court brief, "Monsanto would effectively, and rapidly, lose
control of its rights."

That is because one bag of the patented seed can produce about 36 bags
of seed for use in the next growing season. The number grows
exponentially. By the third season, the single bag of seed could
generate almost 50,000 bags.

Ms. Armstrong said that there are about 300,000 soybean farmers in the
United States, and that Monsanto has disputes with only about 100 of
them a year. Most disputes are resolved quickly and informally, she said.

Farmers here said the company's efforts to investigate the replanting of
saved seeds have been intrusive, divisive and heavy-handed.

"They hired the whole city of Tupelo's night police force," said
Mitchell Scruggs, 54, who is a defendant in another saved-seed lawsuit.
"They bought a lot across the street from me for surveillance. They're
spending all this money on airplanes, helicopters, detectives, lawyers."

"They told a federal judge that it wasn't a monetary issue," Mr. Scruggs
said over the roar of three cotton gins at his farm here. "They wanted
to make an example of me. They want to destroy me to show others what
could happen to them."

In this respect, the seed lawsuits resemble the record industry's
actions against people who share music files on the Internet. There,
too, the goal is not primarily to recover money from particular
defendants but to educate the public, and perhaps to scare other
potential offenders.

Ms. Armstrong acknowledges that Monsanto must walk a fine line.

"These people are our customers," she said, "and we do value them. But
we also have to protect our intellectual property rights."

Legal experts say Monsanto is likely to win its appeal, in part because
Mr. McFarling signed a standard contract when he bought the seed. He
said he did not read the contract at the time and it had never occurred
to him, until Monsanto contacted him with a $135,000 settlement offer,
that he had done anything unlawful. He had paid about $24,000 for 1,000
bags of seeds, including a "technology fee" of $6.50 per bag.

The contract, which Monsanto calls a technology agreement, said buyers
could use the seed "only for a single season" and could not "save any
seed produced from this crop for replanting."

One judge, dissenting in an earlier appeal that upheld an injunction
against Mr. McFarling, wrote that the boilerplate contract did not give
Mr. McFarling a fighting chance.

"The terms printed on the reverse of the technology agreement are not
subject to negotiation and Monsanto's billions of dollars in assets far
exceed McFarling's alleged net worth of $75,000," wrote Judge Raymond C.
Clevenger III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. The same court is hearing Mr. McFarling's second appeal.

"Even an attorney reading the technology agreement might not understand
that it purports to subject one to patent liability in Missouri," where
Monsanto is based, Judge Clevenger continued. Someone versed in the
specialized decisions collected in law books might have understood it,
he wrote, "but we may presume that few feed stores stock the Federal
Reporter on their shelves."

Lawyers for the farmers here have worked hard to frame defenses that
might work in court. Mr. Scruggs, for instance, promises to attack the
validity of the patents themselves and to show that the company's
practices amount to a violation of antitrust laws.

Mr. Scruggs said that unlike Mr. McFarling, he did not sign the
technology agreement. Even without it, though, legal experts said the
case against him was strong. The idea that planting saved seed amounts
to patent infringement, they said, follows inexorably from two United
States Supreme Court decisions allowing patents for life forms.

Monsanto's soybean seeds account for at least two-thirds of the American
soybean harvest. The seeds are called Roundup Ready because they are
resistant to a popular herbicide called Roundup, which is also a
Monsanto product.

Mr. McFarling and Mr. Scruggs have been forbidden by court orders to use
Monsanto's products. They said that conventional seed was perfectly
good, but that effective herbicides had become hard to find.

Mr. Scruggs said the courts should find a way to weigh traditions almost
as old as humanity against fostering high-technology innovations.

"It's a God-given right that farmers were given when they were born to
save these seeds," he said. "All we are is farmers trying to scrape a
living out of this dirt.

Nature Reviews Microbiology 1, 85 (2003); doi:10.1038/nrmicro765
Editorial
WILL ANTIBIOTIC MISUSE NOW STOP?

A recent WHO report has added new impetus to the argument that the use
of antibiotics as growth promoters should be banned.

The use of antibiotics as growth promoters in the economically important
livestock industry is a key area of conflict between public health
interests and the interests of big business. Low doses of antibiotics
administered to animals can increase their growth rates, presumably
because subclinical infections that compromise the animals' ability to
thrive are suppressed; the animals grow faster and more efficiently,
with a subsequent reduction in costs and obvious economic gains for
farmers. In addition to the economic benefits for agriculture, this
practice is of significant importance to the antibiotic industry. It has
been estimated that as much as 50% of total antibiotic production (by
weight) is used in animals and plants, with 50-80% of antibiotic use in
some countries devoted to growth promotant and disease prevention purposes.

The main cost of the use of antibiotics as growth promoters, however, is
the development of antibiotic resistance. Many studies have shown an
irrefutable link between the subtherapeutic use of antibiotics and the
development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Given that the
antibiotics used to treat livestock are often identical to medically
important antibiotics used to treat humans, it would seem obvious that
the development of resistance against these drugs could have an
important and direct impact on public health. However, this is a
controversial issue. The impact of the use of antimicrobials in
agriculture on human health has been a subject of debate, discussion and
risk assessments for decades and, although there is a consensus that
antimicrobial use in animals selects for resistance in zoonotic
pathogens and these resistant bacteria can be transmitted to humans
through contact with animals or food, there is less agreement on the
overall extent of the impact on public health. Why? A major barrier is
the fact that many scientists involved in agriculture and food animal
producers refuse to accept that the use of antibiotics in livestock has
a negative effect on human health. This attitude has been strengthened
by a lack of sound experimental studies documenting the impact;
fortunately, a growing number of reports are now beginning to provide
clarification.

In 1998, Denmark became the first country with a significant livestock
industry to curtail the use of growth promoters in pig and poultry
production. The World Health Organization (WHO) report analysed the
effects of the ban on the prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in
farm animals, abattoirs and meat over a 4-year period. The impact of the
ban on animal health and the economic costs to farmers were also
assessed. It was concluded that although there was a slight negative
economic impact, the ban on growth promotants achieved its aims ó a 54%
decrease in total antibiotic use and a dramatic fall in the number of
drug-resistant strains isolated from animals and meat. For example, the
proportion of Enterococcus bacteria sampled from animals that were
resistant to common antibiotics fell from 60ñ80% to 5ñ35%. In the
clinic, enterococcal infections present severe treatment problems,
particularly in immunocompromised patients because these bacteria have
become resistant to all available antibiotics. 'Under conditions similar
to those in Denmark', the report concludes, 'the use of antimicrobials
for the sole purpose of growth promotion can be discontinued'.

It is understandable that the food-producing industry wishes to protect
its interests. However, microbiologists are aware of, and understand,
the weight of evidence linking the subtherapeutic use of antibiotics
with the emergence of resistant bacteria. Microbiologists also
understand the threat that antibiotic resistance poses to public health.
As a profession, we must be vocal in supporting any policy that
diminishes this threat. To that end, we welcome the fact that the
European Union has finalized rules to end the practice in all member
countries by 2006 and that legislation has been introduced in the United
States that would phase out the routine use of clinically important
antibiotics by the livestock industry. As researchers, microbiologists
can further contribute in two ways. First, by adding to the data linking
antibiotic use in agriculture to effects on human health. Second, by
using our knowledge of bacterial genomics and pathogenesis to develop
new anti-infectives that are specific against pathogens of animals but
do not generate resistance in pathogens of humans.

The magazine Biospectrum India, from which the following article by
Dr. Pushpa Bhargava comes, reports on India's biotech business
sector.

The magazine describes Dr Bhargava as "one of India's most
brilliant scientists". He is also viewed as one of the leaders of the
biotechnology movement in India. He had a hand in setting up the
Indian government's National Biotechnology Board and its later
Department of Biotechnology. He also founded and directed the
Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad and he sits on the
board of medical biotechnology companies.
---
http://www.biospectrumindia.com/content/columns/103102001.asp
Indian biotechnology needs truth, not hype
P M Bhargava
BioSpectrum,
October 20, 2003

Truth is the most powerful weapon in the world. This becomes
particularly important in the emerging areas of technology such as
biotechnology. Today informed public opinion around the world has
become extremely wary of unethical and false claims about
products that are marketed by high-pressure advertising and endorsements
from familiar faces. As they have little or no technical knowledge of
parameters that would define the quality of the product they are
endorsing, leave aside the extent to which the quality criteria are
really satisfied by the product.

People around the world and now even in our own country are
becoming increasingly aware of the technological complexities of the new
products (be they seeds or cars). It is a cliché that for new
technology products to succeed, the confidence of people in the
technology must be high. Therefore, for the success of biotech
products, we need to present the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth about them to the people. Only recourse to this
time-tested prescription will lead to public acceptance of
biotechnology. Not only that, the larger number of mistakes we
make in this regard now, the greater would be the effort required for
acceptance of the truth later by the public. Once bitten, twice shy!

Today in UK as perhaps in the rest of Europe, four out of five people
are totally opposed to GM food (food prepared from genetically
manipulated organisms). This is the consequence of the greed of
multinationals and their desire to control people around the world,
which has led to an uncalled for and unproven hype about GMOs
(Genetically Manipulated Organisms) released in the environment
and suppression of vital information about them. For biotechnology to
succeed, this greed must be replaced by true commitment to
public good and truth.

Let me give a specific example of the so-called golden rice. I was
concerned at the hype surrounding the initial announcements about
this GM rice. The public was given the impression that this rice will take
care of the entire requirement of vitamin A of an individual. Such a
statement would be extremely important for India where vitamin A
deficiency affects a large proportion of people and is one of the four
major nutritional health problems of the country. However, when we
got down to the brass tacks and did our arithmetic, it was found that
only a miniscule fraction of the daily requirement of vitamin A will be
taken care of by the amount of rice one normally consumes in our
country in one day. When I pointed out this to the inventor of golden
rice at a meeting in Chennai on 30th October 2002 organized by
National Academy of Agriculture, I was told that the daily
requirement of vitamin A prescribed by WHO was unrealistic - that is, far too
high!

Should WHO standards set up after stringent analysis cease to be
a benchmark when they are inconvenient? Besides, for meeting even
the prescribed WHO requirement of vitamin A, there are other cheaper
and better sources already available. We have carrots available
abundantly. A marine biotechnology company located at
Tiruchendur is already producing beta-carotene using a marine alga and a
low-cost
production process that exploits sunshine and ambient
temperature. Our problem with vitamin A deficiency is not the lack of
sources of vitamin A but the lack of buying power. This is not to underrate the
elegant work that led to the production of golden rice, but only to
emphasize that the hype generated by the Department of
Biotechnology (DBT) regarding golden rice has done a disservice to the cause.
This is surely not where our country should invest in biotechnology.

The same has been true of Bt cotton. To cite just one example, no
protagonist of Bt cotton has spoken about the official governmental
report (2002) of the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences of
the State Environmental Protection Administration of China on the
impact of Bt cotton on non-target organisms and the development of
resistance of cotton bollworm to Bt cotton there. On the other hand,
the public has been always led to believe what a tremendous
success Monsanto’s Bt cotton has been in China.

Let us now look at what is stated in the above report. The following
quotes from the report (annotations that are not in quotes are mine)
should give the reader a flavor of this report.

"Domestically developed Bt cotton accounts for one third of Bt
cotton seed market and this percentage should increase over the next few
years." The percentage of acreage under Monsanto’s Bt cotton has
progressively declined from 1998 onwards. The question one may
ask in the Indian context is - Why did we not make our own Bt cotton as
China did, when one of the purposes of setting up the DBT in 1986 was to
do precisely this kind of work?

"The populations of parasitic natural enemies in Bt cotton fields are
significantly reduced."

"Bt cotton is not effective in controlling many secondary pests,
especially sucking pests. Field experiments showed that the
population of secondary pests, such as cotton aphids, cotton spider mites,
thrips, lygus bugs, cotton white fly, cotton leaf hopper and beat
armyworm increased in Bt cotton fields after the target
pest - bollworm - had been controlled.

Some pests replaced bollworm as primary
pests and damaged cotton growth". Shouldn’t we have had similar data for our
country by now in respect of Bt cotton?

"A higher insect dominance in Bt cotton than in the non-Bt control
suggests an increased potential for pest outbreaks for certain pest
species in Bt cotton fields".

"Both laboratory tests and field monitoring have verified that cotton
bollworm can develop resistance to Bt cotton". "The resistance of
Bt cotton to bollworm decreases over time, and control is not
complete in the third and the fourth generations. In fact, farmers must use
chemicals two to three times to control bollworm".

"There are not yet effective measures to postpone resistance
development or to resolve the resistance problem. A high-dose of
the Bt toxin protein is considered difficult to obtain, and the refuge
mechanism is not easily implemented. In addition, the high dose
assumption and refuge design have theoretical shortcomings". In
fact, Science (2003, vol. 299, p. 1013) has recently reported that in
China, Bt cotton is not recommended for small farms. In our country, we
have only small farms.

If those who are advocating the use of Bt cotton in our country,
including the DBT have any commitment to truth shouldn’t they
take the above into account when "selling" Bt cotton to ignorant and trusting
farmers?

The latest addition to the hype is the GM potato also sponsored and
publicized by the DBT. First, it is no big deal to make a GMO
today - even a GMO with a better or higher protein content as is claimed
for DBT's GM potato. Secondly, GM potato does not make any sense from
the point of view of nutrition as has been well argued by Ramesh Bhat
and S Vasanthi of the National Institute of Nutrition at Hyderabad, in
The Hindu of 24th July 2003. It is claimed that the GM potato contains
45 percent more protein than traditional potatoes. The protein content
of the ordinary potato is 1.6 grams per 100 grams. Ramesh Bhat and
Vasanthi state, "According to the National Nutrition Monitoring
Bureau, the intake of potato by school children is about 30 grams per
day". The protein intake from GM potato would thus be 0.7 grams per
day which would meet the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of protein
only to about 2 percent in school children. Simple arithmetic would
tell the reader that to meet the RDA for protein from GM potatoes
alone, the children would need to consume 1.5 kg of potatoes per day!

The DBT also claims that "transgenic potato leads to a high increase
in all essential amino acids with corresponding increase in total
protein content". These claims, as Bhat and Vasanthi also say, are not
substantiated by the available data. There is also another important
point that worries me. Our dietary guidelines state, "A nutritionally
adequate diet should be taken through a wide choice from a variety of
foods." As Bhat and Vasanthi say in the above mentioned article, "The
over-enthusiasm of promoting GM technology by claiming miraculous
solutions to solve malnutrition problems in India would harm the
credibility and interest of the transgenic technology." Well said, but
who is listening?

PM Bhargava

Pushpa M Bhargava is one of India’s most brilliant scientists. He
founded and directed the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology
(CCMB), Hyderabad. His scientific contributions include the
preparation, characterization and use of primary liver cell
suspensions, and characterization of new proteins, such as
seminalplasmin, from the seminal plasma. His over 70 major honours and
awards include the Padma Bhushan, the Legion d’Honneur, and the
National Citizens Award.