THE ISSUE
FOR THE INDUSTRY
FOR THE CONSUMER
THE CAMPAIGN
GE NEWS ARCHIVE
|
Mothers for Natural LawInternational News on Genetic Engineering in AgricultureBiweekly News 99/01/16Thanks to Cliff Kinzel and Richard Wolfson for these items.
Articles have been aggressively shortened. ------------------ Low Yielding Biotech Cotton A study at the University of Arkansas, reported in the April 1998 Cotton Grower, found large reductions in yield from genetically engineered Bt cotton. Yields were on average 24 pounds per acre less for Bt cotton, compared to non-Bt varieties. ------------------ Australia to Ship Largest Yet Cargo of Canola to Europe OTC 08.01.99 01:27 SYDNEY, Jan 08, 1999 (Asia Pulse via COMTEX) -- The New South Wales Grains Board said today it has sold the largest cargo of canola to ever leave to Australia. The 57,500 tonne shipment is valued at $A26 million ($US16.53 million) and will lead to a record shipping program for 1998 which is expected to total 350,000 to 400,000 tonnes, it said. Graham Lawrence, managing director of the NSW Grains Board said the cargo is bound for oilseed crushing plants in Europe. "Europe has moved to become a major buyer this year because Australia is the only country to guarantee non genetic modified canola," he said. ------------------ Copyright 1999 Journal of Commerce, Inc. Journal of Commerce January 11, 1999, Monday Complex array of label rules gives US exporters headaches by Robert Koenig Last spring, the EU decided to require labeling of food products containing genetically modified ingredients... Jochen Kubosch, a spokesman for the commission, says "there are technical problems" with the GMO-label rules, which the EU will try to correct, and that EU experts are working on a list of food products to be exempt from the GMO rule. "There should be such a list, but for the time being it is empty," he said. Meanwhile, U.S. companies have been scrambling to try to comply with the EU labeling requirements. In one approach, Protein Technologies International Inc. - a DuPont Corp. subsidiary that markets soy proteins and fibers for use mainly in food products - went to the expense of developing an "Identity Preservation System" that tracks soybeans through every step from the farms where they are grown to the silos that store them to the trucks that transport them. "Developing this system was very expensive," said Kathy Harris, the St. Louis-based company's general counsel. "But it now allows us to assure our European customers that the soy protein we sell them is not derived from genetically modified material - and they don't have to use the "Contains GMO' label that the EU is requiring." ------------------ Globe and Mail (Canada)
Ottawa Refuses to Approve Bovine Growth Hormone
Ottawa -- Health Canada has decided not to approve the use of a controversial hormone that boosts milk production in cows, because of a new report that finds the drug may hurt the health of animals injected with it... The panel concludes that there are legitimate animal-welfare concerns associated with the use of the hormone. "These included an increased risk of clinical mastitis [udder infection] and lameness and a reduction in the life span of treated cows." The panel found that the hormone increases the frequency of udder infections by about 25 per cent in animals treated with it. It also concluded that there was about a 50-per-cent increase in the risk of lameness in cows given the drug. "Many of the cases of lameness involved joints, and dairy producers and vets currently have a limited ability to control this increased risk." The report "will be enough for the government not to approve the drug under the Food and Drug Act if that is what they want to do," said one source familiar with the document. Health Minister Allan Rock has appeared uncomfortable with the drug and has repeatedly said that it would not be approved until the department is sure it is safe for both animals and people... Although Mr. Rock's office had said no decision on approving the drug would be made until June, tomorrow's announcement in effect will turn it down. ------------------ http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/Pusztaitcbh.htm Conclusive Evidence that Eating Raw GM Potatoes has a Profound Physiological Effect Thorkild C. Bøg-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. January 1, 1999. A commentary on results reported by Dr S.W.B.Ewen, a senior pathologist at the University of Aberdeen, at the meeting of the COST 98 Action (European Union Program) in Lund, Sweden, 25-27 November 1998. Dr Ewen's results clearly showed the errors in the Audit Report that followed Dr Pusztai's suspension from the Rowett Research Institute. The Audit Report main conclusion is: "The Audit Committee is of the opinion that the existing data do not support any suggestion that the consumption by rats of transgenic potatoes expressing GNA has an effect on growth, organ development or the immune function." The results were obtained with histological examinations of internal organs of Dr Pusztai's rats after feeding with GM potatoes expressing GNA (Galanthus nivalis agglutinin, the lectin from snowdrop). The experiments clearly showed that there was a potent mitogenic stimulatory effect on all parts of the rat gastrointestinal tract and that the GM potatoes caused a major intraepithelial lymphocyte infiltration similar to inflammatory responses. Dr Ewen characterized the changes as damaging. Apparently Dr. Ewen's experiments were performed on the same rats as those in the Audit Report. Dr Ewen found that the reactions were significantly different from those found with diets containing parent potato lines or parent potatoes spiked with GNA. Thus, particularly significant was the finding that the potentially damaging reactions observed with GM potatoes were either absent or were significantly less extensive with parent potatoes spiked with GNA, suggesting the possibility that the observed effects with GM potatoes might have occurred as a result of the gene insertion and not the GNA gene itself. The talk was followed by a discussion in which Dr Pusztai emphasized that Dr Ewen's results clearly showed up the errors in the conclusions of the Audit Report. Many scientists at the meeting expressed the view that as GM potatoes had such major effects on the gut and tissue metabolism in the rat, these highlighted the need for further testing of GM plants used for food with novel and more sensitive methods before their safe use in human and/or animal diets. ------------------ From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram 5 Jan 1999: http://www.startext.net/today/news/columnist/ivins2.htm Updated: Monday, Jan. 4, 1999 at 16:05 CST Let's Go Back to Maroon Bluebonnets AUSTIN -- Monsanto Co., a naive and innocent little chemical corporation, was engaged in a benevolent scheme to make a better world through genetically engineered crops -- practically without thinking of profit. Last year the company offered its humanitarian products to what should have been a grateful peasantry around the world, but, alas, unpleasant things began to happen... Critics of biotechnology are afraid that seeding farmland with transgenic crops could spread genetic pollution, upset the balance of nature and release uncontrollable food allergies. Jane Rissler with the Union of Concerned Scientists told Agence France-Pressue, "The purpose of biotechnology is to increase the profits of the manufacturers by persuading farmers to use more herbicides." But aren't these fears just that -- fears without evidence? The problem is that Monsanto has a record. The company manufactured virtually all the PCBs in the United States until they were finally banned in 1976, and taxpayers are still shelling out to clean up PCB-riddled waste sites. Monsanto also manufactured Agent Orange, which is linked to cancer and reproductive problems in Vietnam War vets. And the company makes pesticides, which contaminate ground water. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Monsanto is a "potentially responsible party" at 93 Superfund sites. In other words, this is a company that has put its faith in technology before without bothering to properly research the consequences. ------------------ Copyright 1999 The Washington Post The Washington Post January 09, 1999, Saturday, Final Edition Corn Seed Producers Move to Avert Pesticide Resistance Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer Responding to pressure from federal regulators, environmentalists and others, a coalition of the nation's major producers of genetically engineered corn seed said yesterday that they would require farmers to grow sizable plots of non-engineered, old-fashioned corn along with their new biotechnology varieties. The companies hope to allay increasing fears among scientists that some newly marketed varieties of gene-altered corn, which exude potent insecticides day in and day out, may be speeding the evolution of pesticide-resistant "super" insects. The announcement, which caught many farmers and others by surprise, was announced by an official of St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., the country's largest producer of gene-altered corn, at an Environmental Protection Agency meeting. EPA officials welcomed the coalition's plan with cautious optimism. "We have not had an opportunity to review the details of this agreement. However, we hope the final version will contain the elements EPA feels are required for the effective management of these products," Loretta Ucelli, EPA's associate administrator of public affairs, said in a statement. But the plan was immediately criticized as inadequate by some scientists and environmental activists, who noted that it calls for plots of non-engineered crops to be about half the size that several research studies have recently determined will be needed to prevent ecological disaster. "It's like having your doctor prescribe five pills a day to prevent a heart attack: It might help a little bit to take only one, but probably you're going to die," said Jane Rissler, senior staff scientist at the Union for Concerned Scientists in Washington. "These companies are responding to an overwhelming scientific consensus that they have to do something, but what they are proposing is far, far from what is needed." ------------------ USDA Seeks Biotech Risk Assessment Research Grant Proposals Applications are invited for competitive grant awards under the Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants Program for fiscal year (FY) 1999. Proposals may be submitted by any United States public or private research or educational institution or organization and are due March 24, 1999. Subject to the availability of funds, the anticipated amount available for support of the Program in FY 1999 is $1.5 million. The Programs emphasis is on risk assessment. Investigators are encouraged to design studies in which answers to three general questions are sought: 1) what is the risk (potential risk identification); 2) how likely is the risk to occur (quantifying the probability of occurrence); and 3) what is the severity and extent of the effect if it occurs (quantifying the effects). Proposals that address all three questions are preferred. ------------------ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is compiled for educational use only. |
 |
To subscribe, send a blank email to ge-news-subscribe@egroups.com
Mothers for Natural Law
< Previous | Back to News Index | Next > |