Genetically engineered food

Your column on genetically engineered food included some important critical insights. However, your overall analysis seems to be that there's nothing wrong with genetic engineering per se, but only with some of the attendant evils of industrial agriculture. In reality, though, genetic engineering is providing transnational corporations like Monsanto the technology essential to consolidate their control over agriculture and the food supply. The most outrageous example is the "Terminator technology" for sterilizing second-generation seeds, and which was made possible by genetic engineering. With Terminator, Monsanto and other biotech companies can insure that farmers must return to them to buy seed each year. Currently, over 1.4 billion farmers rely on saved seed for their livelihoods and food security.

Moreover, contrary to your loosening a screw in a car analogy, by genetically engineering living species, scientists change not only the engineered organism but, when released into the environment, also change the organism's interactions in nature. For example, Bt crops (which produce an insecticide, not an herbicide, as you stated) have been shown to adversely effect soil ecology (see Stotsky, et al., Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30: pp 463-70, 1998) and beneficial insects (see Hillbeck et al, Environmental Entomology vol 27, #2, April, 1998 in ways not previously seen with Bt spray formulas. Sure, when you crash and burn from your loose screw you might take a few others with you, but that would be the end of it. The downstream effects of these crops, on the other hand, could be permanent, uncontrollable and irreversible.

If it were as easy to control and anticipate the harmful effects of this technology as you suggest, why is it that 18,000 acres of Bt cotton planted in Texas in 1996 failed to control the very insects it was supposed to kill (NY Times, November 19, 1997). When more than 50 farmers sued Monsanto for Roundup ready cotton that unexpectedly started dropping its bolls in 1997, the company blamed the weather. The arbitrator found otherwise, and ordered Monsanto to pay compensation (Union of Concerned Scientists Gene Exchange, Summer, 1998). Last year farmers who planted Roundup Ready soybeans in 8 states found decreased yields, despite the industry's claims that these varieties will help increase the food production essential to feed a growing population (Oplinger, et al, "Performance of Transgenic Soybeans - Northern US," Dept of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison). Such examples are just a few of the more widely reported unexpected failures of the technology. Once genetically engineered crops are grown in even more disparate environments around the globe, we can only expect more and potentially devastating ecological effects.

As you mentioned, we already have a hard time dealing with exotic species, which are the second-leading cause (after habitat loss) of endangered species. According to the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1993 study, summarized in Mellon and Rissler, Ecological Risks of Emngineered Crops, p. 29-30), all genetically engineered organisms should be considered non-indigenous species, with the potential to add to the already costly toll of disruption from such plants.

In short, scientists, farmers, consumers and others have serious and valid concerns about genetic engineering. Some of these concerns justifiably fall under your "friggin Monsanto" category, since this company has been not only the the leading propagandist for the technology but has also acted aggressively to stifle public debate. But the broad international rejection of the technology is based on the uncertainty of the safety of these new species that have not been tested for their long-term impact in our food supply or our environment.

Thanks for taking up this important issue. I enjoy your column very much, and look forward to hearing from you.

Peace,

Charles Margulis
Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaign

To reply to your points in the order you raised them:

1. Interesting you should bring up so-called terminator seed. I wrote about this seed in an early draft of the column but deleted it at the last minute. Terminator seed (which is not yet available commercially) will produce a viable crop, but the seed produced by this crop is sterile. To replant you must buy new seed. The sole purpose of this genetically engineered stunt is to enhance the profits of the manufacturer.

This struck me as a perfect example of a potentially useful technology (I mean gene splicing in general, not terminator seed in particular) being put to dubious corporate ends. I said as much to several people in the field, two in academia, one in industry. They replied that (a) there is nothing inherently wrong with preventing a manufactured product from being duplicated - it's the same as copy protection on a music recording; (b) most North American farmers do not save their seed from year to year but rather plant new seed no matter what; (c) non-engineered hybrid crops, which are widely planted, produce seed that is of poor quality if not sterile - not because of any fiendish plot, but because that's the way hybrids are; and (d) nobody will be forced to use this stuff - if somebody wants to continue using traditional seed that reproduces itself from year to year, no problem.

Fine, I said, but consider the ethics of the thing. This is a new technology that carries certain risks. With other engineered crops, the risks are balanced against social benefits - a superior crop, more food for the hungry, etc. Here the only benefit is to the manufacturer's bottom line. What if this self-sterilizing property is inadvertently spread to other species? Whoops, sorry, we've destroyed the world's plant life!

Not likely, came the reply. Terminator seed by definition is self-limiting. It's not going to propagate itself. The whole idea is that it not propagate itself.

Well, what if the stuff mutates, I said, and the terminator feature doesn't kick in until a few generations of fertile seed have been produced? The stuff spreads, then dies out.

Just so, I was told. It dies out. You can do the math. Terminator seed is not a real threat.

At that point I was obliged to conclude that terminator seed did not offer a very potent argument for corporate iniquity, and dropped the discussion from the column. (I also happened to be out of space.) Terminator seed is like many aspects of genetic engineering - it seems less scary on examination than it does at first glance.

2. I made it clear that I felt use of Bt crops was problematic. I also cheerfully concede that genetically engineered crops may interact with the environment in ways not seen with traditional agricultural practices. This could be said of almost any industrial process. Such processes must be closely scrutinized to avoid environmental damage. Nonetheless the mere possibility that damage may occur does not strike me as sufficient reason to abandon the technology.

You're right, by the way, that I wrote "herbicide" when I should have said "pesticide." Sorry, spaced out.

3. You talk about the "harmful effects" of this technology, citing Bt cotton, which failed to control pests. This is a weak example. The problem with Bt cotton was not that it was too toxic, but that it was not toxic enough. While the farmers suffered economic harm, I am not aware of any "devastating ecological effects." The stuff just didn't work as advertised. So what? Your argument is that because a product caused problems for the USER, it might someday cause problems for the WORLD. This strikes me as an unwarranted logical leap.

4. Do engineered crops constitute "non-indigenous species"? What if they do? Truth is, most of our current food crops aren't indigenous to North America. Soybeans, to cite a recent example, are from China. The important thing is not indigenous vs. non-indigenous but whether the introduction of a new or altered species is conducted under adequately controlled conditions. Many environmental disasters of the past - kudzu, starlings, etc. - were the result of reckless introductions of species by people who had no idea what they were doing. Genetic engineering, whatever else may be said for it, is a much more carefully considered process.

5. You talked about Monsanto moving "aggressively to stifle public debate." I didn't have space to address this in my column but agree this is a serious concern. Monsanto sued the Ben & Jerry ice cream company to prevent it from advertising that its products did not involve use of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Whatever one may think of BGH, attempting to suppress public awareness of it is reprehensible. It underscores the point I made in my column, namely that the real threat isn't genetic engineering, it's the big companies that use it.

Hello,

My response to your response -- mine in ALL CAPS, point by point, below yours (hope this format isn't too annoying...)

Peace,
Charles Margulis
Greenpeace


Cecil Adams
Administrator posted 04-08-99 10:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to your points in the order you raised them:
1. Interesting you should bring up so-called terminator seed. I wrote about this seed in an early draft of the column but deleted it at the last minute. Terminator seed (which is not yet available commercially) will produce a viable crop, but the seed produced by this crop is sterile. To replant you must buy new seed. The sole purpose of this genetically engineered stunt is to enhance the profits of the manufacturer.

This struck me as a perfect example of a potentially useful technology (I mean gene splicing in general, not terminator seed in particular) being put to dubious corporate ends. I said as much to several people in the field, two in academia, one in industry. They replied that (a) there is nothing inherently wrong with preventing a manufactured product from being duplicated - it's the same as copy protection on a music recording; (b) most North American farmers do not save their seed from year to year but rather plant new seed no matter what; (c) non-engineered hybrid crops, which are widely planted, produce seed that is of poor quality if not sterile - not because of any fiendish plot, but because that's the way hybrids are; and (d) nobody will be forced to use this stuff - if somebody wants to continue using traditional seed that reproduces itself from year to year, no problem.

Fine, I said, but consider the ethics of the thing. This is a new technology that carries certain risks. With other engineered crops, the risks are balanced against social benefits - a superior crop, more food for the hungry, etc. Here the only benefit is to the manufacturer's bottom line. What if this self-sterilizing property is inadvertently spread to other species? Whoops, sorry, we've destroyed the world's plant life!

Not likely, came the reply. Terminator seed by definition is self-limiting. It's not going to propagate itself. The whole idea is that it not propagate itself.

Well, what if the stuff mutates, I said, and the terminator feature doesn't kick in until a few generations of fertile seed have been produced? The stuff spreads, then dies out.

Just so, I was told. It dies out. You can do the math. Terminator seed is not a real threat.

At that point I was obliged to conclude that terminator seed did not offer a very potent argument for corporate iniquity, and dropped the discussion from the column. (I also happened to be out of space.) Terminator seed is like many aspects of genetic engineering - it seems less scary on examination than it does at first glance.

OR MORE SCARY, IF YOU’RE NOT BLINDED BY SUAVE INDUSTRY REASSURANCES. IN REVERSE ORDER: AS YOU SAY, “THE STUFF SPREADS, THEN DIES OFF.” THIS MAY BE TRUE, OR NOT, AS SOME GENETICISTS WARN THAT THE TRAIT COULD ALSO MOVE THROUGH PLANT COMMUNITIES LIKE A RECESSIVE GENE, NEVER DESTROYING THE ENTIRE POPULATION BUT ALWAYS RETAINING THE POTENTIAL TO UNEXPECTEDLY EFFECT INDIVIDUALS. BUT LET’S SAY IT IS SO: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE NEIGHBORING FARMER WHOSE CROP IS CONTAMINATED AND MYSTERIOUSLY PRODUCES STERILE SEED? WHEN THIS SAVED SEED IS PLANTED, AN ENTIRE YEAR’S CROP CAN BE LOST. NOT A THREAT TO THE WORLD’S PLANT LIFE (SOMETHING I DID NOT ARGUE, BY THE WAY), BUT CERTAINLY A THREAT TO FARMERS AND THOSE WHO RELY ON THEIR PRODUCTION TO STAVE OFF STARVATION.

BUT FARMERS IN THE US DON’T GENERALLY SAVE SEED, YOU SAY. INDUSTRY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGIES (THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO DOZEN IN DEVELOPMENT) ARE TARGETED TO THE DEVELOPING WORLD, THEY ADMIT TO PATENT APPLICATIONS IN AT LEAST 89 COUNTRIES. IN THE US, MONSANTO USES PINKERTON DETECTIVES AND AGGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT OF PATENT LAWS TO PROTECT “THEIR GENES.” THEY FEAR THAT THEIR LONG ARM WON’T REACH AS STRONGLY I THE THIRD WORLD, HENCE THE NEED FOR TERMINATOR. FARMERS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD NOT ONLY SAVE SEED FOR REPLANTING (FOR VITAL SUBSISTENCE FOOD PRODUCTION), BUT USE HYBRID SEED FOR BREEDING STOCK – SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE WITH TERMINATED SEED.

THE FINAL INDUSTRY INSULT, THAT NO ONE HAS TO BUY THEIR JUNK, OBVIATES THE REAL-WORLD AGRO-ECONOMICS THEY USE TO PREY ON FARMERS. ASK RURAL COMMUNITIES IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD HOW GREEN REVOLUTION HYBRIDS GAINED PRIMACY IN THEIR COUNTRIES: CREDIT AND LOAN TERMS, MARKET MANIPULATION AND OTHER “ASSISTANCE” FAVORED THOSE WHO TOOK UP THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND PUSHED TRADITIONAL FARMERS OFF THE LAND (WHICH IS ONE REASON FOR THE FLIGHT TO URBAN AREAS IN MUCH OF THE SOUTH TODAY). THESE SAME DYNAMICS WILL DRIVE THE “SECOND GREEN REVOLUTION” PROMISED BY BIOTECH, WITH EQUALLY DIRE RESULTS.

LASTLY, A NOTE ON PATENTS: MOST OF THE WORLD’S FOOD CROPS EXIST IN THEIR MODERN FORM BECAUSE OF GENERATIONS OF PLANT STEWARDSHIP BY THE PEOPLE OF THE DEVELOPING WORLD, WHO ARE NOW THE TARGETS OF TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGIES. CRITICS OF BIOTECH FROM THE SOUTH ARGUE THAT THE BIOTECH COMPANIES HAVE UNDULY APPROPRIATED AND PATENTED THIS GENETIC MATERIAL WITHOUT COMPENSATING THE TRUE DEVELOPERS. THIS “BIO-PIRACY” ROBS THIRD WORLD FARMERS COMING AND GOING, SINCE THEIR CONTRIBUTION IS DENIED OUT AND THEIR SYSTEMS FOR ASSURING CONTINUED LOCAL “R&D” ARE DISRUPTED.

2. I made it clear that I felt use of Bt crops was problematic. I also cheerfully concede that genetically engineered crops may interact with the environment in ways not seen with traditional agricultural practices. This could be said of almost any industrial process. Such processes must be closely scrutinized to avoid environmental damage. Nonetheless the mere possibility that damage may occur does not strike me as sufficient reason to abandon the technology.

IT STRIKES ME THAT THIS HAS BEEN THE EXCUSE FOR DEVELOPING NUCLEAR POWER OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS, WITH THE RESULT THAT WE NOW HAVE HUGE STOCKPILES OF NUCLEAR WASTE WITH NO REALISTIC PLAN FOR SAFELY MANAGING THAT WASTE. WHEN WILL WE LEARN TO PUT OUR SCIENTIFIC EFFORTS TO PROJECTS THAT TRULY HAVE FEW ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS, EG, SOLAR-BASED ENERGY SYSTEMS AND ORGANIC, AGROECOLOGICAL FARMING. YOUR “SUCH PROCESSES MUST BE CLOSELY SCRUTINIZED…” IS NAÏVE. WHO DO YOU THINK DOES ALL THE “TESTING” OF GE CROPS? THE COMPANIES THAT STAND TO PROFIT! LOOK AT UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS REVIEW OF DOZENS OF GE FIELD TRAILS. THEY FOUND THAT IN ALMOST EVERY CASE, THE IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS WEREN’T EVEN ASKED, MUCH LESS CLOSELY SCRUTINIZED. RATHER THAN POSING WEAK RATIONALIZATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGIES THAT ONLY SERVE TO BOLSTER CORPORATE PROFITS, WE SHOULD BE DEMANDING PUBLIC POLICY THAT SUPPORTS TRULY SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE.

You're right, by the way, that I wrote "herbicide" when I should have said "pesticide." Sorry, spaced out.

3. You talk about the "harmful effects" of this technology, citing Bt cotton, which failed to control pests. This is a weak example. The problem with Bt cotton was not that it was too toxic, but that it was not toxic enough. While the farmers suffered economic harm, I am not aware of any "devastating ecological effects." The stuff just didn't work as advertised. So what? Your argument is that because a product caused problems for the USER, it might someday cause problems for the WORLD. This strikes me as an unwarranted logical leap.

NO, MY ARGUMENT WAS THAT YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS PREDICTABLE AND EASILY MANAGED DOES NOT JIBE WITH THE REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE. I CITED THREE EXAMPLES, HERE’S ANOTHER: FARMERS IN WESTERN CANADA ARE FINDING THAT SO-CALLED “VOLUNTEER” CANOLA (RAPESEED) IS APPEARING IN THEIR FIELDS AS AN UNCONTROLLABLE WEED. IT SEEMS THAT MONSANTO’S ROUNDUP READY VARIETY IS HARDIER THAN PLANNED, LEADING TO PROBLEMS IN NEARBY FIELDS – NOT PROBLEMS JUST FOR THE USER. SIMILARLY, POLLEN FLOW FROM GE CROPS INTO NEIGHBORING FIELDS AND THE DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS (SOIL ECOLOGY, BENEFICIAL INSECTS,

Hello Jesse -

To clarify my position: no, I do not believe that the technology is BAD, but neither do I believe that the only problem is that the companies are bad. Downstream effects like the impact on soil ecology, on beneficial insects, on nearby related plants are not the fault of the biotech companies, they are inherent in the way nature works. These are among the arguments I made in response to Mr. Adams, and I stand by them.

Furthermore, because nature does not work the way the biotech industry would like it to work, the technology is inherently unstable. This doesn't mean it will certainly be dangerous, it just increases the uncertainty. Despite what Monsanto tells you about how "precise" the techniques are, the reality is that the gene-environment relationship is incerdibly complex, not to mention the plant-soil-insect-microorganism-animal-human relationship.

Finally, if you believe that any new technology is a good technology, you may end up living in a world with increasingly unjust distribution of food and natural resources that are increasingly squandered for the benefit of companies that care only for their short term profits. I prefer to choose appropriate technologies, which is why I continue to ask why we are spending so much of our scientific resources on a risky technology that will benefit the few when we could be placing the emphasis on ecologically modern, hi-tech, sustainable, ORGANIC production!
Peace,
Charles Margulis
Greenpeace

Hello

Yes, I know the devil's in the details, but I am not going to go point by point (Yes that format was VERY annoying). I think the larger issue is more important.

Every argument you made in response to Cecil's basically boiled down to: The technology is bad because the Companies are bad.

The technology itself is not inherrently evil. The same techniques developed to gene splice mutated crops are allowing us to use e-coli to produce hemoglobin in the production of synthetic blood substitutes. Btw, it was first done with pigs, but people thought that that was just too weird. Anyway, I don't have a bug up my butt for e-coli (sorry, couldn't resist) I just thought it was a good example of how this technology can be used for good. Unless, of course, you think the world is overpopulated. In which case, let em bleed to death.

It is important to keep an eye on corporations who deal in new technologies and ensure that they take the necessary steps to ensure their product is safe. However, stifling knowledge or impeding the devolpement of technology is not the way to go.

If it is your firm belief that technology is evil, then be careful. You may end up in a cabin somewhere in Montanna writing your manifesto and sending letter bombs to Monsanto.

Jesse Miller
Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology
University of Illinois

I really don't want to get drawn into a debate on the merits of industrialized agriculture. People write books about stuff like that. I will say that, much as I sympathize with the small-is-beautiful idea, the corporate approach does strike me as having a certain inevitability, and I think we're best off accepting that and trying to deal with it as best we can. No doubt Greenpeace does not concur. Fine, let's agree to disagree about that.

I have to reiterate that the problem is not genetic engineering per se, it's the misuse of it. A lot of people in GE research are shaking their heads over Bt crops, which carry the very real risk of destroying the usefulness of one of the organic farmer's most important tools. There are also concerns over the development of "superweeds" - if you develop a herbicide-resistant crop to permit higher doses of weedkiller, what if said crop crosspollinates with its weedy relatives? Bingo, herbicide-resistant weeds! (I believe this is the issue with canola.)

My sense is that the real fear among GE experts is that corporate knuckleheads are going to take the technology over a cliff. Most of the major problems with GE crops - this is key - were predicted well in advance. The companies went ahead anyway. I would not be surprised if much more stringent regulation of GE crops, akin to the drug approval process, was imposed soon. I just hope it doesn't happen after some major corporate screwup.

Which brings me to a final issue, the use of GE crops in the Third World. The kinds of controls I've been talking about that make genetic engineering relatively safe - vigorous scientific review, a well-developed regulatory apparatus - are most apparent in the developed world. Developing countries are nowhere near as well equipped to assess the risks of this stuff or see that it is used properly. I think Greenpeace raises legitimate concerns in this respect.

My hope, however, is that environmental organizations make a nuanced argument, rather than claim genetic engineering is inherently evil. I'm not pointing any fingers at Charles Margulis, but a lot of anti-GE stuff is pretty shrill. The risk of that approach is double-edged - either environmentalists may get themselves dismissed as nuts, or they may stir up such a panic that genetic engineering is banned. Either outcome would be unfortunate.

Hello Cecil,

You state, "I would not be surprised if much more stringent regulation of GE crops, akin to the drug approval process, was imposed soon." Unfortunately, it appears that the opposite is happening. In the March 25, 1999, Pesticide Toxic Chemical News, Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-Ill), chairman of a House
Agriculture subcommittee, said "We must be sure that regulatory excess does not
suffocate"the biotech industry, and demanded that EPA back down on its already weak regulation of Bt crops -- so weak, in fact, that Greenpeace brought over 70 co-plaintiffs together to sue the agency in February (see http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/).

EPA has already agreed to change the Bt "plant pesticide" program to the "plant-expressed protectant" program, in response to biotech companies' desire to avoid the word "pesticide," which obviously causes them public relations problems ("yes, this potato that you are eating IS a pesticide" somehow hasn't sold real well). Reminds me of when sewer sludge suddenly became known as "biosolids," after an industry lobbying effort that included $300,000 of taxpayer money from EPA's "education" budget.

As far as shrillness goes, thanks for the nod to "present company excepted." I'm actually more concerned that reasoned criticism and precaution will be minimized in the face of a "can't stand in the way of progress" mentality that assumes we have no options when DEFINING progress (progress for who? to what ends? etc). There are already several countries that have appropriately banned certain uses of the technology, and others that have moratoria until further testing assures safety. Such policies are welcome to prevent the truly "unfortunate outcomes" that we agree could be the result of continuing corporate screw-ups.

Peace,
CM

I'm a chemical engineer, so let me throw in my $0.02 on this issue. I see great potential in this technology, but I share cmargulis' concerns that it is being used in a very reckless way. All major companies exist to make money, but certain companies are known as being especially profit-driven.
The crap that has been described above is why I got into polymer technology instead of biotech.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

Hi. As a college student about to graduate with a B.S. in Environmental Biology, I thought I'd put in my $0.02 as well. Although genetic engineering is an amazing technology and has many wonderful benefits, I think that the agricultural industry has been reckless in its application. The problem with genetically engineering organisms which will be released into the environment is that these are living creatures. Unlike machines, plants and animals do not just tamely do what we expect or desire--they spread seeds, breed, mutate, etc. And to believe that biology is advanced to the point where we can accurately predict the interactions of introduced organisms (whether genetically engineered or exotics) with the environment beforehand is simply naive. We can't. We only have to look at the long history of deliberately-introduced exotics which were _supposed_ to do one thing, and did something else entirely, to realize this. So although genetic engineering has done wonders in the area of medicine, I don't feel that we are ready yet to apply it in the area of agriculture without a having a much better idea of what the consequences might reasonably be.

Also, I just wanted to add that I think that the loose bolt on the car is a faulty analogy. Changing a single base-pair in a gene sequence can have truly profound effects. For example, sickle-cell anemia, a deadly disease, is caused by a single alteration of a single base-pair in a single gene locus, and yet the effects for the people who have it are enormous.

Elaine C

Hi,

This is completely off the topic of the discussion you guys are having, but I figured it was good group to put this question to.

Can plants be genetically engineered to gigantic proportions? I have seen the idea in numerous television shows (admittedly, one of those was the Simpsons), and was wondering if it could actually be done.

If it is possible, why hasn't it been done? (At least in the scope of my limited knowledge it hasn't been done...) Wouldn't this be a good wat to help alleviate world hunger and all that bad stuff?

Just wondering.

It seems like the main problem of the crops spreading out of control is that they should have used the Terminator gene on all the new crops, just in case. Thud. No problem. This has its own, relatively minor problems, yes, but as a precaution, it's invaluable.

RE: Gigantic plants

To a certain degree, larger plants are possible (and have, in fact, been produced), but there's no known 'magic' gene that can be inserted that will make gigantic plants. Even if there were, you'd get the square-cube problems of the plants collapsing under their own weight among other sticky issues.

This has been the most enlightened and enlightening discussion of these topics I've encountered (I know, no gushing; moving right along). I'd just like to express a few humble thoughts:
"Will the stuff hurt people too? Obvious problem, obvious solution: test and find out. Answer: no." Depends on what you consider testing. The possible bad effects of anything, be it aspartame, acetaminophen, or any other product of industrial technology don't generally show up until twenty years after they're certified safe. You may suppose from this remark that I am anti-technology on principle. Not so; I merely happen to believe in measurable risk. A pretty good source told me some time back that McDonald's and Burger King now use (or were at that time about to begin using) Monsanto's gene-spliced potatoes without informing the public of the change. A year ago or more, I wrote Cecil a letter, hoping for conclusive confirmation or negation of this statement, but no luck. "You want fries with that?" Not for a while, kid. Though I don't especially think there's likely to be anything unsafe about eating these foods, I know that these are the same folks who said thirty years ago that their carcinogenic pesticides were perfectly safe. Ironically, when I asked a Monsanto crop transformation biologist what benefits these crops would have apart from enriching Monsanto, the answer began by noting that farmers using Bt seed would no longer have to expose themselves to carcinogenic pesticides.
The fact that these specific products don't perform as advertised in the field is rather different than it would be in other industries. When the scientists incorrectly predict the behavior of these organisms, even in a single instance, it casts grave doubt on their self-stated certainty that they know what they're doing. That's pretty scary when what they're doing is tinkering with the building blocks of the biosphere. On the other hand, if the scientists know the crops won't work or are unsafe and are powerless to make their concerns public in the face of statements to the contrary by corporate management, we have no reliable assurances whatsoever concerning the safety of releasing these experimental species into the environment. Either way, between the arrogance of the crop transformation biologists and the venality of their management, we can't trust a thing they say.
From St. Louis, home of Monsanto, I have no idea what the press is like in other places, but the mainstream media here give us a story about biotechnology every three weeks or so, and never is heard a discouraging word. I won't try to address the way Monsanto's funding has co-opted the educational mission of the local Science Museum. Although the friggin Monsanto argument carries great weight with me personally, the average joe isn't worried if he isn't being taxed over it, and the environmental argument is both more serious that Cecil originally made out and unlikely to be understood by most people. Myself, I want to go to bed and pull the covers over my head 'til this bad thing goes away.

Not sure how to respond, nemo. Your argument seems to be that we should not proceed with this (or any) technology unless there is no conceivable danger whatsoever. As you say, this is pretty much an argument for staying in bed all day. Whatever, babe.

As an admirer of yours, this pains me, but I must respectfully disagree with your summary of my remarks. I'll admit I wasn't as clear as I could have been. While I do think testing standards for over-the-counter drugs and the like are not rigorous enough, I also don't think we should huddle in caves afraid of fire. I understand about risk-benefit analysis (a cold-blooded business, you once said, but necessary) and I understand that excessive caution would deprive people of the potential, and sometimes much-needed, benefits of new technologies. I'm only saying that in the specific case of bioengineered crops 1) not enough is known to make reliable assessments, and 2) because the potential for harm from this particular technology may be vastly greater than is ordinarily the case, ordinary testing standards are perhaps not adequate to the job at hand. As for wanting to hide until it goes away, I was trying whimsically to say that I find this issue scary. Of course there are things one can do to try to make these concerns more public, and I'm grateful to you and Mr. Margulis for doing one of them. But because Monsanto and other biotech companies are so powerful, and have so successfully silenced public debate on these issues, I fear it's possible that this may be something we're just going to have to live with, whether there are reasonable assurances of safety or not.

[[The possible bad effects of anything, be it aspartame, acetaminophen, or any other product of industrial technology don't generally show up until twenty years after they're certified safe.]] Nemo

Can you give examples of this? Are you saying that this is true of the products you name, or are those just examples of products we can't be sure of?

[[You may suppose from this remark that I am anti-technology on principle. Not so; I merely happen to believe in measurable risk. A pretty good source told me some time back that McDonald's and Burger King now use (or were at that time about to begin using) Monsanto's gene-spliced potatoes without informing the public of the change..."You want fries with that?" Not for a while, kid.]]

I haven't seen any evidence that "gene-spliced potatoes" might possibly hurt your health, but my real question is, if you're so health conscious, what are you doing eating at McDonalds?
JillGat
Yeah, I'll have the Big Mac, but none a those techno-fries.

Ha! But Jill's point is a good one. It's well established that a diet high in saturated fat will lead to a multitude of health problems and may appreciably shorten your life. Yet you're more concerned with genetic engineering - the dangers of which, insofar as the food supply is concerned, are purely speculative.

1: NPR (and also the commercial media, I think) reported within the past year that researchers have evidence of a link between the use of acetaminophen and an increased risk of liver damage in some individuals. As for aspartame, I defer to Cecil, who first wrote maybe twenty years ago that the stuff might not be perfectly benign. I won't presume to paraphrase or interpret his words, and I'm not really up on current research, but I believe there have also been more recent reports that it may interfere with some aspects of brain function in some way. Sorry I can't give you more specifics - maybe someone else can. Look, I'm not especially worried about these substances, and I'm not raving that we should have a moratorium on their use or development. I merely cite them as examples to make the point that not everything we're told is safe is really safe. I also said that I don't think gene-spliced potatoes or other foods are especially likely to be dangerous to eat, only that we shouldn't necessarily believe that they're harmless just because biotech companies say they are.

2: In fact, I haven't eaten at McDonald's in a number of years, since some time before I gave up eating beef for various reasons, including health and environmental concerns. Not that my health and/or other vices are in any way germane to this discussion. I assume you were trying to be funny rather than snotty, so I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Have a nice day.

Just a comment on terminator technology. This technology costs to incorporate which will limit it's introduction to crops with a greater return than regular soybeans or cotton varieties (at least in the near future). The technology has been slotted for use in value added varieties with traits such as soybeans with a special oil or protein which can be contracted out to farmers generally for a premium. The technology necessary to develop these special traits is expensive and I believe the terminator gene concept was developed to protect these investments.

Crops grown in the U.S. include both self and cross pollinated crops. Corn, a cross pollinated crop, is generally grown as a hybrid and new seed is bought yearly. It is possible to save seed of hybrid corn and it will produce viable plants for generations but hybrids are grown because they yield significantly better than open pollinated varieties. Seed from self pollinated crops, such as soybean, cotton, wheat and rice can be grown year in year out without losing yield or traits from the 'parent' generation. Seed from these crops are generally saved by most growers and new seed is only bought when new 'improved' varieties become available. It is legal to save seed of these varieties to plant on your farm even though they are protected under law. It is not legal to sell a protected variety's seed without compensating the company who develeped it. This is to protect the research investment a company incurrs to develop that variety, which is substantial. Recently, Pioneer discontinued it's hard red winter wheat research program as it found that it couldn't justify the cost for the return they were getting. It seems that farmers were planting one of their varieties on approximately 70% of the hard red wheat acrerage grown. Pioneer only sold less than 10% of that seed. So, in the short run farmers can save a buck or two by saving seed for replanting. In the long run, however, without breeding programs/research, improved varieties with improved disease/insect resistance and better yield potential won't be forthcoming.

Warren Cork
Agronomy/Inf. Tech.
U of MO

If I understand what I've read correctly, Monsanto's plants produce the same hormone that's in Roundup.
That is not an Herbicide per-se but a plant growth hormone. The plant grows it's way past It's resources.
What could be more natural or wholesome than a plant hormone?


------------------
<insert witty sig here&gt

[[I assume you were trying to be funny rather than snotty, so I'm sorry to disappoint you.]] nemo1

It wasn't really meant to be snotty. But it was your example and, I mean, what could you possibly order along with the fries at McDee's that wouldn't be even worse for your health? Plus it was a cheap shot I couldn't resist.

As for your acetametaphin example, one of the benefits of our system of drug testing and regulation is that one can consult the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) and read about which health conditions preclude the safe use of a particular drug, which other drugs are contra-indicated while using it, every side effect that's ever been experienced by anyone using the drug and even what percentage of the time one could expect them to occur. (It can be scary to read that oral contraceptives are associated with fatal blood clots, but if you read further, that risk is primarily for older women who smoke and it's still even rarer than the likelihood of such a woman dying from pregnancy related causes.) For most herbal remedies, on the other hand, it's still pretty much a crap shoot what the risks are.
Jill

To Cecil: I'm grateful for the link to your column on aspartame; it's from before I had net access, and it hasn't been reprinted in the books, facts which I offer in extenuation of my having let myself be misinformed. Yeah, it sure looks like there's no sound reason to jump on the stuff, and I apologize for bringing it up. Indeed, it's come to my attention that aspartame has come under fire from right-wing Christian fundamentals, a group not noted for deep scientific insights, and one I would disassociate myself from right quick, so please forget I mentioned it. If I'm to be adjudged a wigged-out extremist, let it be on my own merits.

Since you've asked, I'll restate this: Because you dismissed the original questioner's concerns about food safety in one sentence, I felt it should be said that since ordinary consumables are sometimes certified safe while still carrying certain risks, the same would be true to a greater degree with the products of genetic engineering, because (and here is where we seem to disagree) not enough is known about them to know exactly how to test them or what to test them for. For the third (or is it fourth?) time, I would not advocate a fear of new technologies in general, and I accept measurable risks associated with them. For the third time, I agree that it doesn't seem likely there's much, if anything, to fear about food safety with these crops. I say only (for the third time) that *in the specific case of genetically-engineered food crops,* there is less reason than usual to be satisfied with ordinary assurances of safety, and the matter perhaps deserved more than a single sentence in your column. Clearly, you disagree, and I'm content with that. The things I seriously consider scary are the possible environmental impact and the "friggin' Monsanto" issues, matters you and Mr Margulis have addressed admirably well. I think we agree more than we disagree, except as to matters of degree.

To smegmum: The same concerns JillGat raises about herbal remedies would apply to plant hormones if they're not properly tested. Concerns have been raised about bovine somatotrophin, aka recombinant bovine growth hormone, a product that, used in sufficient quantities, has been known to cause mastitis and other health problems in dairy cattle. It's the dubious assumption that anything of biological origin will behave as you expect it to in unfamiliar contexts that's at the heart of the environmental concerns.

To JillGat: Agreed. I wouldn't dispute the idea that these herbs can also be dangerous. Testing standards are virtually nonexistent. As I said, I like my risks measurable.

Sorry to be so long-winded. Have a nice day, all.

NPR (and also the commercial media, I think) reported within the past year that researchers have evidence of a link between the use of acetaminophen and an increased risk of liver damage in some individuals. As for aspartame, I defer to Cecil, who first wrote maybe twenty years ago that the stuff might not be perfectly benign. I won't presume to paraphrase or interpret his words, and I'm not really up on current research, but I believe there have also been more recent reports that it may interfere with some aspects of brain function in some way. Sorry I can't give you more specifics - maybe someone else can.

As a matter of fact, I can. Here's my column on the subject. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/961129.html) Fears of aspartame thus far have proven to be unfounded. Acetaminophen (Tylenol) is a different story; it's been established that chronic alcohol users face the possibility of liver damage if they also use this drug.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Do you feel that, because Tylenol has been shown to cause problems for certain people under certain conditions, it should never have been introduced?

smegmum V wrote: "If I understand what I've read correctly, Monsanto's plants produce the same hormone that's in Roundup.
That is not an Herbicide per-se but a plant growth hormone. The plant grows it's way past It's resources.
What could be more natural or wholesome than a plant hormone?"

I don't know what you've been reading, but the active ingredient in Roundup is a chemical called glyphosate, which kills plants by blocking an enzyme pathway that would normally allow plants to synthesize certain essential amino acids. There's nothing "natural" about this. Roundup formulations also contain so-called "inert" ingredients, many of which also cause toxic reactions.

Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" (RR) plants are genetically engineered to withstand application of Roundup. Roundup cannot enter the enzyme pathway in RR plants, so they remain unaffected by the herbicide. This allows farmers to spray crops directly with Roundup, a nice arrangement if you want to sell more of the chemical. This also leaves more glyphosate on the food we eat: Monsanto successfully lobbied EPA to raise the allowable residue levels of glyphosate on soybeans while their RR soybeans were in development. So the "safe" level of the chemical in our food went overnight from 6 ppm to 20 ppm! The very same process is now underway for sugar beets and grain crops: an EPA ruling last week similarly raised the glyphosate residue levels on these, again at Monsanto's request.

A Swedish study reported in the journal of the American Cancer Society last month (Cancer, March 15, 1999, vol 85 #6), found that patients with non-Hodgkins lymphoma were 2.3 times more likely than healthy people to have had contact with glyphosate. Chemicals in our food, brought to us by Monsanto and EPA -- naturally

Someone up there, or several, brought up the safety of genetically altered foods. NATO has brought us a wonderful opportunity to test these new foods on hundreds of thousands of refugees. Why not? It's been done before.

Cecil, I have been a loyal reader of your column for aeons. Keep up the good work. Was very interested in your recent column on GE foods. I am a genetics PhD with substantial environmental/ecological, molecular biology, regulatory and science policy experience. I work in the biotech industry because, as a passionate environmentalist and a relentless skeptic, brutal cross examination of the facts led to one inescapable conclusion: that biotech is humanity's best promise to help bring Wallace Stegner's vision to pass that humans will learn to "tread more gently on the land."

With one exception, your column was a brilliant condensation of a lot of complicated information and got to logical and defensible endpoints. The one exception was your closing note, in re BT crops and the potential that their use in large scale production agriculture could deprive organic farmers of a vital tool.

On economic grounds, one could wonder about the wisdom of sacrificing substantial environmental benefits of the use of BT in large scale production agriculture to preserve what is, at best, a boutique economic ghetto, organic production. (I know how fast it is growing, but at the end of the day/decade it will still be minuscule, and will never feed the world, although I am glad it is there, if only to shame the nozzle heads into thinking twice before they reach for their spray guns...) Cotton farmers in the US cotton belt over the past three years have avoided spraying, conservatively, 850,000 gallons of pesticide on their fields thanks to BT crops. That's about 48 railroad tank cars of potential endocrine disruptors that environmentalists should be delighted did not get into the global hydrological cycles. The beneficiaries include every mammal downstream from those cotton fields, i.e., every one on the planet. Imagine the improvements to the environmental sustainability of production agriculture worldwide if we can increase the adoption of such agronomic practices.

On biological grounds, the threat to organic farming of resistance to BT in the insect pests targeted by genetically engineered BT crops is close to zero. If you look at a map of the US and plot the distribution of organic farms, and the distribution of large scale production agriculture, they are almost completely disjunct. So even if the types of insect pests being targeted were identical -- and in most cases they are different species, making the issue emphatically and inarguably irrelevant -- the risk would be significantly reduced. Factor in that biotech companies have the greatest vested interest in product longevity, the numerous measures they are taking to prevent or delay the evolution of resistance, and this is a classic molehill the organic community is laboring to make into a mountain out of naked economic self interest. The principal threat BT in agriculture poses to organic farming is the threat that some of the most valuable tenets
of organic farming (environmentally sustainable approaches to pest control) will be infiltrated into mainstream ag, something environmental guerillas around the world should rejoice at. (Remind me to tell you the story about how potatoes were introduced from the Americas into French agriculture...)

I could go on for hours, but I have other stuff to get to, and don't want to bore you with my enthusiasm. And I hope you will forgive me for not being able to round out your encyclopedic knowledge of life, the universe, and everything by contributing one small nugget.

Just a few comments.

It's safe to say organic farmers would object to being described as a "boutique economic ghetto." Whether organic farming will ever become more than that is hard to say, but destroying the usefulness of Bt is a good way to ensure it won't. We can argue about how much of a threat GE crops pose in this respect; I can only tell you that people with considerable experience in the field and no obvious economic axe to grind are worried about it.

You say that the distribution of organic farms and large scale productions farms is "disjunct." I suppose what you mean by this is that there aren't a lot of organic farms in the Corn Belt. Maybe so - and if Bt crops result in Bt-resistant pests in those regions, there never will be.

You say that Bt crops lessen the need for dangerous chemicals. This would be a more persuasive argument if Bt crops were part of a larger industry strategy to reduce chemical dependence. I see no evidence that this is so. Monsanto's Roundup/Roundup Ready combo if anything increases chemical dependence.

You comment: "The principal threat BT in agriculture poses to organic farming is the threat that some of the most valuable tenets
of organic farming (environmentally sustainable approaches to pest control) will be infiltrated into mainstream ag." Sorry, I'm not buying it. Genetically engineered Bt crops in effect use megadoses of the stuff, which is completely contrary to the principles of sustainability. In organic farming, as you know, Bt is sprayed on, knocks out pests, then biodegrades and isn't used again for a while. Pests don't have time to build up resistance to it. With Bt crops, Bt is always present in the plant itself, so there's a greater chance of building up resistance.

I'm not saying Bt crops are a sure disaster for organic farming, but I'm not about to blithely dismiss the danger either.

All of this underscores yet again my main point. The problem is not genetic engineering per se, but how it's used.

Can you get food allergies from this altered stuff?Do food allergies affect behavior?

Just a few comments in response to Mr. Margulis's last post.

First of all the active ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosphate, not glyphosate. At first I thought it was just a typo, until I stumbled upon a web page from Purdue Universities Horticulture 250 class. If this is where you got your information on Roundup, you need to find a more reliable source. The article(?) is chock full of basic mistakes which would put everone to sleep if I went into detail. Needless to say, I don't think the person who wrote that is a Biochemist.

Secondly, I would be more careful on how you bandy about the phrase "essential amino acids". An essential amino acid is by definition one that cannot be synthesized by the organism. Since all 20 amino acids are synthesized in plants, they are all unessential. The synthesis pathway blocked by Roundup produces 3 aromatic amino acids: Tyrosine, Tryptophan, and Phenylalanine. This pathway does not exist in humans. Phenylalanine and Tryptophan have to be ingested (from plants mainly) and are therfore essential, and Tyrosine is synthesized from the hydroxylation of Phenylalanine. Therefore Roundup itself couldn't hurt a human in that way. Whether or not Roundup is toxic in some other way, I don't know; but I'm not going to drink it to find out.

I don't post this to be just picky and mean; but, I think it is very important to have credible information if you are going to sound credible.

One last thing. As you should know, a correlation does not necesarily imply cause and effect. It certainly warrants an investigation to see if there is a causal relationship; but, to base policy or actions upon an initial correlation is foolhardy at best.

Squid Vicious wrote:
"First of all the active ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosphate, not glyphosate."
No, it's glyphosate. Look at Monsanto's annual report if you don't believe me. I've never heard of glyphosphate. I've never seen the Purdue article you mention.

My phrase "essential amino acids" referred to their function in the plant, not in human health. These are compounds that are essential to the plant's growth, that's why blocking them kills the plant. Obviously this does not equate with harming human health, something I did not argue. The Cancer article, on the other hand, should give pause. I did not argue that this shows causation; I do believe that increasing our exposure to this chemical in our foods is a risky policy that is unwarranted given the dubious "benefits" of permitting more Roundup in the environment. According to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Roundup use already threatens 74 endangered species.

Just two quick comments to Coyote: the world was fed by "organics" for thousands of years before the advent of chemically-based agriculture -- without the toxic effects. Organics are the fastest growing segment of the food industry; in several European countries, 10-20% of the produce is already grown organically. Cuba feeds its population adequately with an agriculture that is virtually all organic, unlike many of its Caribbean neighbors, who are still faced with starvation and poverty, and export-based, chemically-intense agriculture.

Coyote also says "biotech companies have the greatest vested interest in product longevity." In fact, the industry thrives on planned obsolescence, whereby every 7 years (the average life-span of agrichemical products) the last "miracle" product outlives its usefulness, as nature adjusts. In fact, the industry admits that Bt crops are a short-term strategy: when the NY Times asked a Monsanto spokesperson about Bt crops wearing out, he replied, "We have new products in the pipeline. Trust us."

Charles Margulis

OOPS, sorry charles,

It turns out that it's both. Glyphosphate is the actual active ingrediant (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine). Glyphosate is the isopropylamine salt of this acid. This is what happens when biochemists don't use IUPAC nomenclature when naming compounds. My appologies.

Jesse Miller

[[Just two quick comments to Coyote: the world was fed by "organics" for thousands of years before the advent of chemically-based agriculture -- without the toxic effects. Organics are the fastest growing segment of the food industry; in several European countries, 10-20% of the produce is already grown organically.]]

I must say that I'm stunned by the fuzzy-headedness of the above statements. Yes, the whole human race used to subsist on 'organic' produce and hunting. So what? For the entirety of human history until relatively recently, the vast majority of people have subsisted WAY below what we consider the poverty line and struggled to achieve even substinence-level nutrition.

'Fastest growing segment' is such a ridiculous phrase, it should come with a laugh track. If .01% of a market 'jumps' to .02%, this is not a big deal, yet it has grown 100%! Whoopie! Hell, even the word 'segment' is suspect... What counts as a segment? Organic vs. beet farmers vs. pecan growers? When the amount of organics grown (measured in tons of food) increases faster than the rate at which all non-organics increase, then that's news.

That brings us to 'produce'. If (and that's a big if) produce refers to all edibles a country produces (some people don't count grains as produce), then that might be something to crow about. But, let's face it, most of the world is fed by fields of wheat and corn and rice, only a minute portion of which is legally organic. Feed 10-20% of the population of some sizeable country like Russia, the US or China on organics (as compared to some minute european nation), then come back and talk.

All that said, I applaud that some people want to grow organic food and that others are willing to pay a premium for the privlege of eating the same, but fatuous statements and non-facts are poor tools when trying to convince discerning audiences.

In response to John Karakash: to clarify, the organic food industry is growing by 20-30% a year. That is NOT its growth as a percent of the market share, which is still small in the US (about 1-2%). So your example of a jump from 1 to 2 percent does not relate to my contention.

The issue is whether organics can produce as much food as industrial agriculture. In a 15 year study comparing organic production with chemical-based and energy intensive agriculture, soil ecologist Laurie Drinkwater and colleagues found that organic yields were equivalent, without the adverse environmental impacts (Nature, Nov 18, 1998). Similarly, a 1980 study of 22 rice-growing systems found that indigenous agriculture (the organic production you denigrate) outperformed industrial production in terms of yields, with less energy and labor inputs (Vandana Shiva, "The Violence of the Green Revolution," pp. 78-79).
Charles Margulis

[[In response to John Karakash: to clarify, the organic food industry is growing by 20-30% a year. That is NOT its growth as a percent of the market share, which is still small in the US (about 1-2%). So your example of a jump from 1 to 2 percent does not relate to my contention. ]]

Ah, but it does! A 20-30% growth in a 1% industry is fairly insignificant. "Fastest growing segment" says nothing, while the numbers given above at least have some rigor to them. To put it into perspective, the best way to say it is, "Organics have been increasing their market share by .2% a year, up from 1-2%." Less impressive, to be sure, but a LOT more accurate and meaningful.
Sorry if my language was strong, but I get very heated about people using fluffy statistics to prove a point... usually to the contrary of actual fact. There is no need to add to the pile of dreck when accuracy is just as easy (even if less convincing).

John Karakash writes, "A 20-30% growth in a 1% industry is fairly insignificant." It's significant enough to catch the attention of several major food companies, and major Wall St investors. Tha San Francisco Chronicle late last year headlined an article, "Investors Craving Organic: Booming Food Business has Wall Street Salivating." The paper reported that traditional supermarkets revenue growth is 1-3%, with profit margins of 3-5% -- contrasting with organic revenue growth of up to 20%, with margins of 8-10%. I agree that the in this country, organics remain a rather insignificant portion of the overall food market. I believe this has more to do with government policies and support for industrial food production, and less to do with the food choices people would make if there were a level playing field and organics did not have to compete as a higher-priced, less subsidized "boutique" option.

Re genetically engineered food, you might want to look at the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai (or Puztai), a researcher in Aberdeen who was experimenting with genetically modified potatoes. (they'd had a snowdrop lectin patched in.) Dr. Pusztai found that the rats fed the potatoes had serious organ damage, particularly liver. He reported his findings -- and was promptly relieved of his post. Follow up study by 4 other researchers of Dr. Pusztai's work showed he was, indeed, correct -- but no one wanted to hear the bad news.

Scary stuff.

Dana

Is there some good reason why genetically engineered foods should not be labeled as such?

Many folks are concerned that consuming GMO's is not a healthy pursuit. Does genetically modifying soybeans, for example, have any effect on the way the naturally occuring phytochemicals help prevent some cancers and lower cholesterol? Aren't GMO's banned in Europe?

Does anyone know what kind of testing, and to what extent, have been conducted on humans who consume large quantities of genetically modified foods. Most processed foods produced in the USA have some ingredient which comes from a genetically modified plant. This practice was begun and continues without the knowledge and/or consent of the public at large. The only way to avoid consuming GMO's is to eat only certified organic foods. But even then there is risk. The genie is out of the bottle. Why is everyone so freaking nonchalant about this???

Is there some good reason why genetically engineered foods should not be labeled as such?

There's a lot of bureaucratic things that go on without your consent or knowledge, like your credit report.
I'm guessing, but I'd say there aren't any missing natural chemicals in the altered foods, maybe some new ones, though.

Could we make the scientists who design the stuff eat it, grow it, and wear it for five years before putting it on the market? Even better -- make sure all the company cafeterias use it first, and that the CEO's and assorted managers have to use it too?

I know I'm dreaming, but isn't it a NICE dream?

------------------
". . . and all places are alike to me."
--R. Kipling

This is kind of interesting. Estimates are that 250 million children around the world are vitamin A deficient and millions are blinded as a result. With all the focus on exotic diseases causing morbidity and mortality around the world, simple Vitamin A supplementation could save up to a million lives a year and cut deaths of children in developing countries by as much as 30%, according to USAID.

Doctors began doing research into vitamin A supplementation in Indonesia in the early 80s, to see if periodic high doses would prevent blindness in children. What they discovered was that children who received even one capsule had a significantly higher chance of survival than those who did not. The scientific world didn't believe these findings, so two more studies were done in Nepal in 1989 which confirmed those conclusions. This is amazing: 23 percent decrease in death rates among children who had received just a single vitamin A capsule. Turns out it doesn't just prevent blindness; it "strengthens the immune system and promotes a healthy epidermal barrier necessary to combat and prevent infection, the leading cause of death for children in the developing world. For a cost of about 50 cents per child per year, Vitamin A is the most cost-effective way yet found of preventing child deaths." (Global Health Council)

Hillary Clinton is leading a coalition assembled by USAID of corporate executives from international companies including Kellogg, Cargill, Proctor & Gamble and Roche, and NGOs such as CARE and UNICEF. One of the goals is to find a variety of ways to get more Vitamin A into the diets of poor people around the world, by adding it to foods these people already eat.

How is this related to this thread? I think it is interesting just in general to see a responsible corporate response to a world health problem, but also I read that Monsanto is going to genetically engineer some crops to produce higher natural levels of Vitamin A and its precursor, beta-carotene.
Jill

<<you might want to look at the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai (or Puztai), a researcher in Aberdeen who was experimenting with genetically modified potatoes. (they'd had a snowdrop lectin patched in.) Dr. Pusztai found that the rats fed the potatoes had serious organ damage, particularly liver. He reported his findings -- and was promptly relieved of his post. Follow up study by 4 other researchers of Dr. Pusztai's work showed he was, indeed, correct -- but no one wanted to hear the bad news.>>

According to a recent issue of Biomedical News, it isn't quite as simple as this. Dr Puzstai was apparently suspended from his post after a research assistant claimed that he was guilty of scientific fraud (on a different experiment than the potato-lectin one). For all I know, this claim is entirely false, and certainly a number of other scientists are supporting him so I can well believe that its pretty dubious. BUT, the national regulations do say that people accused of such offences should be suspended,
so thats what his employers say they are doing.
Secondly, and rather more significantly, all his experiment actually proves is that if you put this type of lectin into potatos (by GE or any other method, for that matter) it makes them toxic. Since no such potatos are on sale, you could argue that this is a case of the safety testing actually working, rather than the reverse. And it has little to do with GE per se.

Please check out the SF Chronicle 5/20/99, front page story: "Gene-Spliced Corn Imperils Butterfly" - "Caterpillars in study die after eating bioengineered plant pollen".

So now we have the ecodisaster, and who's to say that the toxins produced by these bioengineered plants don't adversly affect humans as well?

It's clear to me that substantial testing over a lengthy period should be conducted prior to allowing Monsanto and/or other techno-greedies to mess with the food supply.

I repeat my earlier question: Why does everyone seem so freaking nonchalant about this issue?

Yup. 2nd-page headline in Chicago Sun Times yesterday: Genetically engineered corn kills butterflies.

The article stated, in essence, pollen produced by bt corn kills Monarch butterfly (not in itself an endangered species) caterpillars. The caterpillars in question feed on milkweed - a plant known for its sticky secretions - and when pollen from bt corn is present on the plants, fully 40% of the caterpillars feeding there die.

Another warning shot across the bow of unintended consequences. (Maybe we can get thos 'pillars to eat Kudzu instead?)

Re: BT Corn, and butterflies

In this case, is the butterfly really a "red herring" with wings? I’ve studied background on this issue.

Much more interesting than the butterfly stories in the papers was the NPR interview on May 21st. This interview included the scientist who did the study, a representative of the biotech industry, and a few others. Here’s a few more data points which were neglected in the press; these are not minor points:

1. The BT in the corn is designed to kill many types of caterpillars, so it wasn't entirely surprising to see this effect on monarch caterpillars. It was also known that corn pollen had BT, and how far the pollen might go.

2. BT spray is used by organic farmers and conventional farmers. According to the scientist who did the study, the spraying is MORE of a threat to monarch caterpillars than the corn BT. So, someone could easily write a story with the headline "Organic Farming Kills Monarchs"…should we ban organic farming?

3. “Insect resistance” to BT is another issue being raised, but the only documented case so far is by use of the BT spray by organic farmers. Apparently, the biotech industry is already prepared for this, since they can “tweak” the specific type of BT used. On the other hand, the organic farmers would go on using BT until it was used up, leaving no options. It looks like the biotech companies are entirely bearing the cost of research and development in this area.

4. Unrelated to the call, I did some checking on the amount of pesticide that has been saved related to the use of BT genetics in crops. The numbers are astounding:

* American cotton farmers saved over 3 million liters of pesticide spray by using insect-resistant cotton over the last three years.

* The state of Alabama has the lowest pesticide use in 40 years, due mainly to the use of BT.

* In China, 650,000 farmers planted insect-resistant cotton last year, and needed no insecticide.

How many butterflies, other insects, and humans will live since we saved spraying 3 million liters of pesticide in the US? Where’s that Greenpeace guy?

Next, I will talk about Roundup Ready crops.

Da

I found a source which suggests that corn pollination is only about a two-week process. On the other hand, BT spray or other insecticides would kill caterpillars for the whole season, and beyond the radius potentially affected by the BT pollen. So I agree with the scientist who did the study, when he said on 5/21 that sprays would be a greater problem than the BT corn.

Next, apparently BT pollen isn't a problem with the cotton or potatoes, since they aren't as pollen-happy as corn. And from the NPR interview I mentioned, one source mentioned a variety of BT corn which doesn't have BT in the pollen at all (so there wouldn't be a problem). Don't know if this is a new product or what, does anyone else have details on this? I may call one of my sources. So perhaps if there is any negative effect from pollen, we need to switch to crops which don't express BT in the pollen.

Finally, I question the sanity of the "save the insects" theme which has surfaced here, and everyone seems to be accepting so easily. Many Lepidoptera (targeted by BT) are major pests and do a tremendous amount of damage; it's important to note, crop loss must be recovered by farming on yet more land. Do we have so few problems, as to find time to worry about bugs? What about people?

OH DEAR, Maybe the BT corn IS better than the (ahem) "organic" sprayed version. Keep this stuff away from me, bring on the Monsanto corn!

From New Scientist, 29 May 1999
Red flag for green spray






[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat

DanSpillane: Finally, I question the sanity of the "save the insects" theme which has surfaced here, and everyone seems to be accepting so easily.

While I prefer that we not succumb to alarmist hysteria (such as the short version of the "Corn kills butterflies" story that made it to too many newspapers), I am not prepared to dismiss the overall concern about biodiversity. We simply do not know the total interaction among species needed to preserve our world. Even leaving aside exotic predictions of "the cure for cancer" being found in an undiscovered blossom or bug in some remote rainforest, I suspect that the world simply works better when it is not forced into a monoculture mode to make some CEO wealthy. I hope it never happens, but I will not be surprised if the experience of 1840's Ireland is repeated on a world scale in a few years because we have allowed (a limited number of hybrid strains of) maize to force out so many other crops. Insects, small mammals, fish, birds, amphibians, and other critters beneath our notice play a significant role in the overall ecology. I think we harm them or dismiss their roles at our peril.


------------------
Tom~

Another point that needs to be mentioned is the method whereby corn pollen contaminates other larval-chewing crops (it mostly doesn't).

The tests for toxicity to monarchs were conducted by rubbing milkweed with BT-bearing corn flowers. This was a specific test to see whether the pollen passed its toxic load to other plants through contact--which it did. However, corn pollen, itself, is a heavy pollen that does not drift, it falls. Pollen counts around corn fields found that there was minimal pollen within three meters of any field's border and no corn pollen more than three meters from the field. In other words, there is a band of land about 10 feet wide surrounding any corn field which has the potential to contaminate some weeds--and no other effects will be felt. Contrast this to spraying where a light breeze will cause the spray to drift over a much greater area than a 10 foot strip, and if it is applied by air it may go even farther. Unless they discover a moth or butterfly that is not harmful to corn that feeds on the pollen of corn, this is simply information that is good to have, but which does not require us to ban or limit the product. The BT-bearing corn was already tested on bees and wasps and found to not be a threat to them, so we are not at risk for destroying the fruit and grain industries in order to raise maize.

------------------
Tom~

In response to Dan Spillane:

"Where’s that Greenpeace guy?"

Right here, Dan!

Dan says the monarch findings were no surprise. The fact is, EPA never considered or assessed the effects of Bt corn on non-pest butterflies such as the monarch. There are several such other species as well that may be effected. The point is not whether this new finding is "surprising" or not; the point is why has EPA allowed commercial growing of Bt corn before doing these kinds of studies and assessing their risks (which they are required to do by statute).

Second, Dan raises a false comparison between Bt sprays and Bt plants: spraying Bt in corn fields might be a threat if it happened, but it doesn't. The issue is corn growers, who (whether they are organic or conventional farmers) do not generally spray Bt for control of corn borers, the pest targeted by the Bt toxin. Spraying is considered ineffective and too non-specific to be useful.

It's important to understand the major differences between Bt sprays and Bt plants. The spray lasts just a very short time in the environment, a matter of days if not hours. Bt plants put out a very high dose of the toxin AT ALL TIMES throughout the growing season. If anything is going to effect the environment over the whole season, it is the plants, not the sprays, contrary to Dan's nonsense. The constant exposure is why insect resistance is much more likely to develop quickly from Bt plants.

Moreover, the toxin is in an active form, whereas in spray formulas the toxin can only be activated through a multi-step process in the insect gut. The toxin from Bt plants has been shown to persist in soil and damage soil ecology, contrary to sprays which have never shown these effects. Like the butterfly study, EPA failed to consider or assess this problem.

Dan repeats the industry propaganda that the only Bt resistance ever found was from organic farmers' BT spraying. But resistance has been documented conventional farming, in watercress in Hawaii, and in NJ vegetable production, both in the 1980s.

Dan also repeats the untested assumption that Bt plant technology can be modified to stem-off resistance. Industry BELIEVES they can stay ahead of nature, but with a track record of 50 years of keeping farmers dependent on new "miracle" pesticides, which have an average useful life of 7 years (compared to the nearly thirty years organic farmers have been successfully using Bt), why should we believe them now?

Notice in this debate how casually the industry speaker brushed aside the potential for cross-resistance to the different types of Bt, without giving any evidence for his conclusion that this won't be a problem.

Finally, industry figures on decreased insecticide use from Bt COTTON don't relate to the discussion of Bt CORN. In fact, insecticide treatments in US corn production, according to USDA data, have INCREASED since 1995, when Bt corn was approved. Even treatments for corn borer, the target pest of bt, are up.

If there are short-term savings for cotton farmers, these need to be weighed against the long-term reality that once resistance develops, ALL farmers will need to return to toxic insecticides -- even organic growers, who will no longer be able to use Bt sprays. In essence, no system that relies on the idea of "one pest -- one solution" can work in the long run.

Still waiting for Dan on Roundup Ready crops. I wonder if he will address their potential impact on monarchs? Researchers at Iowa State say that RR crops could be even more destructive to milkweed, the food source for monarchs. But Dan isn't concerned about biodiversity -- since it's obvious to him that we can get along fine without monarchs (or I guess the other 74 species that are already endangered by Roundup use).

I am a farmer and I believe in Roundup. It is a matter of economics. We have used it for a couple of years and have good results with 1 pint an acre a half rate Our beans went 60 bu a acre with only 2 trips one at planting and one for spraying. I watched a neighbor go organic he moldboard plowed twice ran a soil finisher twice, planted then cultivated twice. Alot of dirt went down the creek beans make the ground loose. He got a smaller yield and bigger price,, but his expences were a lot higher diesel fuel and machiney is expensive. I planted some RR corn this year we have some weeds that roundup is the only thing that will work (wirestem muley) Years ago atrazine would do it at 5 lbs an acre but the govt has said that we can not use it that heavy any more. So I think roundup is a little safer, It is a contact herbicide what ever it touches dies and is gone tommorrow. It does not hang around. Alot has to do with a cheap food policy that is in force now we are to produce food today with 25 year old prices. The days of "Old Mcdonald " farming are gone if we cannot compete and use new technology we will not be here. Would any of you be willing to double your food bills to keep us from using a new tool, if not then our costs would increase and when we do not produce a good product Brazil would double or triple their exports.... I would like to thank you for letting me express my point of view and as a producer I would like to thank you for using my products ....THINK GLOBALY BUT BUY LOCALY


------------------

Drat and drek. I was about to compose a long winded response discussing the benefit vs. risk analysis of new technology when my carpal tunnel acted up and my eyes lost focus from gazing at the screen for far too long.

Dan reiterates the falsehood that "Obviously, such BT spray will kill caterpillars (Monarchs, et. al) quite effectively, more so than the BT corn pollen." As I noted, this would only be true if there was widespread spraying of Bt for corn borer, which there isn't. Perhaps he thinks if he keeps saying it it will become true.

Then he goes on to compare the Bt toxin in plants to the bacterial spray formulas, saying "(the) BT toxin ... has been proven to be safe." Really, Dan? Proven by whom? The toxin expressed by the plants is wholly different than the naturally occuring one, and clearly can not merely be assumed to be as safe. In fact, there is mounting evidence, not just the recent monarch study, that it reacts very differently and with greater toxicity in the environment.

Read your own post Dan. The H34 Bt is not used in insecticide formulas. The formulas they did test affected some mice when inhaled -- not humans, as you suggest. Bt sprays have been used safely for 30 years; Bt plants have been commercially grown for less than 5, yet we already have evidence of their potential for adverse impact.

Incidentally, is there a reason you failed to note that the numbers you gave on Bt plants saving on insecticide use was straight from a Monsanto press release?

Let's start unraveling the twisted propaganda of Greenpeace:

(Charles said)
Dan reiterates the falsehood that "Obviously, such BT spray will kill caterpillars (Monarchs, et. al) quite effectively, more so than the BT corn pollen." As I noted, this would only be true if there was widespread spraying of Bt for corn borer, which there isn't. Perhaps he thinks if he keeps saying it it will become true.

(My comment)
It's true that BT spray -- used widely by organic farmers -- will kill many varieties of caterpillars, including the Monarch. In addition, conventional insecticide will kill caterpillars, as well as bees and other beneficial insects. As you pointed out earlier, insecticide use for corn has gone UP (you said, "In fact, insecticide treatments in US corn production, according to USDA data, have INCREASED since 1995.")

So, since 1) spraying has gone up for corn, 2) spraying is done all year, and 3) spray goes at least as far as pollen, to surrounding milkweed...we can conclude the far greater threat to caterpillars is spraying, BT or otherwise -- just like the scientist said in the NPR interview! So, just where is there a falsehood, unless you think the scientist who did the pollen study is lying?

By the way, I think you've added another sneaky twist here...the EPA doesn't require testing for caterpillar toxicity on any products. Probably with good reason -- almost all caterpillars are very destructive to crops!


(Next, Charles said)
Read your own post Dan. The H34 Bt is not used in insecticide formulas. The formulas they did test affected some mice when inhaled -- not humans, as you suggest. Bt sprays have been used safely for 30 years; Bt plants have been commercially grown for less than 5, yet we already have evidence of their potential for adverse impact.

(My comment)
"NOPE!" The study says that commercial BT spray kills mice too -- here's the direct quote, "Commercial strains of Bt tested by the researchers also killed some mice or caused lung inflammation when inhaled." In addition, the new H34 BT is a mutation which can make things all the worse, and there is always a small chance that some could creep in! The "precautionary principle" says we should avoid BT spray altogether. Don't you agree death to mice and infection of humans is worse than possible injury to butterflies? But then again, maybe not?!? I repeat my demand for Greenpeace to call for a ban on BT spray, to protect the environment, and people as well!

(Finally, another comment from me)
Here's a quiz question for you, Charles:
"Why has pesticide spraying gone up for corn over the past few years?"

Thanks to the farmer who posted. By the way, I graduated from Iowa State University.

I do have some things to say about Roundup Ready crops, but I'd like to stay on the topic of BT for a bit longer, especially noting the new report about the dangers of BT spray, used widely by organic and traditional farmers. Note, from the story I posted earlier, "commercial strains of Bt (spray) tested by the researchers also killed some mice or caused lung inflammation when inhaled."

Obviously, such BT spray will kill caterpillars (Monarchs, et. al) quite effectively, more so than the BT corn pollen. However, now we know the BT spores from spraying can infect and kill mice, according to the study. This also means BT spray will kill creatures in or near the field, such as birds or rabbits. And what about spray drift to humans? The H34 strain is lethal, and we can never be sure when that strain might show up in BT spray...BT spray could even cause a plague.

Importantly, it is the BT BACTERIA that cause these additional problems, NOT the BT toxin itself. Therefore, in the case of BT crops (such as the corn), there is no such problem. This is because the BT crops contain only the gene which produces the BT toxin to kill the insects, which has been proven to be safe. On the other hand, the BT spray contains ENTIRE LIVE bacteria, which can infect animals and people, possibly even resulting in death.

What this all means is that we should not be deploying BT via bacteria, since it can have unpredictable and deadly consequences, and affects a wider number of creatures than previously thought, including humans. The controversial BT corn is much safer in this respect; the other crops such as cotton and potatoes (which don't carry the BT pollen risk to butterflies) are perhaps the best uses of BT yet made.

I'll get on the Roundup subject soon; however, I feel in-depth discussions are much more appropriate on these topics than simple "canned laundry lists"...

To Charles Margulis:
I noticed Greenpeace called for a ban on BT corn in Europe, based on the butterfly experiment. When will Greenpeace call for a ban on BT spray due to the new evidence that it can infect and kill animals and humans? The public deserves to be protected on this count, infectious spray is way more dangerous than BT corn pollen, since many more creatures (and humans) could be killed or injured. We're waiting for Greenpeace to protect us on this important matter.

Dan

In reply to Dan's latest:

There's nothing sneaky about asking EPA to do its job. They are required to do an environmental impact assessment BEFORE approving new products. These assessments regularly take into account impacts on non-target species.

I really don't understand your reply to my comment re: H34 Bt. I agree that the study found effects on some mice, by a strain of Bt that is not used as a pesticide. That's what I said.

Regarding Bt corn: according to USDA figures for 1998, just 2% of all corn acreage in the US was sprayed for corn borer, the target pest of Bt. Monsanto claims that because Bt corn was planted on 15 million acres last year, it eliminated insecticide use on 15 million acres. Even if one assumes that ALL the farmers who sprayed for corn borer switched to Bt corn, the plant would have reduced insecticide use (not eliminated, as Bt crops are still sprayed for other pests) on at most 1.4 million acres (2% of 71 million acres).

Overall insecticide use for corn has gone up, not the use of Bt spraying for corn. This is the falsehood you keep repeating. Bt sprays won't effect monarchs in cornfields because Bt isn't sprayed in cornfields.

Dan keeps repeating Monsanto's propaganda, which confuses all insecticide use with a specific use of a specific product. Noit surprising, since Monsanto seems to be his main source of information.

Obviously Dan and I disagree, and I respect his right to have a different opinion. I am unconvinced of the usefulness of repeating myself over and over in response to him, so I will leave this discussion to others.

Charles is getting exposed as a snake, and is fleeing. What a coward!

(Charles said)
I really don't understand your reply to my comment re: H34 Bt. I agree that the study found effects on some mice, by a strain of Bt that is not used as a pesticide. That's what I said.

(My comment)
WRONG CHARLES! Now you are playing dumb; otherwise perhaps this explains why you work for a non-profit organization?!? The paragraph is clearly talking about a commercial strain of BT which is sprayed. Once again, a direct quote:
"commercial strains of Bt tested by the researchers also killed some mice or caused lung inflammation when inhaled. The team obtained these strains from Abbott Laboratories, a major supplier of Bt based
in Chicago. Ramisse points out that the strains are sprayed on forest pests at concentrations of 1011 spores per square metre--and so might pose a danger to people in the immediate vicinity."

(Next, Charles said)
Overall insecticide use for corn has gone up, not the use of Bt spraying for corn. This is the falsehood you keep repeating. Bt sprays won't effect monarchs in cornfields because Bt isn't sprayed in cornfields.

(My comment)
You are twisting my words in some attempt to slither by. I asked "Why has pesticide spraying gone up for corn over the past few years?" I did NOT ask what you say. Look up above at my posting.

And you did not answer the question! You are supposed to be an expert on this subject, but you are proving to everyone you are not. Why then do you and your organization run around "educating" the public when you are liars and/or idiots?

Once again, why has pesticide use gone up in corn over the past few years? I'm waiting for an answer from the "expert"...

Just to add a bit of randomness here, let me say that I've never trusted anyone who uses Charles as a first name.

[Great perspective on this issue, from an independent group outside the US.]

(from the story below)
People in wealthier countries such as Britain with their "anxieties about the very small risks" have no right to deny poorer nations the technology that could help them overcome malnutrition and hunger, according to the council.

The Evening Standard (UK)
27 May 1999

West Has 'Moral Duty' To Accept GM Food

A leading group of scientists today backed the Government's stance over genetically modified food, saying that the technology was "hugely promising" and that there was no basis for calling it unnatural or unsafe.

The report - the sixth study of the subject in seven days - is the first authoritative work to support Government ministers against claims by environmentalists and others that GM crops present a huge risk to our food and to the countryside.

The Nuffield Council of Bioethics, a group of independent scientists who look at the moral implications of new medicines and technology, said there was "a compelling moral imperative" to accept GM crops in order to combat world hunger and poverty.

People in wealthier countries such as Britain with their "anxieties about the very small risks" have no right to deny poorer nations the technology that could help them overcome malnutrition and hunger, according to the council.

Third-world farmers could be helped to grow rice enriched with Vitamin A or crops that are salt or drought-resistant, which would do much to combat malnutrition. It could enable farmers in Africa to grow crops in areas where it has previously been impossible to do so, making it easier for local agriculture schemes to flourish.

Today's publication acknowledges the public's unease on the subject, but points out that human beings have been modifying food for thousands of years.

"If we value the ethic of 'to each according to his need', then the introduction of GM crops on a large scale would be a moral imperative," it says. "This is because GM crops might produce more food, or more employment income with which to obtain food, for those who need it most urgently.

"More food for the hungry, unlike tomatoes with a longer shelf-life, is a strong ethical counterweight to set against the concerns of the opponents of GM crops."

However, today's report calls for careful assessment of the needs of developing countries before crop varieties are introduced, so that it does not reduce the demand for labour or affect other plants. And the study is likely to be slated by Friends of the Earth and others for underestimating the risks of genetic modification.

The council, an independent body of scientists, ethics experts and public representatives, calls for a wider assessment of the environ-mental risks, but says there are no grounds for any delay in the commercial growing of crops.

It points out that the technology has great potential to bring us better flavoured and more nutritious food such as vegetables that contain added vitamins, nuts that don't cause allergies, or warm temperature crops that could be grown in Canada or Sweden.

Professor Alan Ryan, chairman of the working party and Warden of New College, Oxford, said: " We think that GM crops are not intrinsically morally suspect. We do not think that GM technology violates nature in ways that other modern plant breeding methods do not.

"But we do think that anyone who does believe that GM food is unnatural and immoral should be able to avoid it."

Charles won't be back. He slithered out before I could crush him under my heel.

He wouldn't acknowledge the study that showed BT spray can harm non-target creatures and people. Yes, that is ORGANIC farmer's spray we are talking about.

He also told me corn pesticide (non-BT) spraying went up recently. He wouldn't acknowledge that this would then affect caterpillars, even though chemical insecticide kills caterpillars, bees, and just about everything else, at nearly 100 percent effectiveness. This is as compared to the 40 percent theoretical kill of monarch larvae by the BT pollen, which Greenpeace cites as an awful risk.

Okay, now that the snake is gone, can anyone else tell me why chemical pesticide use has gone up for corn? This isn't (too much of) a trick question.

Dan

Looks like Greenpeace and Prince Charles are dead wrong. Some brainy people finally did the math.

Note, soil loss is one of the largest problems for the next 20 years. No-till farming, using herbicide is the best way to save soil.

The Guardian (UK)
03 June 1999

Will The World Starve Itself To Death?

Ban genetically modified crops is the war cry in Europe. Tim Radford on the bleak arithmetic which points to a bigger problem of famine.

In the time it takes to read this sentence, the world population will have grown by about five. There will be another 170 people in the world at the end of the next minute. This is because more babies are being born, and fewer old people dying each year.

There are about 240,000 more people in the world today than there were yesterday. The planet's population grows by about 87 million every year. A science watchdog, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, last week warned that there was a "moral imperative" to develop genetically-modified crops - higher-yielding, better-nourishing, more resistant - to feed the extra three billion mouths expected in the next three decades.

Never mind the council's hotly-contested solution, just consider the problem. There are three needs for a harvest: acreage, fertile topsoil - that magic mix of decayed vegetation, rock dust and microorganisms formed at the rate of an inch or so a century - and fresh water. The consensus is that it takes 1.25 acres to provide a sufficient and varied diet for an adult human. Right now, the world average per person is just over two thirds of an acre.

For a while during the so-called Green Revolution food production outpaced population. Yields per acre grew, and the areas under cultivation increased. But the area of harvested cropland reached its peak in 1981, and has been falling ever since: for two reasons. One is that with more people, there is more demand for somewhere to live, which consumes farmland. The other is that farmland is being destroyed by being overworked. The area of grain cropland per person on the planet has shrunk to a sixth of a football field.

The minimum grain diet to keep a vegetarian supplied with bread, rice or cornmeal porridge for a year is 490kg. How much grain you can grow upon a sixth of a football field depends on sunlight, soil and water. The depth of topsoil is critical. The latest estimate, from David Pimentel of Cornell University, New York state, is that farmers are losing 24 billion tons of topsoil every year to wind and water erosion. At this rate, one third of the world's arable land will be depleted within the next 20 years.

In the last 40 years, under pressure to feed much smaller populations, farmers have already abandoned an area equivalent to one third of the present harvest lands. So every year, they walk off 25 million acres of once productive land. But every year, 12 million acres of new land have to be found to feed the 90 million or so new mouths which arrived that year. Most of the world's unfarmed land is either too wet, too dry, too steep or too cold for agriculture, which is why tropical and temperate forests are being cleared at a devastating rate.

The word devastating is appropriate: the forests are home to millions of as-yet undescribed and unnamed species, many of which could provide tomorrow's foods and drugs, and many of which will be extinct in the next few decades. But even as humans colonise new soils, they use them for things other than food. New homes need new bricks, and new tiles, and new roads and sewers, and new landfill sites for rubbish, new pipelines for fuel, new quarries for cement and clay and minerals. About half of all humans will be city dwellers by the year 2000. Humans have become the biggest single earth-moving force on the planet, shifting more soil even than rainfall and rivers.

According to Roger Hooke of the University of Maine, rivers wash 24 billion tons of silt into the sea each year but humans now shift 35 billion tons of soil each year just to make roads, build houses and mine ores. This is six tons per human. So even as the demand for farmland grows, the space available for farms is consumed by, or mortgaged to, cities. This is called the "ecological footprint".

Rich cities have a bigger footprint than poor ones. The ecological footprint for a Londoner is more than seven acres, according to William Rees of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. So there is a need to get more and more food out of less and less farmland.

The Green Revolution was achieved by new rice, wheat and maize hybrids, watered by newly-engineered irrigation systems, fed by artificial fertilisers, protected by pesticides and tilled by oil-burning machines. Although yields are still high, there has been no increase in record yields for 20 years, and grain output per person is falling.

Oil demand will outstrip supply in about 2020, says John Edwards, once chief geologist with Shell Oil. Farmers use 150 million tons of phosphate each year: the world's supplies could run out in 2050. And, far more ominous, there are already problems of water. It takes 1,000 tons of water to grow a ton of wheat. But cities and heavy industry are consuming more water than ever. The Colorado River is dry long before it reaches the sea. China's Yellow river failed to reach the sea for 226 days in 1997: farmers and factories had taken it all.

Gretchen Daily of Stanford University, California, calculates that humans use one quarter of all the rain that falls from heaven and is taken up by plants: one quarter for humans, three quarters for the other 10 million species that share the planet. Half of all the accessible surface freshwater on the planet is consumed by humans. About 17 countries face "absolute" water scarcity. New dams could provide another 10% over the next 30 years, but by then the population will have grown by 45%. That is why the Nuffield Council on Bioethics last week urged the government to race ahead with research on new drought-tolerant, salt-tolerant, pest-resistant, protein-rich crops.

Prince Charles called this argument "emotional blackmail." The charity Christian Aid condemned it, arguing that today's hungry are surrounded by plenty, and that fairer distribution was a more urgent problem. This is true. The Worldwatch Institute in Washington recently calculated that if people in the US simply wasted one third less food each day, it would be enough to feed 25 million people, roughly the population of North Korea, recently in the grip of famine.

But in just under four months, the world would be home to another 25 million people, and four months after than, another 25 million, and so on. Two hundred years ago, Thomas Malthus wrote: "The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man that premature death must in some shape or form visit the human race." Five years ago, David Pimentel of Cornell University pointed out "Based on past experience, we expect that leaders will continue to postpone decisions on the human carrying capacity of the world until the situation becomes intolerable or, worse, irreversible."

Soil erosion is a critical issue to understand. Accoording to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the chief reason for soil erosion worldwide is "the spread of modern, commercial agriculture." For example, Brazil is the next market (after the US) Monsanto is looking to for their Roundup Ready soybeans. The expansion of soybean fields is already a leading cause of rainforest destruction (and consequent soil erosion) in Brazil, as well as displacing subsistence agriculture with a crop primarily used for animal feed for export beef -- while 5-6 million Brazilians starve to death each year. Monsanto's engineered crop is a prescription for more hunger and environmental destruction, not a solution.

Dan has referred to me as "sneaky" and "a snake." I identified myself in my first post, while Dan uses information from Monsanto press releases and passes it off as his independent fact checking. I'll leave it to readers here to judge who has been more forthcoming.

And on the subject of "independent" perspectives, here's some background on the Nuffield Council's "independent" (according to Dan) findings.

The following are key members of the Nuffield panel:

i) Professor Mike Gale FRS: biotechnologist and director of the The John Innes Centre (JIC), the UK's leading plant biotech centre. The JIC has recently entered into a deal with biotech giants Zeneca and DuPont
guaranteeing it 60-70 million pounds worth of investment. Prof Gale is on record as saying that a prolonged moratorium would be a massive blow to the JIC and the Norwich Research Park and that it would choke off the
grants it is currently getting from industry. Prof Gale has said of a
moratorium, "It would be very, very serious for us."

ii) Professor Derek Burke: former Vice Chancellor of the University of
East Anglia (UEA), former Council member of the John Innes Centre, and Chairman for nearly a decade of the Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes (1988-97), the regulatory body which approved the first GM
foods to come into the UK. Prior to UEA, Prof Burke worked on cloning for a biotech company.

iii) Brian Heap FRS: a leading member of the Royal Society - its 'Foreign Secretary'. Like Burke and Gale, Heap helped produce the Royal Society's report 'Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use’ which was used at an earlier stage to reassure government ministers that there were no significant problems with GE.

Also, this excerpt from the UK Sunday Herald, May 30, 1999 –

GM report 'misleading', say health
campaigners
By Pennie Taylor, health editor

EXCLUSIVE: CONSUMER groups and environmental campaigners have accused a prestigious scientific think-tank of misleading the public and "watering down" its report on genetically modified crops, which was published last week.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has declared that the genetically modified food currently on the market is "safe", and has
criticised the media for whipping up public concern.

But the Sunday Herald understands that key recommendations contained in an earlier
draft of the working party's report were dropped following "fact-finding" meetings with a range of bodies, including leading GM [biotech] firms….

Mr. Margulis, farmers in the US also respond to market forces. In the US it is legal to
plant herbicide tolerant soybeans. In Brazil
it was not legal until recently, too recently
for this growing season. I suspect that if left to choose freely, they would make choices similar to their US counterparts.

Here is a question to you, similar to Mr. Spillane's but more general. Why is there a
difference in Greenpeace's position on
crops whose genetics is manipulated using
genetic engineering, versus crops (or
bacteria) whose genetics is manipulated by
old methods? Certainly our experience with
organisms transported from distant parts of the world shows that they can run wild and transform an ecology -- something that has not happened with genetically engineered
organisms. And it is less likely to happen with genetically engineered organisms precisely because they are subjected to special scrutiny.

Please don't give me the argument that this is a new technology and scientists don't really understand it. That is far more the
case with the old gene modification technologies, e.g. hybridization and
selection.

[I picked out some of the most interesting items from the recent Nuffield report, the entire document is huge. Incidentally, so much for Monsanto being a giant which controls world agriculture -- with THREE percent of the worlds seed!]

Selected sections from "Nuffield Council on Bioethics Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical And Social Issues" 27 May 1999

("Organic" food is tiny)
The primitive ancestors of almost all modern food crops are barely recognisable to the lay person; maize ears, for instance, were half an inch long rather than the eight or nine inches of their modern descendants.

(Monsanto the "food giant")
The fact that Monsanto supplies only three percent of the world's seed (10) belies the image of a new industrial revolution sweeping through agriculture under the impetus of a few multinationals. A well-informed consensus on the facts would resolve some of the arguments and reduce some of the public unease.

("Industrial agriculture")
There is a further defence of a morally conservative view of the environment to be considered. It stems from the notoriously difficult philosopher, Heidegger, (18) but its appeal is wide. His idea is that the world possesses a meaning that we can only understand if we approach the world in a receptive mode, in the way the poet, the artist or the traditional peasant does, not in an 'industrial' way. On Heidegger's view, technology is a moral disaster. We become manipulators of things and lose touch with their sense. It does not follow that no use of the natural world is permissible or worthwhile, but many are not. All forms of industrialised agriculture are culturally impoverishing and GM crops would be another step further down an already disastrous road. This may be so, but there seems little justification in banning GM crops on these grounds when the rest of society travels so substantially in the direction Heidegger opposed.

1.50. There is obviously a need to ensure that agriculture follows a sustainable path, so that the immense productivity gains that have been secured in the post-war period in the developed world are not purchased at the cost of loss of agricultural resources for the future. However, this is not the same as saying that it is possible to return to a previous, often highly romanticised, form of agriculture. Industrial methods, in some form or another, are here to stay. Concern for the poor and dispossessed in, say, Russia or sub-Saharan Africa, mean that the developed world must recognise that there are likely to be difficult choices to be made in the less developed world's search for the same productivity gains in agriculture that the developed world now enjoys.

(Insect-resistance genes have been in crops for some time.)
For example, breeders have been using disease- and pest-resistance genes for decades. In effect, the new insect-resistance genes (6) are unlikely to be different from insect-resistance genes already in use, such as the leafhopper resistance used in rice or hessian fly resistance in wheat. 'Natural' tolerance to herbicides was used in maize in the late 1980s, and again, very recently, in Pioneer Hi-bred's 'Smart Canola'. (7) The new GM crops which are tolerant to Roundup (8) are unlikely to be different in their effects on the environment. Thus, although GM crops may pose novel pressures on the environment there is, as yet, no reason to consider GM varieties as qualitatively different from non-GM varieties.

(New species have already been created, Triticale)
2.7. At the current stage of its development, genetically modified or transgenic technology does not offer the means of targeting where transgenes are integrated into the chromosomes; integration into the plant chromosomes appears to be more or less random. However, conventional plant breeding is usually a matter of putting two sets of about 25,000 genes together, allowing them to segregate at random and then selecting the best. Indeed, entirely new species have been manufactured using this approach. An example is Triticale, a synthetic hybrid between wheat and rye grown extensively in Eastern Europe over this century, which is the result of combining 50,000 largely untested genes, 25,000 from each species.

("Untested" technology?)
2.42. During the period from 1986 to 1997, approximately 25,000 transgenic crop field trials were conducted on more than 60 crops with 10 traits in 45 countries. No adverse effects on food safety or the environment have been noted, relative to production in non-GM current varieties. Of this total of 25,000, 15,000 field trials were conducted during the first 10-year period and 10,000 in the last two-year period. Seventy-two per cent of all transgenic field trials were conducted in the US and Canada. By the end of 1997, 48 transgenic crop products, involving 12 crops and six traits, were approved for commercialisation in at least one country by 22 owners of technology, of which 20 were private-sector operators. (23) The crops include soybean, cotton, oilseed rape, potato, maize, tomato and pumpkins, and the traits insect, virus and herbicide tolerance, delayed ripening, male sterility and changes in oil composition (Table 2.1).

(Already life-saving rice developed using biotech, and more)
4.18. Apart from under-nutrition, it could well prove feasible to greatly reduce malnutrition through the development of micronutrient-rich GM crops (such as the Vitamin A-enriched rice developed by the Rockefeller Rice Biotechnology Programme). Vitamin A deficiency affects over 200 million people and over 14 million children have consequent eye damage. Iron deficiency affects some two billion (2100 million) people, impairing physical and mental work and increasing risks in pregnancy. Iodine deficiency affects some 1100–1500 million people, of whom over 600 million are goitrous. (18)

4.29. Despite the small amount of GM research resources devoted to developing-country agriculture, there is ample evidence that GM crops could significantly improve nutrition in developing countries. For example, researchers in Mexico have inserted a gene which enables crop plants to secrete citric acid from their roots. This increases their tolerance to aluminium toxicity, which affects a significant proportion of arable land, and which often reduces yields by over 30%, and sometimes by as much as 80%. In GM rice, inserting genes from two wild rice relatives into the best performing Chinese rice hybrids has raised yields by 20-40%. Research funded by the Rockefeller Foundation has produced a GM rice variety resistant to the tungro virus; very promising GM vitamin A-enriched rice varieties, and a tissue which is giving up to 25% higher yields in China. (32) Other GM crop examples relevant to developing countries include potato varieties bred in Peru with stable multigene resistance to late blight, (33) a wild wheat cross yielding 18 tonnes/ha (34) and virus-resistant sweet potatoes in Kenya, conservatively estimated to raise yields by 15%. (35,36)

Members of the Working Party
Professor Alan Ryan (Chairman) is Warden of New College, University of Oxford
Professor Derek Burke CBE is a former Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia and was Chairman of the Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes (1988-97)
Professor Mike Gale FRS is Director, The John Innes Centre, Norwich
Professor Brian Heap CBE FRS is Master of St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge, Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society and a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Miss Prue Leith OBE is Vice President of the Royal Society of Arts
Ms Julie Hill is Programme Adviser to the Green Alliance, an environmental charity and is a member of ACRE (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) until June 1999
Professor Steve Hughes is the Unilever Research Professor at the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter
Professor Michael Lipton is at the Poverty Research Unit, University of Sussex
Mr Derek Osborn CB is Chairman of the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development, Cha

Welcome back, Charles.

(Charles said)
Soil erosion is a critical issue to understand. Accoording to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the chief reason for soil erosion worldwide is "the spread of modern, commercial agriculture." For example, Brazil is the next market (after the US) Monsanto is looking to for their Roundup Ready soybeans. The expansion of soybean fields is already a leading cause of rainforest destruction (and consequent soil erosion)

(My comment)
I'm glad to see we can agree on something. Specifically, given a deficit of arable farmland in other parts of the world, it's true that Brazil is more than happy to meet increased demand. And as you point out, rainforest (or cerrado) will be dug out to do this.

Given this, don't you think it is wise to encourage Brazil to use techniques which conserve soil and land, which are viable within Brazil's shaky economy? No-till farming is the best answer in this case, using herbicide-tolerant crops.

Moreover, because Greenpeace's has paved the way to set up new trade channels between European food giants and (so-called) "gene-free" crop growers in Brazil, they are actually contributing to development in Brazil. Yep! The EU giants are steering away from the US, and towards Brazilian suppliers. Also, Greenpeace and the EU are removing the choice of the Brazilian farmers to plant no-till soy, compounding the problem, because of soil loss. Going forward, even more environmentally friendly (and economically viable) crops may be precluded due to Greenpeace's meddling.

So it appears that in the case of Brazil, Greenpeace is contributing to the problem of deforestation, rather than helping. I'm sure they didn't intend to do this, but because they don't understand all the complex variables involved in agriculture and world trade, they really screwed up when they started on soy campaign.

As for the Nuffield panel, and any connections with industry, it is to be expected. There is a normal interchange between the private, corporate, and academic sectors in all research-oriented fields. In fact, this is one of the things allows the world to move forward. Shall we put kindergarten teachers on NASA scientific boards?

There is no point in attacking the composition of a panel anyway, if the facts hold up. Why divert focus from the issues at hand?

(Also, charled posted)
GM report 'misleading', say health
campaigners
By Pennie Taylor, health editor
EXCLUSIVE: CONSUMER groups and environmental campaigners have accused a prestigious scientific think-tank

(My comment)
C-R-E-D-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y, and comprehensive perspective are the key. The above headline is humorous.

Scientific groups rely on specific methods to arrive at conclusions. On the other hand, consumer and environmental groups "accuse" for emotional reasons, often unrelated to any logic or perspective.

I wasn't attacking the composition of the panel, merely pointing out the fallacy Dan promotes that this is an "independent" body.

As for soybeans in Brazil, if there's a growing market for non-GE soybeans, it's the biotech companies that have created it, not Greenpeace. Our campaign is a response to THEIR meddling in the complex interplay of world trade. They knew that people didn't want to eat genetically engineered food (there were numerous surveys that showed this), yet they decided they could force feed the world. Farmers in Brazil aren't forced by Greenpeace to do anything; rather, they are responding to a situation created by the biotech industry.

Charles, the problem is we need to BAN everyone's corn and only grow MONSANTO's -- your favorite company. Why don't you quit your non-profit job, and take up one selling this "butterfly-saving" Monsanto corn?

[Monsanto's corn SAVES the butterfly, it DOESN'T have the BT in the pollen.]

"DEKALB Genetics, now owned by Monsanto, developed hybrids with the DBT 418 event, marketed under the BtXtra brand. In these the Bt Cry1Ab toxin gene is used. This produces a slightly different toxin with different insect specificity, and it is not expressed in pollen, but only in the leaf, kernel, stalk and silk."

(Full story)
The Bowditch Group
03 June 1999

Bt Corn And Monarch Butterflies

Cornell University researchers, in a letter to the journal Nature, May 20 issue, reported that pollen from Bt corn harmed monarch butterfly larvae in laboratory tests. In the Cornell study, one group of monarch (Danaus plexippus) caterpillars fed on milkweed (Asclepias curassavica) leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn, another group fed on milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from non-genetically-modified corn, and a third group fed on leaves without added pollen. The researchers found that the caterpillars that ate leaves with pollen from the Bt corn ate less, grew more slowly and died sooner. Results were similar to those reported earlier by Hansen and Obrycki (http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/d81.html) who used leaves collected in corn fields. The Cornell researchers (Losey, Rayor and Carter, who can be contacted at jel27@cornell.edu) collected pollen and applied it to lab-raised milkweed leaves.

The Cornell researchers used pollen from Novartis Seeds' hybrid N4640-Bt, which contains the Cry1Ac Bt gene in Monsanto's Bt11 event, sold under the YieldGard brand. The hybrid is designed to be resistant to European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis), a common and destructive pest of corn (Zea mays). In Bt hybrids using this event, Bt toxin is produced at high levels, throughout the growing season, in the leaves, pollen, tassel, silk and kernel. This provides excellent corn borer resistance, but as the Cornell researchers discovered strong expression of the toxin gene in pollen may lead to effects on non-target insects.

Other commercial Bt corn varieties have been developed and are being marketed by a number of different companies. Although the Bt11 event and the very similar Mon 810 event, both sold under the YieldGard brand, are widely used, there are other events with different characteristics. DEKALB Genetics, now owned by Monsanto, developed hybrids with the DBT 418 event, marketed under the BtXtra brand. In these the Bt Cry1Ab toxin gene is used. This produces a slightly different toxin with different insect specificity, and it is not expressed in pollen, but only in the leaf, kernel, stalk and silk.

Bt corn was also developed by Ciba (now part of Novartis) and Mycogen (now part of Dow AgroSciences) called KnockOut or NatureGard. This also contains the toxin gene Cry1Ab, but in the event 176. In hybrids with this event, green pollen and stalk tissue produce the Bt toxin. The toxin level in tissue is high early in the growing season, and declines rapidly as the growing season progresses. This may mean that pollen of these hybrids would be harmless to monarchs, but at the same time the corn plant is exposed to more potential damage from late-season feeding by corn borers. However Hansen (lrhansen@iastate.edu ) tells us that the Bt pollen in her study was from Novartis' hybrid MAX 454, which uses the 176 event. It will be interesting to see how her continuation of this research comes out this year.

AgrEvo has recently introduced its Bt event, based on the Cry9c toxin gene. This event is also strongly expressed throughout the plant for the full growing season, but may have different specific toxicity to monarchs than the Cry1Ab toxin.

Thus there are several variables in the Bt hybrids themselves that will affect whether their pollen might be harmful to monarchs (butterflies, that is): the specific Bt toxin expressed, the location of expression, and the timing of expression. Since monarch larvae feed only on milkweed, they will only be exposed to Bt toxin if it is deposited on the leaves of milkweed plants.

Although corn is wind-pollinated, and its pollen may travel considerable distances, the vast majority of corn pollen falls very close to the plant that sheds it. The transport of corn pollen is well understood, since production of hybrid corn seed depends on cross-pollination between pollen-shedding plants and ear-bearing ones. To get adequate yields of seed these generally cannot be placed more than several meters apart. Also, it is important in hybrid seed production to isolate the production of a specific hybrid from sources of pollen of other parents, to avoid off-types in the seed product. The isolation distances necessary to reduce off-types to very low levels are well known. Research to learn the amounts of pollen that might be deposited on milkweeds by corn is under way (see Hansen and Obrycki).

Monarch butterflies are very widely distributed, in their summer breeding range. They feed on milkweed plants in open meadows and grasslands from Southern Canada south through all of the United States, Central America, and most of South America. They are also present in Australia, Hawaii, and other Pacific islands. Those in North America overwinter as adults in California and in central Mexico, and these overwintering habitats are seriously threatened. According to recent studies about half the monarchs in North America hatch and feed as larvae in a band from Nebraska to Ohio, which coincides with the "corn belt" (see Wassenaar and Hobson ,PNAS 1998 95: 15436-15439).

Milkweed is regarded as a noxious weed by farmers, and weed-control practices generally prevent it from growing among crops in fields. There are many herbicides used in field crops such as corn, soybeans and cotton that will kill milkweed. In fact, the advent of herbicide-tolerant crops, with the more complete weed control they can provide, has been noted as another potential threat to milkweed populations (see Hartzler at http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/monarchs.htm ).

Since weed control costs money, farmers do not control weeds growing where they will have no economic effect. Thus milkweed might not be welcome in a field, but is widespread in disturbed sites such as roadsides, fallow fields, uncultivated areas, and field boundaries.

Industry officials have called the Cornell study inconclusive because the researchers did not precisely measure the amount of pollen that was put on the milkweed leaves. The researchers reported that pollen density was set to visually match densities on milkweed leaves collected from corn fields, and that pollen was applied by gently tapping a spatula of pollen over milkweed leaves that had been lightly misted with water.

There are a number of other variables that should be considered. The Bt toxin is notoriously unstable to UV light. It breaks down very rapidly in sunlight. Is this also true for Bt toxin in pollen grains? What fraction of monarch larvae would be exposed to corn pollen, considering that in any specific region the corn is shedding pollen for only a week to ten days each year. If monarch larvae are emerging and feeding during that time, and no other, that would suggest a greater potential impact than if larvae emerge over a longer period, or at a different time. The laboratory studies used laboratory-raised larvae and deliberately exposed them to heavy pollen loads.

According to Dr. Val Giddings, Vice President of Food and Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Association, ''Monarch migration and egg laying pattern ensure that the primary period of larval feeding and growth throughout nearly all the Monarch range takes place well before any nearby corn produces pollen. Ongoing monitoring of Bt corn fields by companies since their introduction further shows that very little pollen lands on adjacent milkweed plants. . . . Ongoing monitorig

The caterpillars wouldn't want to eat pollen anyway, according to this scientist:

* Jeremy Rifkin (Commentary, June 1) took a giant leap by suggesting that a laboratory study with monarch butterflies justifies a worldwide ban on agricultural biotechnology.
The study showed that when monarch caterpillars eat enough pollen from corn containing a bacterial gene, they can be adversely affected. However, the study also showed that caterpillars apparently don't like to eat corn pollen, with or without the gene.
In the laboratory, the caterpillars had no choice during four days of observation. Two groups were fed milkweed covered with pollen (genetically modified or normal) and another had undusted leaves. Caterpillars on the plain milkweed started eating sooner and ate more leaves than either group that had to eat pollen. This suggests that in their natural setting the monarchs would steer clear of pollen on their only food--milkweed leaves.
Caterpillars should have no trouble avoiding corn pollen in their natural environment. Milkweeds have many large leaves and tend to grow in clumps. If the top leaves were dusted by windblown pollen, the caterpillars could simply feed on lower leaves or move to another plant. Furthermore, monarchs prefer mature milkweeds, which are more commonly found in ditches, forest edges and stream banks remote from production fields.
In nature, timing is everything. For any harm to occur, the caterpillars have to be present during the brief time when corn is pollinating. They have to consume the pollen before rain washes it away.
WARREN DOUGLAS
STEVENS PhD, Senior Curator
Missouri Botanical Garden
St. Louis

http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/COMMENT/t000051344.html

[[ Now you are playing dumb; otherwise perhaps this explains why you work for a non-profit organization?!?]] DanSpillane


What was the point of this idiotic and obnoxious aside?

Trace the message history...

I made a point twice, related to a specific item in a report, and the individual in question was not reading the words as they were printed on paper. Got a little frustrating.

Dan
(You posted)
[[ Now you are playing dumb; otherwise perhaps this explains why you work for a non-profit organization?!?]] DanSpillane

What was the point of this idiotic and obnoxious aside?

Inherently, I find no problem with GE crops. The world does, though: see the May 24 issue of Barron's, where the Commodities Corner column points out that a tiered market for GE crops is developing, where commodity crops are commanding a premium over GE crops. So the market may soon eliminate GE crops from commercial production, because of the vast mistrust of GE foods that exists out there.
GE does solve a problem, though, and does so in a reasonably safe way. The problem is insecticides and their widespread use in agriculture, and GE does provide a solution. BT-engineered crops are only the beginning, as Monsanto itself has hinted. I have no doubt that crops able to resist multiple pests are being developed, and that these would materially reduce the amount of insecticide used in farming.
All new technologies, to be accepted, have to pass two tests: they have to solve a problem, and do so economically. BT-engineered crops solve a pest problem and an insecticide-use problem, and do so in a way that has been economical up until now, or it would not have found a market.
We spend huge amounts of time and energy debating what farmers should do, a subject on which most of us are completely ignorant, and very little on looking at what the vast majority of us do, as homeowners.
The largest problem we face in soil use, insecticide, herbicide and fertilizer use, and water waste, is not in agriculture but in our own backyards. Literally in our own backyards. Suburban gardeners use more water, insecticide, herbicide, and fertilizer per acre than farmers do. Mostly, they are used for lawns. Virtually 100% of the products and water used are wasted. Here's why:

1 - If you're growing a lawn where you get enough water to grow one, then all you have to do is mulch when you mow instead of bagging, and you will cut back on the amount you have to water tremendously. If you don't get enough water in your area to grow a lawn, don't grow one. Use some other ground cover.
2 - The effect of the above can be multiplied if you grow a few trees. Their shade will protect your lawn from the sun and will suppress weeds. Strategically placed, they'll also help with your air-conditioning bills. And they won't block you from throwing a Frisbee or batting a ball around or anything else if you do apply a little thought as to their placement.
3 - Mulching will provide your lawn with most of the nutrients it needs to grow. You will have to supplement occasionally with fertilizer if you want perfect green, but it will be far less than you would otherwise need.
4 - Cutting your lawn at the highest setting on your mower, instead of in the middle or the lowest setting, will allow your grass to grow deep roots that will allow it to last longer between waterings and will help, once again, in the suppression of weeds.

I have proven all of these things to myself. I live in a house surrounded by five fully grown maple trees. I never water, I always mulch, and have very few weeds despite never having used a herbicide. The grass looks great, and I rarely turn on the air-conditioning.
The problem lies not with the farmers, who are doing what they must to earn a living and feed us. The problem, instead, is staring back at each and every one of us suburban homeowners every time we look in the mirror.

Trace the message history...
I made a point twice, related to a specific item in a report, and the individual in question was not reading the words as they were printed on paper. Got a little frustrating.

Dan
(You posted)
[[ Now you are playing dumb; otherwise perhaps this explains why you work for a non-profit organization?!?]] DanSpillane

What was the point of this idiotic and obnoxious aside? >>

Well, I knew it was a swipe at his smarts, I was just wondering about it's basis in working for non-profits( yes, I "get" the idea, false, of a profit-seeking concern being more rigorous in hiring).

>see the May 24 issue of Barron's, where the
>Commodities Corner column points out that
>a tiered market for GE crops is developing,
>where commodity crops are commanding a
>premium over GE crops. So the market may
>soon eliminate GE crops from commercial
>production, because of the vast mistrust
>of GE foods that exists out there.

I saw that article too. Your conclusions are off track though. It's interesting how this was reported in Barron's, because I know more about what they are talking about than Barron's does.

The major case where so-called "non-genetic" crops are being sold at a premium to European customers is in the case of soy ("DuPont STS") -- I believe the amount is over ten million acres. Ironically, although it is being labeled as "non-genetic", it is indeed genetically modified to be herbicide tolerant, just like the Monsanto Roundup-Ready variety! The only difference is they used some science other than genetic engineering to get the herbicide-resistant genes into the soy plant -- according to the US government, these "other" scientific methods include use of radiation or chemicals. Is that safer than genetic engineering?!? What a joke on the Europeans, they are paying a premium for genetically modified soy! And my understanding is that the STS soy requires MORE herbicide, which DOES NOT even make up for the premium as compared to the Monsanto soybeans! And how does the use of more herbicide affect the environment?

This story is really funny, and I am surprised no one else has picked up on it yet.

How Greenpeace/fascism works:

(From article describing tactics of fascists, link below)

"Books, videotapes, and audiotapes can function as recruitment devices either for a naive audience, or to bring committed members of groups to a higher level. All three of these media have the capacity to present what appears to be reasoned argumentation based on what appears to be a factual foundation. Their persuasiveness relies on the ability of the author to render half-truths and outright falsifications in such a light that the conclusions appear to be irrefutable."

[Should add "Internet" to "books, videotapes, and audiotapes" in sentence above. - Dan]

(Full article)
ftp://ftp.nyct.net/pub/users/tallpaul/docs/tactics/tac014.txt

Have you people ever heard of evolution? Mother natures splices genes all the time. Where do you think you came from? A cabbage patch? Every time you catch cold, viruses patch their genetic code into some of your cells to make baby viruses. Bacteria, even of different species, get together and swap genes all the time.

What's amazing about the gene-splicing industry is not how many harmful by-products they've developed, but how few. Genetic engineering represents hope not only for profits, but probably the only realistic hope of curing diseases like AIDS and cancer, not to mention genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis.

Get a grip.

:::::::::: sigh ::::::::: Those of you who have "THE" answer scare me because you really have no answer and will never get one.
Knowledge has never been successfully stamped out or stopped. Dr Tom's attitude should become more the norm.
:::::: soap box back under desk :::::::::

BBC/UK Peanut allergy athlete dies/Friday, June 18, 1999

[This was a good-looking guy with so much potential. I am posting this for two reasons. Firstly, to warn those that may be allergic to peanuts -- your tongue swells up and you can die within minutes. Secondly, because one of the things they are working on using genetic engineering is peanut plants -- to remove the deadly allergen chemical, so that things like this won't happen.]

Ross Baillie: A bright prospect

Scottish hurdler Ross Baillie has died in hospital after suffering a severe allergic reaction.
Baillie, 21, who was allergic to peanuts, collapsed with anaphylactic shock after eating a chicken sandwich during a break in training in Bath.

The BBC's Jane O'Brien: "One of Britain's most promising athletes"
The Scottish senior record holder and finalist in the 110m hurdles in last year's Commonwealth Games, was taken to the Royal United Hospital in Bath where he died at 1100 on Friday.

Baillie was with international swimmer Mark Foster during training on Wednesday and both chose a sandwich with a coronation chicken filling for lunch.

Minutes after he bit into his sandwich, Baillie realised there were peanuts in it as his tongue started to swell and he began coughing.

Colin Jackson: Athlete's mentor
He was taken to doctors at the nearby University of Bath where he was given an adrenalin injection before being taken to hospital where he failed to regain consciousness.

His mother Sheila and father Hugh, who were both athletics stars, travelled from their home in Clydebank and were at his bedside when he died.

The athlete was training alongside hurdler Colin Jackson and his coach Malcolm Arnold and had been sharing a flat with Jackson.

Baillie broke the Scottish record for the 110m hurdles at the Commonwealth Games in 1998.

He was a member of the Victoria Park Athletic Club in Glasgow and twice broke the 60m hurdles record during the winter.

Natural successor

Welshman Jackson considered Baillie his natural successor in the 110m hurdles race and tipped him to run under 13.20 secs this year, which would have put him among the world's best male hurdlers.

He was due to take part in an international competition at Mannheim in Germany at the weekend, in the run-up to the European Junior Championships in Finland this summer, where he was tipped to win gold.

A spokeswoman for the hospital said: "Ross Baillie tragically died in the intensive care unit at 1100 today. His family were at his bedside.

"The staff in the Intensive Care Unit who cared for him over the last three days wish to extend their deepest sympathy to his family and friends."

Director of Sport at the University of Bath, Ged Roddy, said: "Ross Baillie was a talented young athlete and very popular with us all here. We are devastated by his loss and he will be greatly missed."

Sandy Sutherland: "One of Scotland's brightest prospects"
Leading Scottish athletics journalist Sandy Sutherland described the news as "horrific" and said it will "throw a huge gloom" over this weekend's competition.

He said: "He was one of our brightest prospects and was all set to go to this year's World Championships.

Chris Baillie: Following family tradition
"He had already broken the Scottish record, his own record and was looking forward to getting a qualifying time for the Olympics in Sydney next year."

"But athletics is a minor consideration when you think of the effect this will have on his family," he added.

David Joy, Chief Executive of the Scottish Athletics Federation, said staff and officials were "devastated".

He said: "Ross was a young man who was liked by everyone who met him and had a life full of opportunity in front of him.

"The Baillie family is heavily involved in Scottish athletics and this news will sadden the whole sport."

Baillie's younger brother Chris has been tipped to follow in his footsteps and has broken all of his junior records.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sport/newsid_371000/371534.stm

Yesterday, DrTom wrote:

"Bacteria, even of different species, get together and swap genes all the time."

Really? First I've heard of it. All the bacteria I know reproduce asexually.

There *is* actually scientific evidence which shows that bacteria can transfer genes without having sex. However, it may only be to certain "receptor" sites, according to other documentation. Bacteria don't turn into other bacteria...plants...or cows.

This helps explain why antibiotic resistance is fairly widespread -- it's possible that even your yogurt bacteria have antibiotic resistance which they got from other bacteria.

(You posted)
Yesterday, DrTom wrote:
"Bacteria, even of different species, get together and swap genes all the time."

Really? First I've heard of it. All the bacteria I know reproduce asexually.

"Life is worth more than peanuts"
[Cross-post from an environmental discussion group.]

AS FOR PEANUTS, and Earon's comments. Yes indeed, there are US researchers working on removing the peanut allergy gene from peanuts using genetic engineering -- I have this from two separate, reliable sources. I can pursue this further, to find out where this is being done. Also, I have found evidence that suggests they are able to identify allergens by both molecular structure, and causative gene. This explains why they can both make peanuts non-allergenic, and ensure new crops developed won't be an allergy problem -- but they only screen in this way for genetically engineered crops, from the sources I have seen. Moreover, I also need to relate this to my personal experience, which is why I noticed the story in the first place.

You see, I suffer from two food allergies that I know of -- fortunately, my reactions have been moderate so far. And I do appreciate your comments on epinephrine. But I can also tell you, in both cases when I had my first allergic reaction, it came on suddenly and unexpectedly, to things which were already in my diet. So it's not like I would have known to have a shot of epinephrine ready; in fact, in both cases I didn't figure out what was happening until afterwards. And I understand that allergies of this type show up in other people spontaneously. Now, my reactions are NOT to peanuts, which I love to eat. Rather, my allergies are to certain types of cider, and kiwi fruits. The cider is fairly easy to avoid, but kiwi fruits seem to be showing up all over the place, including in healthy juices I want to buy. In fact, recently I learned that kiwis have all kinds of fancy chemicals inside, which bother other people as well.

My point is, if food such as peanuts did not have the gene for the potentially deadly allergen, it could make all the difference between life and death, since allergies can pop up suddenly. And as a practical concern, when I first encountered my cider allergy, I was in a crowded bar where I could barely get out of -- I went home coughing and sneezing, and broke out in a rash all over. In retrospect, there was little chance that I could have even gotten a shot. If the allergic reaction were more severe, I would not be here right now typing this. My understanding is that peanut allergies tend to be severe compared to other food allergies. Good thing for me.

Finally, back to the promising UK athlete that died. I find it particularly disturbing (and quite sad) that the UK has spent millions (tens…hundreds of millions, more?) on labeling "GM" food, which has shown no more risk than food created through more conventional means. In fact, in the UK they even have a large fine on restaurants that do not label GM food on menus. On the other hand, they freely serve food to people containing peanuts -- which can kill, but there is no requirement for labeling. What causes this kind of complete and utter nonsense? Look what it resulted in. The bottom line is if you are going to spend money on labeling, make sure it is going to do some good.

Dan

(PREVIOUS POSTINGS FOLLOW) *****************************************************************************************
Friends:
Having had some public health training, I feel obligated to provide a more
accurate picture of peanut allergy than was presented in the excerpt Dan
sent. First, people who suffer anaphylactic allergic reactions to peanut
should always have something called an "Epi-Pen" around. It is a device that
will administer a life-saving dose of epinephrine in the type of tragic
situation from Britain. These devices can and should be available from all
paramedics and emergency rooms. The problem is that by the time someone is
transported to a clinic or emergency room while in anaphylaxis, it may be too
late to administer epinephrine there.

Second, peanut is far from the only source of allergic anaphylactic
responses. Shellfish is one of the most prominent of many others, like
sulfiting agents in salad bars. There are at least four answers to these
types of serious problem. None involves the grossly inappropriate and
grandiose aim of genetically engineering all life forms on the planet in
order to supposedly reduce their ability to cause anaphylaxis. First,
epinephrine should be more readily available as an emergency treatment -
especially when these "Epi-Pens" are on the market and already widely
available. At some point, they could be mandated for all food sellers and
caterers to have, as they are not expensive.

Second, food manufacturers and preparers should use common sense and not use
foods like peanut and peanut oil or shellfish, etc., which is the present
trend. For example, institutional food producers in my area seem to have
largely eliminated peanut and peanut oil from many product lines, especially
foods sold to school cafeterias. This is an outcome that can and should be
driven by concerns about liability as well as ethics.

Third, foods that are highly allergenic, like peanut and shellfish, must not
be used in food products which are not labeled - or where the food does not
appear in the name of the dish (e.g., shrimp salad). The absurd proposal of
genetically engineering foods to remove allergenic properties, which I do not
believe is even on the table, would only result in delays for implementation
of these important public health measures. Of course, the peanut growers
associations will push for this research rather than loose market share to
other foods that are less likely to kill people.

Fourth, there needs to be research into how to prevent people from developing
anaphylactic allergies - and into why these problems are increasing. Are
they resulting from one of the myriad other ways in which our environment has
been polluted and manipulated in order to increase someone's profits?

One of the major criticisms about current plans for genetically engineering
foods is that something like the peanut genes responsible for anaphylaxis
(and we probably don't know which ones are) will be spliced into other foods,
thus making them capable of causing anaphylactic reactions to even more
unsuspecting people. We don't even know that these genes can be isolated or
that they won't result in different allergens developing.

If there is one lesson to be learned from all of this it is that a little
knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the hands of people who think they know
everything (aka businesses exploiting cutting edge "science"). The debate
about genetic engineering is not a game. It doesn't matter how many debating
points one side or the other gets. This is about life and death - and about
incredibly arrogant people who have transcended the bounds of ethics and
religious principles and, under the dangerous belief systems of
"profit-based-science," feel that they have the right to play around with our
entire planet for their fun and profit.

Earon
*** FULL NAME DELETED BY DAN ***

In a message dated 6/18/99 9:35:57 AM Central Daylight Time,
CFSeattle@AOL.COM writes:

<< BBC/UK Peanut allergy athlete dies/Friday, June 18, 1999>

On 6/19 DanSpillane had this to say.

|There *is* actually scientific evidence |which shows that bacteria can transfer genes |without having sex. However, it may only be |to certain "receptor" sites, according to |other documentation. Bacteria don't turn |into other bacteria...plants...or cows. This |helps explain why antibiotic resistance is |fairly widespread -- it's possible that even |your yogurt bacteria have antibiotic |resistance which they got from other |bacteria.

To clarify, there are actually 3 ways for bacteria to recieve an influx of genetic material. The method that you describe here is called Conjugation. In this case the bacteria transmit their plasmid (a relatively small circular strand of DNA) to another bacteria. They can also recieve genetic material that is "free floating" (from a lysed cell for instance) in a process called Transformation or through phages in a process called Transduction. While none of these processes can be considered reproduction as there is no daughter cell resultant, they are all means whereby bacteria change their genome.

Thanks Eric!

Yeah -- someone smarter than me, on the nuts and bolts of genetics part.

Have you read all the stuff I put in the folder? Some of it should really interest you.

...and is it possible that your yogurt bacteria have genes from other bacteria, such as antibiotic resistance? Or had no one looked at this?

cmargulis wrote:
"The final industry insult, that no one has to buy their junk, obviates the real-world agro-economics they use to prey on farmers. Ask rural communities in the developing world how green revolution hybrids gained primacy in their countries: credit and loan terms, market manipulation and other "assistance" favored those who took up the new technologies and pushed traditional farmers off the land (which is one reason for the flight to urban areas in much of the south today). these same dynamics will drive the "second green revolution" promised by biotech, with equally dire results"

I almost hate to point this out, but it's a good thing that inefficient farmers are the ones who go out of business. That's what has happened in the West over the past few centuries. That's why we eat well and there's a big labor force to work in manufacturing, medicine, education, science, etc.

Earon wrote:

"Fourth, there needs to be research into how to prevent people from developing
anaphylactic allergies - and into why these problems are increasing. Are
they resulting from one of the myriad other ways in which our environment has
been polluted and manipulated in order to increase someone's profits?"

Sheesh, talk about enviro-socialist paranoia. What evidence is there that pollution causes anaphylactic allergies? Are they really increasing?

I do know that asthma is increasing. When children in NYC were studied to find out why, the most significant factor was that the children were spending more time indoors and eating in their bedrooms which attracted cockroaches. That was the major cause of asthma.

Another theory about asthma (more controversial) is that the immune system is overreacted because we don't get as many infections as we used to. Eeeeevil corporations producing eeeevil vaccines and antibiotics, don't ya know.

Hello,

Hope you don't mind me joining your little "fracas", its very interesting. The shear volume of some of the offerings is quite daunting, but towards the end, some sanity seems to be creaping in. (thanks to Dr Tom and Kahirsch).

The fact of the matter is (if I may be so bold) that, right or wrong, the whole reason that humans have risen to the top of the "food chain" is that we are by nature, creatures who enquire, explore, and push the boundries. Our exploration of GM is not only natural, but essential. Without venturing down the dark halls of ignorance, we will be lost indeed. Some doubt the value of "pure research", some doubt the value of what sometimes seem obscure alleys of work, but who can tell the end result.

Now, that's not to say that we should run wild in the world arround us. Frank and open (and hopefully enlightened) discussion is needed as there are (changable) standards that are required sometimes to stop us making a terrible mess of things.

But..............just because you might screw up, is no reason to not try

Dave

Dear Message Board People,
I thought I'd reply to a message Mr. Adams posted earlier about the rise of resistance. Actually, this is mostly my opinion based on what little I know, so if someone sees a contradiction, please say so...; however, I think I should point out that from what has been said, resistance is probably less likely to become prevalent from Bt-toxin containing transgenic plants than from Bt-spore sprayed plants. Obviously, as I'm sure you all know, resistance is not thought to "evolve" on the time scale in which most resistances arise in animal (I include bacteria here) populations. Resistance usually arises due to multiplication of a already-present but unselected (maybe anti-selected) strain. Thus, conditions under which "megadoses" of an antibiotic (like Bt toxin) over long periods of time are less likely than small doses over short periods of time to induce resistance, since weakly resistant strains will be killed off in the former case, but not in the latter. If one were to spray a crop with only a little Bt toxin, regularly, then the weakly resistant strains would be selected and might possibly interbreed or gain additional selective advantage due to mutation to produce a strongly resistant strain. Anyways, sorry if my prose is unclear:P
Also, although it's just a semantic matter, I don't think you could really call a transgenic plant with a copy of the Bt-toxin gene "genetically engineered." I've always been told this is reserved for instances where the sequence of DNA in the target organism has been altered in some way other than simply shoving in a complete but transgenic gene.
-Alex Kennedy
Kyoto University Institute of Chemical Research

Interesting, and very scandalous material...

*** Letter sent to EuropaBio below ***
(Sent 06/30/1999)

To: Paul Muys, Communication Manager EuropaBio
CC: Editor, The Independent, UK

Dear Paul:

On June 20, 1999, the UK newspaper "The Independent" printed a headline article entitled "World's top sweetener is made with GM bacteria." That article mentioned that several UK MPs were "hunting" around for GM processes used in food production. Yet according to the article, the GM process to produce an enzyme was not even being used in the UK, but only in the US.

Upon reading this headline, it occurred to me that the UK public (and MPs) must be completely unaware that most of the world's cheese is produced using the enzyme chymosin, a product of genetic engineering. Indeed, tracing back many months through all the UK press debate, I have found no headline story revealing the truth in this respect. I find it quite shocking (as I think others would) that this issue hasn't been discussed at this point, particularly considering chymosin has some solid benefits -- there aren't enough calves to go around to make the alternative rennet, for example. How can an organization like EuropaBio neglect to inform the public that the cheese supply depends on a GM enzyme, particularly since the theme of the "GM food" campaign has been the "right to know", rather than of food safety (which has been well established)? How can cheese be excluded -- is it simply because it hasn't been mentioned in the press? This is ridiculous.

In a related case, I find it astounding that the UK is importing herbicide-tolerant soybeans (DuPont "STS") through US Archer Daniels Midland Co., which are being sold in the UK as "GM-free", simply because they are genetically modified using a process different than those used in Monsanto beans, and this happens to let them slip through US FDA policy (the trick is, they leave the US as "identity preserved" and are re-labeled later). Surely, these beans contain genes for herbicide tolerance -- just like the Monsanto beans. This is particularly vexing since I've noted "herbicide tolerance" as an issue of concern which often comes up for European customers (for example, Greenpeace brings this up as a key point). Therefore, how can the "debate" in Europe concerning these products neglect to mention that consumers will still be eating beans with genes for herbicide tolerance, when campaigners told them "GM-free" implied this wouldn't be the case? There are around ten million acres of these beans being grown, by the way. This is no small matter.

I have written a letter to The Independent (attached below), informing them of these issues. They have not yet published my letter, probably since they too find my information shocking. Nevertheless, I think it is important that these two issues be brought into the UK debate, however uncomfortable that may be at this point. In fact, I plan on contacting folks in the UK until these issues are heard, or bringing my information to prominence on the Internet. That is of course, unless these issues are on the EuropaBio agenda -- please contact me as soon as possible with any plans you have in this regard.

Sincerely
Dan Spillane
Seattle, WA USA
(Phone number deleted for posting)

*** Unpublished letter follows ***
(Sent 06/21/1999)

To: Editor, Independent (UK)

"GM Hunting"

Your recent headline "World's top sweetener is made with GM bacteria" (June 20) made it all the way to the US, believe it or not. It's not that Americans find this so surprising, given that many products here are made this way. Rather, what we find surprising is how you are hunting on our side of the Atlantic -- while you still have some hunting left to do on your own side. It seems if you are looking for "secret" GM projects, you only need to look in any UK grocer:

1) Almost all UK cheeses (about 90 percent) are produced using GM enzymes, made in a way similar to how Monsanto's sweetener is made. This is according to several sources in the UK, including your own government. Why has this "secret" not made headlines in any of your newspapers yet? Are all these cheeses labeled "GM", since you say it is the customers "right to know"? How can cheeses be treated differently if they are made with GM? Could there be a "cover up'?

2) Many soybeans now being imported into Europe are being sold and labeled as "GM-free" -- it should make you happy these aren't the Monsanto kind. But does the UK know they are still getting soybeans genetically modified to be herbicide-tolerant, just like the Monsanto beans? These soybeans are labeled "GM-free", simply because they get around US FDA policy. That policy states, "The agency has not required labeling for other methods of plant breeding such as chemical- or radiation-induced mutagenesis, somaclonal variation, or cell culture." Who can assume "chemical- or radiation- induced mutagensis" -- or any other science -- is safer than what is done to Monsanto beans, especially when no one in the US has found any more testing data for these beans than the Monsanto ones?

Dan Spillane
Seattle, WA USA
CFSeattle@aol.com

Sorry for the delay in this reply, I was having network and profile problems until today.

In response to the question that you asked about bacteria having genes from other bacteria -

Yes, bacteria undergoing Transformation are genus and species indiscriminant as this mechanism is blind to the origin of the DNA. This is also true for Transduction in cases where the phage can have two or more host cells. A virus will destroy host cell DNA using restriction endo-nuclease enzymes which break the DNA at palindrome sites (places where the DNA base pairs are the same on both strands in the 3' to 5' direction). These pieces, if they are small enough, can be incorporated into the viral protein coat just like the viral DNA. In some cases the virus will contain ONLY previous host DNA. It is a very real possibility for these phages to serve as conduits for antibiotic resistance.

Usually bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics after they come into contact with the drug. In this mechanism, the bacteria that have a naturally higher resistance to the antibiotic survive while the sensitive bacterium die. Then when the remaining bacteria divide, they form a population that is more resistant to the antibiotic than the original. Alex is essentially correct, although all bacteria replicate themselves, the concept of interbreeding is not correct. There is no breeding period.

From earlier discussions (specifically of Roundup Ready plants) I wonder if you are aware that Roundup essentially over fertilizes plants to kill them?

Why Africa Needs Agricultural Biotech - Thursday, 1 July 1999
ISAAA
By Florence Wambugu

There is urgent need for the development and use of agricultural biotechnology in Africa to help to counter famine, environmental degradation and poverty. Africa must enthusiastically join the biotechnology revolution.

The public debate on transgenic crops in Europe is centred on fear and mistrust, quite possibly resulting from the experience over 'mad cow disease'. A recent report1 from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to address European Union concerns on genetically modified (GM) crops concluded that there is no evidence that transgenic foods are unsafe. The report, by a group led by Patrick Wall, the authority's chief executive, says that concern in Europe is based on ethical, socioeconomic and anti-multinational issues; lack of knowledge or misinformation; environmentalism; food labelling; and consideration of the needs of developing countries.

Many of these concerns have nothing to do with food safety. Transgenic foods are eaten daily in the United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico and elsewhere with no reported undue effects2-4. Nevertheless, the experts' advice does not seem to influence public opinion in Europe, probably because of a strong anti-biotechnology lobby that actively promotes misinformation and fear, and also because in some cases people have had good reason to distrust 'expert' pronouncements.

One example of Europeans' concern for the Third World is 'terminator technology' -- plants engineered to be sterile. But this technology is only a concept and is not being further developed. No products are planned for Africa or elsewhere. Critics of biotechnology have used the fear of this technology to promote serious anti-multinational attitudes -- for example, crops in trials have been burnt in some parts of the world.

Another concern promoted by critics of food biotechnology is that of toxins or allergies. An example is the case of the unpublished study by Arpad Pusztai, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland, who suggested that rats fed with GM potatoes expressing a snowdrop lectin were slowly being poisoned. After an independent scientific review, these results were found to be misleading and to have been misinterpreted5. But the anti-biotechnology lobby is still using them strongly to advance its case in Europe, even though transgenic foods are rigorously tested for possible toxins and allergens before commercialization.

Surely there are parallels to be drawn with an antibiotic such as penicillin, which has continued to be used for many years despite many people being allergic to it because the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Why is the same reasoning not applied to transgenic foods, where risks at even this low level are not proven? The anti-biotech lobby also cites as controversial the recombinant DNA processes used to develop transgenic foods. But the same processes are used to develop numerous pharmaceuticals for humans and animals, and many other industrial products. The public seems prepared to accept the application of GM techniques to new pharmaceutical products but not to food production. Why should there be different standards for crops and pharmaceuticals, particularly in Africa where the need for food is crucial for survival?

African perspective

The critics of biotechnology claim that Africa has no chance to benefit from biotechnology, and that Africa will only be a dumping ground or will be exploited by multinationals 6,7. On the contrary, small-scale farmers in Africa have benefited by using hybrid seeds from local and multinational companies, and transgenic seeds in effect are simply an added-value improvement to these hybrids. Local farmers are benefiting from tissue-culture technologies for banana, sugar cane, pyrethrum, cassava and other crops. There is every reason to believe they will also benefit from the crop-protection transgenic technologies in the pipeline for banana, such as sigatoka, the disease-resistant transgenic variety now ready for field trials. Virus- and pest-resistant transgenic sugar-cane technologies are being developed in countries such as Mauritius, South Africa and Egypt.

The African continent, more than any other, urgently needs agricultural biotechnology, including transgenic crops, to improve food production. African countries need to think and operate as stakeholders, rather than accepting the 'victim mentality' created in Europe. Africa has the local germplasm, some of it well-characterized and clean, being held in gene banks in trust by centres run by the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research. It also has the indigenous knowledge, local field ecosystems for product development, capacities and infrastructure required by foreign multinational companies.

The needs of Africa and Europe are different. Europe has surplus food and has never experienced hunger, mass starvation and death on the regular scale we sadly witness in Africa. The priority of Africa is to feed her people with safe foods and to sustain agricultural production and the environment.

Africa missed the green revolution, which helped Asia and Latin America achieve self-sufficiency in food production. Africa cannot afford to be excluded or to miss another major global 'technological revolution'. It must join the biotechnology endeavour. Transgenic food production increased from 4 million to 70 million acres worldwide from 1996 to 1998 with measurable economic gains and with sustainable agricultural production2. It would be a much higher risk for Africa to ignore agricultural biotechnology. Africa's crop production per unit area of land is the lowest in the world. For example the production of sweet potato, a staple crop, is 6 tonnes per hectare compared to the global average of 14 tonnes per hectare. China produces on average 18 tonnes per hectare, three times the African average. There is the potential to double African production if viral diseases are controlled using transgenic technology.

The African continent imports at least 25 per cent of its grain. The use of biotechnology to increase local grain production is far preferable to this dependence on other countries, particularly as the population growth rate exceeds food production. The inability to produce adequate food forces Africa to rely on food aid from industrialized nations when mass starvation occurs. Although biotechnology is not the only answer to this problem, Africa should certainly benefit in many ways from its use, for example in improved seed quality and resistance to pests and diseases.

The average maize yield in Africa is about 1.7 tonnes per hectare compared to a global average of 4 tonnes per hectare. Some bio-technology applications can be used to reduce this gap, for example in the case of the maize streak virus (MSV), which causes losses of 100 per cent of the crop in many parts of the continent. A biotechnology-transfer project is under way to develop MSV-resistant varieties. The project is brokered by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), and involves the collaboration of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), the University of Cape Town, the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology in Kenya, and the John Innes Centre in the United Kingdom. Funding is coming from the US Rockefeller Foundation, and Novartis in Europe has donated some technology to KARI.

Researchers at KARI are studying the mechanism of MSV resistance and trying to map the genes responsible. Advanced biotechnology skills, including the use of advanced agroinoculation techniques and molecular markers, is at the core of this effort. A priority in Kenya is also to produce high-yielding, drought-tolerant crop varieties to boost food production in the 71 per cent of the country that is arid or semi-arid.

Africa needs biotechnology to solve its environmental problems, and there is unlimited public demand for agricultural biotechnology products and services. In Kenya,

Here is another example of the kind of behavior that is prompted by the fears and anti-genetics sentiments in Europe. It's too bad that they don't just look at the technology rationally and evaluate the pros and cons instead of listening to obvious propaganda.

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's only plantation of genetically-altered trees has been attacked and partly destroyed, Anglo-Swedish pharma and agribusiness group AstraZeneca Plc said
Monday. In a statement, Zeneca Agrochemicals said two groups of poplar trees planted on land at its agricultural research site in Berkshire, near London, had been snapped and had their bark
stripped during the night Sunday. The trees are part of an eight-year experiment funded by the European Union and the paper-making industry to look at developing trees with lower levels of lignin, a polymer in the cell walls of trees which makes them rigid and woody. Zeneca argues that such trees could reduce the use of energy and chlorine in paper-making and pulping. It had publicized the existence and location of the trees.
``The reason was to try to be open and not hide things,'' a spokeswoman told Reuters.
``This was the only trial in this country of genetically-modified trees, and it is sad because science is being sabotaged in the UK with a good aim for the environment -- testing the environmental benefits of these trees.'' An anonymous statement released on behalf of the people who attacked the trees -- the Genetic Engineering Network -- an activist group which opposes genetic modification of plants, said genetic alteration of trees was a major threat to the world's environment.
``Those who are manipulating the DNA of trees, using very powerful but new and dimly understood technology, show contempt for our planet and the life it supports, including human life. They respect only profit for themselves and shareholders,'' the statement said. In response Zeneca issued the text of a 1996 letter from English Nature, which advises the UK government on wildlife. In the letter, English Nature said it believed there was negligible risk to native flora and fauna from the experiment.
``We regard the development of modified poplars as potentially having a positive benefit for nature conservation if they are able to replace coniferous monocultures currently used for pulping,'' the letter said. Zeneca said it was hoping to salvage much of the experiment, and would be reviewing security at its agricultural research site.

While this is off the immediate subject, it is a VERY important way that this type of technology is being put to use.
LONDON (Reuters) - British scientists are working on new gene therapy techniques to improve brain cancer treatments and to predict how women with breast cancer will respond to
treatment. Researchers at Britain's Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden Hospital are testing a technique to switch on inactive chemotherapy drugs to kill cancerous cells. So far
results of laboratory tests have been encouraging.
``We're seeing substantial cell death,'' Dr Gill Ross, one of the leaders of the program, told reporters. Brain tumors are among the most difficult cancers to treat because many types are resistant to radiotherapy and chemotherapy drugs have a limited effect on brain tissue. There are also no screening tests to identify risk factors for the illness that strikes an estimated 40,000 people in the European Union each year. Nearly half of patients with brain cancer die within a year of their initial diagnosis. In the so-called ``pro-drug'' therapy, the scientists inject bacterial genes, wrapped in a virus, directly into the tumor. The genes trigger an enzyme in the tumor cells which switch on the
inactive chemotherapy treatment.
``Preliminary laboratory data in tumor types suggests that this pro-drug gene therapy approach is not only feasible, but also effective, certainly under laboratory conditions,'' said Ross. Once the laboratory tests are completed, the researchers hope to start clinical trials on humans. They think the pro-drug therapy could be used with radiotherapy, the standard treatment
along with surgery. Professor Mitch Dowsett, the head of academic biochemistry at the institute, said genes could also play a role in helping doctors choose the best treatments for breast cancer. By analyzing cancerous cells from the tumor and using microarrays -- small glass slides which carry a blueprint of 2,200 of the genes that exist in the cells -- doctors will be able to customize treatment for each patient. The cells are removed from the breast with a fine needle and washed over the slide before and during treatment. If the treatment is working there will be fewer cancerous cells and an increase in apoptosis, or cell death. If the cancerous cells continue to proliferate it means the drugs are not working because certain genes are activated to resist the treatment.
``We can avoid using ineffective drugs in patients that need treatment,'' said Dowsett. In addition to customizing treatment and reducing side effects, the technique could also help scientists identify new treatments by showing which genes cause resistance to current treatments.
``We know very little about breast cancer genes, but this technique will allow us to look at many more and ultimately develop new drugs to deal with them,'' said Dowsett. He and his team collaborated on the research with scientists from the National Cancer Institute in the United States.

Evil Monsanto?

Monsanto Joins First Lady's Vitamin A Outreach Efforts

Beta Carotene Technology Offered to Developing World Farmers

WASHINGTON, D.C, March 16, 1999 — Life Sciences Company Monsanto today announced its support for First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's Global Vitamin A Effort to address the serious problem of Vitamin A deficiency throughout the developing world.

Monsanto announced that it would donate its high beta-carotene oil technology to subsistence farmers through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the First Lady's Global Vitamin A partnership. Beta-carotene is a precursor to Vitamin A and when crops, such as rape seed or canola - members of the mustard family, are fortified with beta-carotene their seeds and oil can deliver this nutrient in sufficient levels to address deficiencies as part of the normal daily diet.

"We at Monsanto are pleased to lend our expertise and support to increasing awareness and finding appropriate and sustainable solutions to address Vitamin A deficiency and its devastating impact on peoples of the developing world," said Monsanto President Hendrik Verfaillie. "Through education, awareness and application of appropriate technologies we can significantly improve the lives of some 800 million people, many of whom are children, who today suffer from Vitamin A deficiency-related diseases such as night blindness, immune system dysfunction, and high infant mortality rates."

Monsanto's High beta-carotene oil product, was created using a gene from a naturally occurring soil bacterium to increase the level of beta-carotene present within the plant. The gene is a close cousin of the plant gene normally responsible for regulating levels of beta-carotene production in the rape seed.

The main source of beta-carotene in most people's diets is fresh fruit and vegetables or fortified milk and cereals. However, in some areas, particularly in developing countries where the diet consists mainly of rice and pulses (such as peas and beans), the diet is often highly deficient in beta-carotene and Vitamin A. Monsanto's product will contain the highest concentration of beta-carotene that is seen in any oil or vegetable today. One teaspoon of the oil will provide the daily recommended intake for an adult.

Monsanto has created a High Beta-Carotene Oil Team that will work through the Global Vitamin A partnership and local stakeholders to identify those areas in greatest need to develop appropriate varieties of crops for those areas and climates. Mustard varieties, such as canola and rape, are already widely grown and part of the daily diets for many in the developing world. Monsanto expects that varieties designed for the climates and soil conditions for developing world countries in the greatest need could be available as early as 2003.

"Monsanto believes that life sciences companies can contribute to improving the lives of the millions of people suffering from malnutrition and hunger and help them break free from the cycles of poverty using tools such as biotechnology and sustainable agriculture appropriate to local cultures and conditions," said Verfaillie. "Monsanto's contribution today helps link the benefits of technologies developed for commercial use to the needs of those not fully participating in the world economy."

Monsanto's donation will allow poor and subsistence farmers to own and control this technology for their local use. Monsanto will work through the Global Vitamin A partnership and local stakeholders in determining the most effective and appropriate ways to deliver this technology to local areas.

Monsanto has previously donated technology and lent support for sustainable agriculture practices through NGOs and local governments in Latin America, Asia and Africa to address such issues as virus and disease resistance in subsistence crops like cassava and preventing soil erosion and increasing crop yields through conservation tillage.

Many development and research organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology and the U.N. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) have recently announced their endorsement of agricultural biotechnology as an important tool in addressing the needs of subsistence and developing world farmers.

Monsanto is a life sciences company, committed to finding solutions to the growing global needs for food and health by applying advanced science to agriculture, nutrition and health. It makes and manufactures high-value agricultural products, pharmaceuticals and food ingredients.


-oOo-

For additional information, please contact:

Jay Byrne
(314) 694-3670

>>> EUROPEAN COVER-UP REVEALED <<<

[Transcript of letters sent by me to Europe. Some really good questions!]

**Copy of letter sent 6/30/99 to EuropaBio, the biotech association in Europe***

To: Paul Muys, Communication Manager EuropaBio
CC: Editor, The Independent, UK

Dear Paul:

On June 20, 1999, the UK newspaper "The Independent" printed a headline article entitled "World's top sweetener is made with GM bacteria." That article mentioned that several UK MPs were "hunting" around for GM processes used in food production. Yet according to the article, the GM process to produce an enzyme was not even being used in the UK, but only in the US.

Upon reading this headline, it occurred to me that the UK public (and MPs) must be completely unaware that most of the world's cheese is produced using the enzyme chymosin, a product of genetic engineering. Indeed, tracing back many months through all the UK press debate, I have found no headline story revealing the truth in this respect. I find it quite shocking (as I think others would) that this issue hasn't been discussed at this point, particularly considering chymosin has some solid benefits -- there aren't enough calves to go around to make the alternative rennet, for example. How can an organization like EuropaBio neglect to inform the public that the cheese supply depends on a GM enzyme, particularly since the theme of the "GM food" campaign has been the "right to know", rather than of food safety (which has been well established)? How can cheese be excluded -- is it simply because it hasn't been mentioned in the press? This is ridiculous.

In a related case, I find it astounding that the UK is importing herbicide-tolerant soybeans (DuPont "STS") through US Archer Daniels Midland Co., which are being sold in the UK as "GM-free", simply because they are genetically modified using a process different than those used in Monsanto beans, and this happens to let them slip through US FDA policy (the trick is, they leave the US as "identity preserved" and are re-labeled later). Surely, these beans contain genes for herbicide tolerance -- just like the Monsanto beans. This is particularly vexing since I've noted "herbicide tolerance" as an issue of concern which often comes up for European customers (for example, Greenpeace brings this up as a key point). Therefore, how can the "debate" in Europe concerning these products neglect to mention that consumers will still be eating beans with genes for herbicide tolerance, when campaigners told them "GM-free" implied this wouldn't be the case? There are around ten million acres of these beans being grown, by the way. This is no small matter.

I have written a letter to The Independent (attached below), informing them of these issues. They have not yet published my letter, probably since they too find my information shocking. Nevertheless, I think it is important that these two issues be brought into the UK debate, however uncomfortable that may be at this point. In fact, I plan on contacting folks in the UK until these issues are heard, or bringing my information to prominence on the Internet. That is of course, unless these issues are on the EuropaBio agenda -- please contact me as soon as possible with any plans you have in this regard.

Sincerely
Dan Spillane
Seattle, WA USA

*** Unpublished letter follows ***
(Sent 06/21/1999)

To: Editor, Independent (UK)

"GM Hunting"

Your recent headline "World's top sweetener is made with GM bacteria" (June 20) made it all the way to the US, believe it or not. It's not that Americans find this so surprising, given that many products here are made this way. Rather, what we find surprising is how you are hunting on our side of the Atlantic -- while you still have some hunting left to do on your own side. It seems if you are looking for "secret" GM projects, you only need to look in any UK grocer:

1) Almost all UK cheeses (about 90 percent) are produced using GM enzymes, made in a way similar to how Monsanto's sweetener is made. This is according to several sources in the UK, including your own government. Why has this "secret" not made headlines in any of your newspapers yet? Are all these cheeses labeled "GM", since you say it is the customers "right to know"? How can cheeses be treated differently if they are made with GM? Could there be a "cover up'?

2) Many soybeans now being imported into Europe are being sold and labeled as "GM-free" -- it should make you happy these aren't the Monsanto kind. But does the UK know they are still getting soybeans genetically modified to be herbicide-tolerant, just like the Monsanto beans? These soybeans are labeled "GM-free", simply because they get around US FDA policy. That policy states, "The agency has not required labeling for other methods of plant breeding such as chemical- or radiation-induced mutagenesis, somaclonal variation, or cell culture." Who can assume "chemical- or radiation- induced mutagensis" -- or any other science -- is safer than what is done to Monsanto beans, especially when no one in the US has found any more testing data for these beans than the Monsanto ones?

Dan Spillane
Seattle, WA USA
CFSeattle@aol.com

You guys are writing a book! Fascinating discussion, but it's starting to take too long to load. So I'm locking this one.... look for "Genetically engineered food - Part 2" to continue the debate!

[curwin]

bump - cecil post