1. SIRC event
2. BMA calls for debate on gene patenting
3. GREENPEACE REPORT: MARKET PLACE WILL REJECT GM WINE
4. STOP THREATENING TO OVERTURN OTHER NATIONS' FOOD SAFETY LAWS, BUSH TOLD
----
1. Krebs' and Greenfield's SIRC-us pals planning an "event"
'In the coming year SIRC will be hosting, in collaboration with other organisations and institutions, an 'event' which will start to focus on ways of thinking' about the issues which so concern us today - from the food we eat to the appropriate stewardship of our planet. The aim will be to find a ground where genuine disagreements can exist, and even flourish, but where there is a common regard for logic, evidence and the civilities of rational discourse. We will keep you posted.' http://www.sirc.org/articles/confronting_litany.shtml
for more on the sirc-us: http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/scisale.htm
---
2. BMA calls for debate on gene patenting
British Medical Association
www.bma.org.uk
Press Release Monday 6 Aug 2001
The BMA has today (6 August 2001) launched a discussion paper calling for international debate to take place on gene patenting. The current situation is criticised for being vague and potentially detrimental to the development of new genetic tests and therapies.
The EC Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions (98/44/EC) was adopted by the European Parliament in July 1998, but the issue has remained controversial. The Directive states that a gene sequence cannot be patented if it forms part of the human body but it can be patented if it is isolated from the body, provided it meets the standard criteria for patenting of:
* novelty
* inventive step
* industrial applicability and
* sufficiency.
The Directive does not, however, offer any guidance on how these concepts should be interpreted and it is this confusion that is causing so much concern. For the Directive to be effective in member states, these criteria need to be applied appropriately and consistently by all Patent Offices.
Several countries are challenging the Directive on the grounds that it is ambiguous and contradictory. Whether or not this challenge succeeds, the BMA believes there is a need for more debate and a clearer understanding of the issues.
Professor Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's Head of Health Policy, said:
"From the BMA's own experience we know that there is still a lot of interest in this area and a desire for clear information. The issues are very complex but this does not mean we should shy away from debate and developing a suitable way forward.
"Much of the debate so far has been polarised between those arguing for a complete prohibition on the patenting of gene sequences and those who support unrestricted access to patent protection. We believe that both too little, but also too much, restriction on gene patenting may be harmful. The crucial issue is to decide where the line should be drawn to ensure that any patent protection awarded matches the amount of innovative work involved."
The BMA is anxious that patenting applications be restricted to a particular and specific use. In this way protection will only be provided for what is known at present and not for anything else that might be discovered in the future. In this way the patent for the gene sequence that is linked to breast cancer should not restrict research and therapies for other uses such as the link to ovarian cancer unless that is specified in the application.
The BMA would like to see more attention focussed on the appropriate interpretation of inventive step, industrial applicability and sufficiency and the breadth of patents that should be awarded. If agreement can be reached, the BMA's discussion paper goes on to consider several options for ensuring consistency in awarding patents:
* If the current challenge to the Directive succeeds, the subsequent re-negotiation of its terms will give the opportunity for clearer guidance on interpretation and implementation.
* If the challenge fails, the European Commission could produce an Explanatory Memorandum giving specific guidance on the appropriate interpretation of the criteria of inventive step, industrial applicability and sufficiency in relation to genetic research.
* A code of practice, or statutory guidance, could be issued to all Patent Offices in Europe to ensure that agreed procedures are adopted when issuing patents.
What is clear from the BMA's discussion paper is that gene patenting is a complex issue that requires policy and action at international level.
Ends
Notes to editors:
Gene Patenting: A BMA Discussion Paper is available on the BMA Website
http://www.bma.org.uk/public/ethics.nsf/39f32339ff78cd6b802566a6003f3311/8b561223c9e754b880256a9300531f61?OpenDocument
or on request to the BMA Press Office
---
3. GREENPEACE REPORT: WINE GROWING REGIONS TRIAL GENETICALLY MODIFIED WINE GRAPES- MARKET PLACE WILL REJECT GM WINE
August 15, 2001
Greenpeace press release
The wine industry, which thrives on and celebrates the diversity of locally produced grapes, is particularly at risk from the development of GM grape varieties. The wine producers from Burgundy fear that development of GM grapes will bring with it loss of diversity which "is an integral part of our vineyards" and loss of typicity (wines characteristic of their type).
Summary
1. Recent research by Greenpeace USA has revealed that trials are being conducted in the USA, principally in California, with GM wine grapes. The UK is the largest market for Californian wine (30%).
2. However GM grape releases are not confined to the US; trials have also been conducted in other major wine producing countries. The four leading wine exporters, France, Australia, Italy and Germany, which together account for over 60% of sales in the UK, are all carrying out trials of GM vines.
3. Greenpeace has conducted a survey of leading wine retailers in the UK asking them whether they would sell GM wine. The retailers all say that they do not support the use of the technology and will not stock GM wines.
4. Wine producers, particularly those in the Burgundy region of France, are concerned that the quality of wines produced from GM vines will be inferior to current vine varieties, and that there will be loss of diversity of grapes and typicity of the wines produced. The market for organic wine is increasing rapidly, the organic wine industry which is growing to meet that demand is threatened by GM grapes because of the dangers of contamination through cross pollination.
5. A proposed EU Council directive "on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine" which would have set rules for the approval of GM vines to be commercially cultivated in the EU was recently sent back to the EU Council technical committee (COREPER) for redrafting, by the EU Ministers of Agriculture. There is currently no date set for its reconsideration by the Council.
6. The majority of the GM traits introduced into the grapevines currently in trials aim to reduce pesticide use on wine grape crops. Alternative methods to improve vine pest resistance are available, for example marker assisted breeding, where the benefits of molecular biology are gained without the long-term environmental and human health risks associated with genetic engineering, not to mention the threat to wine quality and valuable export markets.
---
4. STOP THREATENING TO OVERTURN OTHER NATIONS' FOOD SAFETY LAWS, GROUPS TELL BUSH
August 14, 2001
Friend of Earth press release
http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2001/20010814112715.html
Sri Lanka and Thailand among those targeted by Bush Administration over Genetically Engineered Food Regulations More than 200 consumer, farm and environmental groups worldwide sent a letter today protesting threats by the Bush administration to challenge other countries' food safety laws as barriers to international trade. Groups representing millions of citizens from Australia, Brazil,Germany, India, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the United States and the UK have signed the letter. The groups, which include Friends of the Earth International, called the U.S. threats unreasonable, especially since the US allows states to establish food safety and environmental laws that are tougher than national laws. A five-year moratorium on engineered fish was passed in the state of Maryland last April. US pesticide laws also allow states to set limits on pesticide use that are more strict than federal law.
"If a US state can have a moratorium on genetically modified foods, why can't other countries do the same?" said Ricardo Navarro, Chair of Friends of the Earth International and a resident of El Salvador. "The US has no right to tell Sri Lanka or any other country how to write their food safety laws."
Pete Riley of Friends of the Earth, England, Wales and Northern Ireland commented: "The hypocrisy of the US in trying to dictate to another sovereign state on how they should legislate on GMOs whilst allowing variations with their own country beggars belief. Bush's administration have once again been shown to dance to the tune of the biotech companies in lobbying for WTO action against Sri Lanka. It is time the US government and the WTO understood that individual countries have laws which reflect their culture and environment and are not merely satellites of the USA".
Clare Devereux, Five Year Freeze Co-ordinator, said: "Given the continued uncertainty around the safety of GM foods, Sri Lanka is completely justified in its decision to put a ban in place in order to create time to carry out their own research. This is exactly what the Five Year Freeze has been campaigning for here in the UK - Sri Lanka however has shown itself braver than the UK Government by refusing to be dictated to by the WTO and US Government."
Weyland Beeghly, Agricultural Counsellor from the US Embassy in India threatened in May that the US was considering challenging a ban in Sri Lanka of genetically engineered organisms by submitting a complaint to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The ban is scheduled to take effect on 1 September, sixty days later than planned as Sri Lanka granted a WTO request to allow exporters time to adjust to the law. Wichai Chokwiwat, Secretary General to the Thai Food and Drug Administration told Thai newspaper, The Nation, (19 July) that his country was a target of threats to use US trade laws to retaliate against a Thai proposal made in July to require labelling of genetically engineered corn and soya crops.
The letter to the Bush administration argues that Sri Lanka and other nations have a scientific,regulatory and moral basis to set limits on the proliferation of genetically engineered organisms.