1. US ALERT: Anti-GE Activists Will Meet & March in Boston
2. **New WWF report: Genetic engineering does not yield pesticide reduction**
3. GM food OK? Comment on OECD
4. GM crop use in decline
5. EPA Scientist Warns Farmers of Uncertainties With Crops Genetics
6. U.S. proposals ban biotech in new organic rules
7. *RSPB warning to Government over farm-scale trials*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. US ALERT: Anti-GE Activists Will Meet & March in Boston Mar. 24-30
find out more from: http://www.purefood.org/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. New WWF GE report: details (and a pdf version) available at:
http://www.wwfcanada.org/news-room/
Canada News-wire Tuesday, March 7, 2000 General News
Genetic engineering does not yield pesticide reduction
TORONTO, March 7 /CNW/ - Genetically-engineered (GE) crops cannot be depended on to reduce pesticide use, according to a report released today by World Wildlife Fund Canada titled Do Genetically Engineered Crops Reduce Pesticide Use? The Evidence Says Not Likely. Working to reduce reliance on pesticides in Canada, WWF is concerned that false hopes about biotechnology's ability to reduce pesticide use will impede progress towards sustainable agriculture. "Genetic engineering is not a magical short cut to pesticide reduction," said Julia Langer, Director of WWF's Wildlife Toxicology Program. "The path to pesticide reduction will be paved with reforms to the dysfunctional and outdated Pest Control Products Act and through strong support for farmers to implement ecological practices."
Biotechnology companies have e focused on the genetic engineering of major crops such as corn, soybeans, potatoes, cotton and canola, all of which are heavily sprayed. Most of the GE crops on the market have genes from bacteria inserted into them (transgenic engineering) which give crops one of two kinds of new characteristics: either resistance to herbicides so that the crop can be sprayed with an herbicide without being killed, or the ability to produce toxins of a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which will kill some insect pests. Since pesticides can harm birds, fish, other wildlife, and natural enemies of pests, and are also associated with harm to people's health, it would be beneficial if GE crops resulted in reduced pesticide use. However, recent US data show that GE crops are not producing such reductions. Farmers planting GE crops have often actually increased their use of herbicides and insecticides. The WWF report outlines six key reasons underlying why genetic engineering does not decrease pesticide reliance:
- Herbicide-resistant GE crops often increase the use of the herbicide for which the crop is resistant and, because uncommon weeds emerged with the planting of the GE crops, do not necessarily reduce the use of other herbicides. - Transfer of inserted foreign genes from GE crops to related plants will increase weediness, requiring additional sprays to control them. This is especially an issue where weeds are closely related to the engineered crop, such as canola. - Bt crops do not necessarily result in reduced spraying of insecticides to control target pests. In fact, more acres of conventional corn are being treated with insecticides than before GE corn introduction. - GE crops will increase resistance of pests to both pesticides and the GE crop itself. This was predicted during the regulatory review of GE technologies.
GE food crops have negative impacts on beneficial insects such as lacewings and ladybugs, which would otherwise help farmers to control pests. - GE crops reinforce poor crop rotation practices which are the real key to sustainable pest management. In one analysis, the greater expense of GE seeds and the increased herbicide costs resulted in a 50 per cent increase in farmers' weed management costs. Since GE is not performing according to claims and significant risks continue to emerge, including concerns regarding the impact of Bt corn on monarch butterflies, WWF concludes that sure-fire ways of achieving pesticide reduction, including IPM and organic techniques, should be preferentially adopted. WWF's report, Do Genetically Engineered Crops Reduce Pesticide Use? The Evidence Says Not Likely, is available in the pressroom of WWF Canada's web site at http://www.wwf.ca or by calling WWF at 1-800-26-PANDA. -0-03/07/2000
END OF DOCUMENT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3. GM food OK?
Croft Woodruff Re: OECD Says No Evidence GM Foods Are Harmful, March 2.
National Post Wednesday, March 8, 2000 EDITION National Editorials
It is not surprising that the genetically modified food safety conference in Edinburgh played down the safety concerns of GM foods. The majority of speakers who took part are in favour of the technology. Why was it not reported that the United States administration was challenged at the GM food safety conference in Edinburgh by U.S. attorney Steve Druker? He questioned the assumptions that had allowed U.S. officials to claim that genetically modified foods were safe when documents produced by their own scientific advisors said the methodology was flawed. Documents detailing scientific doubts about GM foods were obtained by Mr. Druker as part of a court case against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. According to Mr. Druker, 44,000 pages of documents showed that the FDA declared GM foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts. Eleven of the 17 experts on the GM task force to assess risks expressed disquiet but were overruled.
Croft Woodruff, Vancouver
END OF DOCUMENT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4. GM crops use 'in decline'
BY VALERIE ELLIOTT, CONSUMER EDITOR
Times, 8 March
LEADING food and drink companies are starting to remove all genetically modified ingredients from their products after pressure from consumers. Of 21 leading companies asked for their policy on GM ingredients and derivatives in food sold in Europe, 16 said that all their products were from GM-free crops.
Among the GM-free top brand labels are Pepsi Cola, Coca Cola, Heinz, Mars, Kelloggs, Campbell Foods and Cadbury Schweppes. McDonald's made clear that it had asked suppliers to concentrate on sourcing non-GM ingredients. Friends of the Earth said that it showed food manufacturers were "being forced to listen to European consumers".
However, despite the decline in GM ingredients, companies are still using derivatives such as lecithin, an emulsifier found in chocolate, and other oils, from GM crops. Campaigners want to see the EU rules extended to derivatives. They are excluded at present because they do not contain DNA or protein.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5. Farmers Warned of Uncertainties With Crops Genetics
BILL HORD
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
Kearney, Neb.
Farmers whose fields will soon be planted with genetically altered seeds were left Friday with the image of an atomic bomb exploding in the north 40.
Toxicologist, biologist and pharmacologist Suzanne Wuerthele painted that mental picture here Friday for about 400 Nebraska farm leaders in a talk about genetic engineering at the annual Governor's Agriculture Conference. "This is probably one of the most technologically powerful developments the world has ever seen," Wuerthele said. "It's the biological equivalent of splitting the atom."
Wuerthele, who analyzes potential harm to humans from chemicals for the Environmental Protection Agency in Denver was the first speaker after Gov. Mike Johanns promised attendees a "provocative" agenda for the annual conference.
Questions about how genetically altered crops and livestock will affect Earth's ecosystem have been raised as the technology spreads throughout the world, potentially jeopardizing the benefits farmers have received from seed varieties that fight pests and weeds.
Although Wuerthele's words seemed extreme, she said her intention was to let farmers know that scientific questions about genetic engineering need to be answered. "This is a huge controversy," she said.
"Regardless of who is raising the issues, the scientific issues are valid. When we work with biological things, they can be very powerful."
She said the EPA has supported development of genetically enhanced crops. Recently, the agency adopted a requirement with the support of farm groups that requires farmers to plant at least 20 percent of their corn into nonbiotech varieties - a hedge against potentially negative impacts on the environment.
Lincoln farmer Burdette Piening said Wuerthele's presentation did not convince him that there is a scientific problem with genetic engineering, but it helped him understand why there is public concern.
"I understand that scientists need to understand what crossing DNA will do," Piening said.
Still, he will plant 100 percent of his soybeans and 80 percent of his corn with genetically altered seed to control pests and weeds.
"We need these biotech crops to stay in the business by cutting costs, but we need to do a better job of educating the public," Piening said.
In a series of visual displays, Wuerthele walked viewers through the steps of taking a gene from one organism and transferring it to another. Already, she said, such transfers have created corn that kills insects, strawberries with lower freezing temperatures, foods with pharmaceutical benefits and herbicide-resistant soybeans.
Genetic transfer has the capability to create industrial chemicals, trees that pick gold from the earth and different kinds of living creatures. In test cases proposing to move human genes to chimpanzees, the U.S. Patent Office is being asked by anti-biotech activists to define what is "human."
"Your imagination is all that limits this," Wuerthele said.
LOAD-DATE: March 4, 2000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6. U.S. proposes to ban biotech in organic rules
03/07 1925 U.S. proposes to ban biotech in organic rules By Barbara Hagenbaugh WASHINGTON, March 7 (Reuters)
The Clinton administration on Tuesday unveiled regulations for the fast-growing organic food industry, bowing to public demand to ban biotechnology and irradiation procedures on foods labeled and sold as "organic."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7. Press Association on RSPB warning to Government over farm-scale trials
Leading wildlife campaigners said today they would review their position on a panel overseeing farm-scale trials for genetically modified crops if the scientific credibility of the tests was weakened following pressure from industry or Government.
The warning came from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the eve of a series of decisions governing the planting, release and sale of genetically-modified organisms.
The UK and 14 other EU countries will vote on whether to give commercial consent to genetically-modified oilseed rape crop that is included in the forthcoming farm-scale trials.
The RSPB said if the UK Government voted Yes to the commercial planting it would mean the crop could eventually be made available for sale in the UK and so enter the food chain.
The Society said Aventis, (formerly AgrEvo) was asking for the go-ahead for a herbicide tolerant maize seed, which is also part of the farm-scale trials, to be made available in the UK.
If approval was given it would mean the maize could be grown from seed stock.
Dr David Gibbons, RSPB head of conservation science, said: ``Despite the Prime Minister's assertion last week that the Government is treating GMOs with caution, this is looking like creeping commercialisation via the back door before the environmental safety of these crops has been assessed as part of the farm-scale trials.''
The Scientific Steering Committee was meeting today to decide whether it has sufficient test sites to proceed with the farm-scale trials.
Although it looks as though the Supply Chain Initiative in Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC), the trade body representing the Biotech industry, may have found just enough trial sites in time for the work to go ahead this year, the RSPB said they would have to do a much better job in the next two years.
The RSPB said it was crucial for the scientific credibility of the trials that the sites chosen represented all types of UK farming.
Dr Gibbons continued: "It's been 18 months since the Government decided to hold the trials.
"We have had the uncertainty of whether SCIMAC would be able to find enough sites. Now we need to ensure they represent a range of farming practice."