"It's hard to read the scientific record of what's going on without being impressed by how much we don't know," says Charles Benbrook
1. Biotech firms pull back from plans to transform farming
2. Syngenta results
3. CANADIANS HAVE LITTLE TASTE FOR GM FOOD
4. US corn exports to Japan hit hard by StarLink - RIVALS CASH IN
---
1. No bumper crop of genetically altered plants
Faced with high risks and consumer skepticism, biotech firms pull back from plans to transform farming.
By Laurent Belsie | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
August 30, 2001
ST. LOUIS - The world has never tasted US Patent 6,072,105 - a genetically engineered eggplant - and probably never will. Scratch biotech potatoes from the menu. And hold the genetically modified sweet corn. Farming's biotechnology revolution is changing course.
After a decade of promises to transform agriculture and tens of millions of dollars in research and development, biotech firms and seed companies are scaling back their horizons. Instead of spreading their know-how to new farm products, they're narrowing their focus to a few major crops, such as corn and soybeans. The reason: Deepening consumer skepticism and tighter regulation worldwide are boosting costs and increasing the business risk of bringing bioengineered food to market.
Unless something changes, biotech proponents say only mega-crops pushed forward by mega-corporations will move from the lab to farmers' fields. Skeptics, meanwhile, are breathing sighs of relief. This much both sides can agree on: The once-vaunted biotech revolution is bypassing an increasing number of crops in a bold, perhaps risky, bid to survive.
"You don't see a lot of biotech okra or pumpkins out there," says Debi Warnick of Syngenta Seeds Inc. in Nampa, Idaho. "We're going to have more and more orphaned crops," like the eggplant.
Critics say such delays will give science time to assess the environmental and health impacts of altering plants' genes. "It is a positive sign that there is less pressure to adopt these crops," argues Jane Rissler, senior staff scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. Experiments get shelved
Consider the bioengineered eggplant. Developed in the 1990s by scientists at Rutgers University to resist a destructive beetle, the invention has gotten a cold shoulder from industry because it represents too minor a crop. For every acre US farmers devote to commercial eggplant, they raise more than 74,000 acres of wheat and 95,000 acres of corn. Not surprisingly, the biotech industry prefers bigger crops that offer more potential profit.
Six years ago, the nation's 1.4 million-acre potato crop looked viable for bioengineering. So biotech giant Monsanto introduced genetically engineered potato seed designed to resist a damaging virus. This spring, with commercial processors leery of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), the company suspended sales of the product (although work continues in Mexico).
A sweet corn engineered by Syngenta could suffer a similar fate. Never mind that it reduces conventional pesticide spraying, which can be both costly and environmentally harmful. Processors don't want any trace of the corn's special gene, because it could kill their lucrative export markets to Europe, which demands GMO-free sweet corn, says Syngenta's Ms. Warnick.
More stringent regulation is forcing mid-sized companies to delay the introduction of new bioengineered crops. "It has definitely slowed down the introduction of new products," says Gary Koppenjan, spokesman for Seminis Inc., the world's largest fruit and vegetable seed company. The Oxnard, Calif., concern does sell one bioengineered squash. But the crop represents less than 1 percent of sales. Although the company continues biotech research, its next bioengineered vegetable won't emerge for another four to five years.
"There are products that won't have biotech [added in] because of the regulatory situation," adds John Nelson, marketing manger for the US arm of Sakata Seed Corp., based in Yokohama, Japan. Sakata has adopted a company policy not to offer GMOs in any of its product lines.
The dramatic slowdown isn't due to domestic regulators, such as the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), says Val Giddings of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group based in Washington. It's regulation in the European Union (EU) and elsewhere. What's especially daunting to companies is the prospect of having to meet widely varying standards from country to country.
A rulebook for every country
"If [firms are] daunted by the cost of the technology, just wait until they face the rising cost of registrations," says Ronald Meeusen, vice president of research and development at Dow AgroSciences LLC, based in Indianapolis. "USDA, EPA, FDA, up to 15 member-state regulatory agencies in the EU ... as well as the Japanese and others: Every one of them wants a dossier of studies prepared their way and presented by local experts in their native language. Many want studies repeated on their own soil."
Understandably, each nation wants to safeguard its consumers, industry insiders concede. But the extra requirements and repeated testing can add 25 percent to an already hefty bill of $30 million or more to commercialize a GMO crop.
Cost isn't the only issue. "It's logistics," says Warnick of Syngenta. The company raises its melon seed in Asia. The melons are then grown in Central America and exported to the US for consumption. If the firm genetically engineered its melon seed, it would have to get regulatory approval in at least three countries.
But such delays will help scientists gain a much better understanding of genetic changes in plants, critics of the industry say. "It's hard to read the scientific record of what's going on without being impressed by how much we don't know," says Charles Benbrook, a consultant to consumer and environmental groups and former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences' board of agriculture.
Even major biotech corporations have had to adapt. Once pushing to sell a wide variety of genetically modified crops from potatoes to sugarbeets, Monsanto Co. in St. Louis has narrowed its focus. "We're focusing on four core crops - corn, oilseeds, cotton, wheat," says Mark Buckingham, a Monsanto spokesman. Not coincidentally, those are major crops in North America, with vast acreages and profit potential.
But this go-slow, narrow-focus strategy poses risks. Market skepticism and the growing thicket of international rules mean only the largest corporations will be able to afford to commercialize a bioengineered crop.
"The future of agricultural biotech is somewhat uncertain," says Neil Harl, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University in Ames. When the fate of an industry rests in the hands of a few big players instead of many small ones, "a mistake made in decision-making is far more devastating."
---
2. Syngenta results
c/o Marcus Williamson
http://www.gmfoodnews.com/
Syngenta, purveyor of poisons and developer of Terminator/GURT technology, has had a bad 6 months. Summary results here : http://www.syngenta.com/en/media/article.asp?article_id=143
show :
Revenues (Sales) : down 9%
Net Income (Profit) : static
Earnings per Share (Statutory) : down 6%
The full figures, together list of poisons this company produces, can be found here : http://www.syngenta.com/en/media/010830HalfYearResults_e.pdf
---
3. CANADIANS HAVE LITTLE TASTE FOR GM FOOD
August 30/01
Globe and Mail
Krista Foss
As he studied plump produce at a downtown Winnipeg grocery store Wednesday, Ernest Montsion was cited as saying that if any of it were genetically modified it wouldn't make it to the checkout with him. According to the results of an Ipsos-Reid/Globe and Mail/CTV poll released Thursday, Mr. Montsion is, the story says, among a majority: 63 per cent of Canadians surveyed recently said they would be less likely to buy a food product that is genetically modified or contains genetically modified ingredients.
The story says that a poll of 1,000 people from across the country also shows that Canadians are split when the issue moves off their own dinner plates and on to world markets. Forty-five per cent of those surveyed believe that Canada's competitive edge in the global food trade hinges on embracing the science of genetically engineered food. But another 50 per cent think if our food producers continue to use the technology it will hurt the country's international trade.
Mr. Montsion was cited as saying he doesn't want to eat genetically modified foods and doesn't want Canada to push forward with the science either, adding, "I just don't think the farmers need it."
The story says that most soy, corn and canola produced in Canada has already been genetically engineered with a herbicide-resistant gene (most corn? I think not -- dp), courtesy of bacteria and those three plant foods make their way into a legion of products, none of which carries a label identifying its genetically modified contents.
John Wright, Ipsos-Reid senior vice-president, was quoted as saying Wednesday that, "They're wary but whether or not that will translate into action is still to be seen ... It's clear Canadians want to be able to choose," How worried Canadians are about genetically modified foods depends on where they live: Respondents from British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec feel most strongly about not purchasing genetically modified foods. A federally commissioned report from the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee released this month suggests Canadians will wait to choose: It advocated gradual and voluntary labelling of genetically modified foods. On the flip side, there's also frustration in the industry -- specifically that average consumers such as Mr. Montsion often have a very fuzzy concept of what the term "genetically modified" means.
Lorne Hepworth, president of the Crop Protection Institute, a trade association of about 30 companies such as Monsanto and DuPont that develop biotechnology for agriculture, was quoted as saying Wednesday that, "This whole 'frankenfoods' label is used unfairly. Mother Nature has been genetically modifying foods through the ages."
This past July, however, the prospect that a new genetically engineered strain of wheat could be approved in Canada galvanized a diverse group of people who do understand the science -- from Greenpeace to the Canadian Wheat Board. They signed a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien listing concerns ranging from the trade losses to health and safety worries. For the Council of Canadians, a national interest group, the genetic manipulation of plants is worrisome when it involves mingling traits between plant and animal life. Nadége Adam, biotechnology campaigner, was cited as saying that for instance, fish genes have been used in a variety of U.S. tomato to help it withstand cold weather, adding, "We just don't know whether these foods are safe ... and the government is trying to be both the regulator and the promoter of Canadian GM foods to the rest of the world."
---
4. US corn exports to Japan hit hard by StarLink
(Reuters)
http://just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=40457&dm=yes
TOKYO, Aug 29 - U.S. corn exports to Japan, the world's largest importer of the grain, have been hit hard by the Starlink controversy, latest official figures show, and little respite is expected before the arrival of the new U.S. crop. Japan imported 8,385,776 tonnes of corn from the United States in the first seven months of this year, down nearly eight percent from 9,111,987 tonnes in the same period last year, Finance Ministry data showed on Wednesday. While U.S. corn sales to Japan declined, the country's total corn imports rose slightly to 9,463,108 tonnes from 9,380,519 tonnes a year earlier.The discovery last October of traces of genetically modified (GM) StarLink corn in domestic food and animal feed made from U.S. corn prompted Japan to cut U.S. purchases sharply, with importers scrambling to find other sources of supply. StarLink, made by Franco-German pharmaceutical group Aventis SA , is not approved in Japan even for animal feed.
With the start of stricter GM rules from April, Japan set zero tolerance for imports containing unapproved GM products and mandatory labelling for imports containing approved GM products.
Japan's buying of U.S. corn was expected to return to normal late this year on hope the new U.S. crop will not be contaminated with StarLink, traders have said.
The U.S. corn crop to be harvested this year is basically free from StarLink because U.S. farmers were prohibited from planting the variety after it turned up in U.S. food.
RIVALS CASH IN
During the seven month period, South Africa benefited most with corn sales totalling 381,887 tonnes, up from zero a year earlier, followed by China, Argentina and Brazil.
China's maize exports to Japan jumped to 268,732 tonnes from 60,694 tonnes, and Argentina's exports rose to 256,744 tonnes from 198,287, the figures showed.
Japan's imports from other countries soared to 169,969 tonnes from 9,551 tonnes. Brazil exported some 150,000 tonnes in the first seven months of this year, Japan's first purchase of Brazilian corn in more than a decade, traders said.
Japan was expected to buy as much as 200,000 tonnes of corn from Brazil this year.
Brazil has become a net corn exporter for the first time since 1982 on higher output.
StarLink was developed by Aventis to fight a destructive pest known as the European corn borer. The firm maintains the corn has undergone years of rigorous testing and poses no health risks.
In the United States, StarLink was approved for animal feed but not for human consumption because of concerns about the potential for allergic reactions. It was found in taco shells last September, leading to an eventual recall of more than 300 food products.