|
Click on a headline to read the story.
May 2003:
US files trade complaint against EU over GM foods
March 2003: Bt-resistant
moth grows bigger when fed Bt toxin
March 2003: U.S.
government approves corn resistant to rootworm, scientific
advisory panel objects
March 2003: Consumer
groups, government butt heads over biopharming risks
February 2003:
Genes can jump from chloroplast to nucleus
February 2003: U.S.
delays trade war with EU over GE food
January 2003:
GM gene flow may not make weeds weedier
January 2003: British
scientists develop a wildlife-friendly way to farm with
GM crops
News
Updates--StarLink corn in the food supply
Archive:
News Updates for July through December 2003
Archive:
News Updates for July through December 2002
Archive:
News Updates for January through June 2002
Archive:
News Updates for April through December 2001
Archive:
News Updates for January through March 2001
Archive:
News Updates for September through December 2000
Archive:
News Updates for March through August 2000
May 2003: US files
trade complaint against EU over GM foods
After months of threats, the United States has filed
a complaint with the World Trade Organization, claiming
that the European Union is blocking trade in genetically
engineered crops despite a lack of evidence that such
crops are unsafe. The U.S. is the largest exporter of
GE crops in the world, and the EU is a large importer
of agricultural products. U.S. farmers fear that they
are losing millions of dollars as the EU finds alternate
suppliers for conventional agricultural products formerly
provided by the U.S.
EU officials have been developing mandatory labeling
regulations for GE foods along with a farm-to-fork tracking
system designed to ensure that all GE products are labeled.
There is deep opposition to GE products among European
consumers, and officials say labeling is needed to allay
suspicions. The U.S. opposes labeling, both at home
and abroad, and is casting the dispute as a trade war
rather than a consumer choice issue. A story on this
development is available from the BBC News at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3025217.stm
and from the Agnet news archive at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/5-2003/agnet_may_14.htm#U.S..
A response from the EU is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/5-2003/agnet_may_13.htm#EUROPEAN.
[Top]
March 2003: Bt-resistant moth
grows bigger when fed Bt toxin
A moth that has developed resistance to the Bt insecticide
grows bigger when fed a diet spiked with the insecticide,
according to researchers in Great Britain and Venezuela
(Sayyed
et al., 2003). The research results appear to contradict
previous findings that insects pay a price, what scientists
call a fitness cost, for developing resistance to insecticides.
The researchers measured the growth of three groups
of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella.
One group was a particular strain known to be susceptible
to Bt, one group exhibited no particular susceptibility,
and one group was specially chosen for its ability to
survive in the presence of Bt. For each group, 50 caterpillars
were fed plain cabbage leaves and 50 caterpillars were
fed cabbage leaves with Bt added. The caterpillars were
not given enough Bt to kill them, and 94% or more of
the caterpillars in each group survived the treatment.
The resistant caterpillars that ate the Bt diet had
a significantly higher average weight than the resistant
caterpillars that received no Bt in their food. The
other two groups showed no significant differences in
weight between the two diets.
The researchers speculate that the resistant caterpillars
were able to use the Bt toxin as an additional source
of protein, enabling them to grow heavier than their
counterparts on the non-Bt diet, but further research
will be needed to determine whether that idea is correct.
A news story describing the experiment is available
at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/3-2003/agnet_march_31.htm#INSECTS.
The research was published in the journal Ecology Letters
6:167-169 in March 2003.
[Top]
March 2003: U.S. government
approves corn resistant to rootworm, scientific advisory
panel objects
A new corn variety that is resistant to damage from
the corn rootworm has been approved by the U.S. government
for commercial use. Corn rootworm is one of the most
damaging pests of corn in the U.S. The government estimates
the financial impact of corn rootworm at $1 billion
annually – $800 million in yield losses and $200 million
in costs for insecticides. The new corn variety uses
a gene transferred from the soil bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) to make a protein that is toxic
to larvae of the corn rootworm. The strategy is similar
to that used in developing the well-known "Bt" corn
variety that is resistant to the European corn borer.
Both corn varieties use genes from Bacillus thuringiensis,
but different genes are needed to kill the two insects.
The new rootworm-resistant corn is not protected against
attack by European corn borers, and the older "Bt" corn
is not protected against rootworms, although Monsanto
intends eventually to develop a variety that is resistant
to both pests.
The government's decision to approve rootworm-resistant
GE corn for use with a 20 percent "refuge" is drawing
fire from some entomologists. Eleven of 14 scientists
on an advisory panel recommended a 50 percent refuge,
or area that is planted to non-resistant corn. The refuge
is designed to extend the number of years during which
the insect protection is effective against the target
pest. Monsanto and three of the scientists on the panel
recommended a 20 percent refuge.
A story on the approval of rootworm-resistant corn
is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/2-2003/agnet_february_25.htm#MONSANTO'S
ROOTWORM-PROTECTED BIOTECH CORN RECEIVES FINAL.
A story on the objections from scientists is available
at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/3-2003/agnet_march_6.htm#AGENCY.
[Top]
March 2003: Consumer groups,
government butt heads over biopharming risks
A coalition of consumer groups and environmental groups
has begun legal proceedings to sue the U.S. government
for alleged mishandling of its responsibilities regarding
GE crops used as pharmaceutical factories. One day after
the coalition filed its letter of intent to sue, the
required first step in the process, the government announced
stricter rules for such crops, but the new rules were
dismissed as inadequate by the food industry and the
environmental groups. Concerns about biopharming came
to the fore last fall when the biotech company Prodigene
was discovered harvesting small amounts of pharmaceutical
corn along with a field of soybeans. The company ignored
a government warning to remove the corn. See
our story on this incident.
The coalition wants the government to
- ban open-air cultivation of GE crops that contain
biopharmaceuticals such as vaccines and heart medicines,
limiting such cultivation to indoor facilities,
- ban the use of food crops (such as corn) for biopharming,
and
- establish a tracking system to ensure that no environmental
contamination occurs as a result of handling or disposal
of byproducts.
The government's stricter rules would
- increase the number of inspections of pharmaceutical
plots,
- require greater distances between pharmaceutical
plots and fields with food or feed crops, and
- require that farmers use separate equipment to plant,
harvest, and store pharmaceutical crops in order to
avoid contamination of food.
The coalition's letter of intent to sue is available
at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/GEPPV60daysFinal.pdf.
A story on the lawsuit is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/3-2003/agnet_march_5-2.htm#COALITION.
A story on the government's announcement is available
at http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=
news&doc_id=4850&start=1&control=217 &page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1.
The U.S. government's announcement is available at http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/03/aphis030603.htm.
A response from the food industry calling the new rules
inadequate is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/3-2003/agnet_march_7.htm#USDA
BIO-PHARMA.
[Top]
February 2003: Genes
can jump from chloroplast to nucleus
GM genes that are inserted into a plant's chloroplasts
can move into the nucleus, although the rate of transfer
is low and the wandering genes may not function in their
new home, according to a report by Australian scientists
that was published this month in the scientific journal
Nature. The findings have mixed implications for the
use of chloroplasts as fail-safe systems for containing
gene flow from GM crops.
Because chloroplast DNA usually is not conveyed along
with nuclear DNA in pollen, scientists have proposed
that foreign genes could be safely confined in the chloroplasts
of crop plants, where they would perform their function
without the risk of being transferred to nearby weeds
or to conventional crop plants. However, Australian
scientists who tested the rate of transfer from chloroplast
to nucleus have shown that the rate is much higher than
previously believed, although it is still very low.
They inserted an antibiotic resistance gene into tobacco
chloroplasts and then looked to see if it had moved
to the nucleus. About 1 in 16,000 pollen grains was
discovered to be carrying the GM gene that had been
inserted into the tobacco chloroplast.
The movement of genes need not spell the end of chloroplasts
as useful compartments for confining foreign genes.
The molecular machinery in the nucleus works somewhat
differently from that in the chloroplast, so genes that
function in the chloroplast may not function in the
nucleus. GM genes can be tailored to work only in the
chloroplast, not in the nucleus, according to the Australian
scientists. The report by Chun Huang, Michael Ayliffe
and Jeremy Timmis was published on line by Nature on
February 5, 2003. The summary of their findings is available
at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/2-2003/agnet_february_6.htm#DIRECT
MEASUREMENT. News stories about the implications
are available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/2-2003/agnet_february_6.htm#JUMPING
GENES, http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/2-2003/agnet_february_6.htm#JUMPING
GENES LIVEN, and http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2003/2-2003/agnet_february_6.htm#DON'T
JUMP.
[Top]
February 2003: U.S. delays trade
war with EU over GE food
U.S. government officials say they will postpone a
threatened showdown at the World Trade Organization
over GE food exports from the U.S. to Europe because
of the crisis over a possible war with Iraq. The EU
is developing a comprehensive system of labeling foods
for GE content in response to widespread consumer concern.
The U.S., the largest producer of GE crops, opposes
labels. The dispute is being relegated to the back burner
in order to maintain good relations with European allies
during the current crisis, but will probably heat up
again later.
A news story on the postponement is available at http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/
index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=4640&start=41&control=200&page_start=
1&page_nr=101&pg=1. The Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology has sponsored a discussion of the controversy,
entitled "Should the U.S. Press a WTO Case against Europe's
Genetically Modified Food Policies?". A press release
is available at http://pewagbiotech.org/newsroom/releases/021303.php3
and a video of the discussion can be viewed at http://www.connectlive.com/events/pewagbiotech/.
[Top]
January 2003: GM gene flow
may not make weeds weedier
The flow of GM genes from crops to weeds may not make
the weeds more competitive, according to experiments
done at the University of Tennessee. Wild Brassica rapa
weeds that acquired a Bt gene from a cultivated crop
had 20% less effect on yield in wheat fields than did
weeds without the gene. The researcher, Neal Steward,
speculated that the transfer of conventional crop genes
along with the Bt gene caused the reduction in fitness.
An estimated 10% of the genetic material in the modified
weeds came from the crop plant with which they had hybridized.
The findings were presented in January at the conference
"Assessment of the Impact of Genetically Modified Plants,"
organized by the European Science Foundation Programme.
A report on the presentation appeared in the scientific
journal Nature (Adam,
2003).
[Top]
January 2003: British scientists
develop a wildlife-friendly way to farm with GM crops
Scientists in Britain are experimenting with a new
weed-management method that would use herbicide-tolerant
GM crops to maintain weed cover in fields during the
summer when birds and insects use weeds for food and
shelter. Instead of spraying the entire field to kill
weeds, the new method involves spraying only the rows
where the crop is planted. Aisles between the rows are
left unsprayed and weeds are allowed to grow there for
most of the summer. Entire fields would be sprayed only
at the end of the season. The new method has the potential
to benefit wildlife around farms and to maintain populations
of beneficial insects that eat pest insects.
A news story on this research is available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,874862,00.html.
The research is reported in the Proceedings of the Royal
Society. A press release from the Royal Society is available
at http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/proc_bio/news/pidgeon.html.
[Top]
Archive:
News Updates for July through December 2003
Archive:
News Updates for July through December 2002
Archive:
News Updates for January through June 2002
Archive: News Updates for April through
December 2001
Archive: News Updates for January through
March 2001
Archive: News Updates for September through
December 2000
Archive: News Updates for March through
August 2000
|
