|
Click on a headline to read the story.
December 2002:
14% of U.S. Bt corn farmers still breaking the rules
November 2002:
EPA tightens rules for growing Bt corn
November 2002:
Soybeans contaminated with "biopharming" corn residue,
harvest impounded
October 2002: Biotech
industry adopts voluntary limits on pharmaceutical plantings
October 2002: Accusations
fly over GM corn shipped to Africa to avert famine
August 2002: Report
says GM genes increase environmental fitness of wild
sunflowers
August 2002:
U.S. government proposes food safety reviews before
GMO field trials begin
July 2002:
Bacteria in human gut may be able to take up GM DNA
July 2002:
EU approves broad labeling rules for GM foods
News
Updates--StarLink corn in the food supply
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
December 2002: 14% of
U.S. Bt corn farmers still breaking the rules
One in seven Bt corn farmers in the United States is
still breaking the rules established by the Environmental
Protection Agency for pest management, according to
a survey commissioned by an industry group representing
several agbiotechnology companies. In 2002, 14 percent
of Bt corn farmers failed to meet minimum requirements
for a non-Bt insect refuge, essentially unchanged from
the 13 percent figure in last year's survey (see our
news item on last year's
survey).
Bt corn farmers are required to plant insect refuges
according to size and distance requirements established
by the government. The refuge policy is intended to
delay the development of resistance to Bt, prolonging
the number of years during which Bt corn will be effective
against insect pests. The EPA and companies that develop
Bt corn varieties agreed in the fall of 2002 to bar
farmers from growing Bt corn if they fail to comply
with the rules (see our news
item from November 2002). In the 2002 survey, 12
percent of Bt corn farmers still were unaware of the
rules and 7 percent did not believe that the refuge
policy was important. Compliance has increased since
the first survey was done in 2000. In that survey, 29
percent of Bt corn farmers broke the rules (see our
news
item on the 2000 survey).
A story on the 2002 survey is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/12-2002/agnet_december_20-2.htm#STUDY:
CORN. Pioneer Hybrid explains the rules for planting
a refuge at http://www.pioneer.com/usa/agronomy/insects/yg_pug.pdf.
[Top]
November 2002: EPA
tightens rules for growing Bt corn
U.S. Bt corn farmers who fail to comply with the government's
insect resistance management program will be barred
from growing the crop in subsequent years, according
to a new agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship
Technical Committee, an industry group representing
the companies that have developed commercial varieties
of Bt corn.
Bt corn farmers are required to follow rules designed
to delay the development of resistance to Bt among insect
populations. It is believed that failure to follow the
rules will result in widespread development of resistance
to Bt in insect populations, reducing the efficacy of
the genetically engineered trait in Bt corn. Surveys
indicated that 29% of Bt corn farmers broke the rules
in 2000 (see
our news item from February 2001) and 13% broke
the rules in 2001 (see
our news item from February 2002). Survey results
for 2002 are not yet publicly available.
An announcement of the recent agreement is available
on the web site maintained by the National Corn Growers
Association at http://corninfo@ncga.com/news/notd/2002/november/111502.htm.
A summary of the rules is available at http://corninfo@ncga.com/biotechnology/insectMgmtPlan/compliance_program.htm.
[Top]
November 2002: Soybeans
contaminated with "biopharming" corn residue, harvest
impounded
The U.S. government has impounded the harvest from
a soybean field because it was contaminated with pharmaceutical
GM corn from a previous planting. The GM corn was part
of a "biopharming" experiment in which the company Prodigene
attempted to grow medicine in genetically engineered
corn. Prodigene later planted soybeans in the same field,
but some pharmaceutical corn plants remained and were
harvested along with the soybeans. Prodigene has been
experimenting with pharmaceutical varieties of GM corn
that would produce several medicines, including a vaccine
for hepatitis B and an enzyme for making insulin.
The contaminated soybeans, worth nearly $3 million,
will not enter the human food supply or the animal feed
supply. The harvest may be destroyed or converted to
an industrial use. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
is investigating Prodigene for potential violations
of its permit to grow GM crops in Nebraska and in Iowa.
Several biotechnoloy companies, including Prodigene,
recently announced a voluntary agreement to avoid growing
pharmaceutical crops in areas where there is a risk
of contaminating crops intended for human consumption.
Some consumer organizations have been calling for mandatory
government regulations instead of the voluntary industry
agreement. The USDA's announcement that it is investigating
Prodigene is available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/news/2002/11/prodigene.html.
News stories announcing the violation and tracking the
progress of the controversy are available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/11-2002/agnet_november_12-2.htm#FDA
ORDERS, http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/11-2002/agnet_november_18.htm#FARM
GROUPS STILL, http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/11-2002/agnet_november_19-2.htm#PRODIGENE.
Calls by consumer groups for mandatory government regulations
are available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/11-2002/agnet_november_18.htm#CSPI
ON POSSIBLE, http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/11-2002/agnet_november_19.htm#USE
OF MAJOR.
A summary of actions as of early December is available
at
http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/12-2002/agnet_december_3.htm#PHARMACEUTICALS.
Post script: The USDA has ordered Prodigene to pay
more than $3 million in fines and expenses in connection
with this incident. A news story is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/12-2002/agnet_december_8.htm#BIOTECH.
A consumer group, the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, has complained that the government gave Prodigene
an interest-free loan with which to pay the fine, costing
taxpayers an estimated $264,000. Details of the loan
and the repayment schedule are available in a Washington
Post story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29223-2003Mar25.html.
[Top]
October 2002: Biotech industry
adopts voluntary limits on pharmaceutical plantings
Biotechnology companies that intend to use GM plants
as living factories to produce medicines and chemicals
have agreed to locate their acreages away from food-producing
regions to avoid the spread of exotic genes into food.
The policy, a voluntary agreement among several companies
in the United State and Canada, was prompted by concern
that pollen from a pharmaceutical crop might carry genes
to nearby fields used for food crops. The spread of
genes via pollen is one of the mechanisms that was blamed
for the accidental appearance of the StarLink gene in
corn destined for human consumption. The immediate effect
of the new policy will be the relocation of pharmaceutical
test plots from the U.S. corn belt to areas where corn
is not a major crop.
A news story on this topic is available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61908-2002Oct21.html.
[Top]
October 2002: Accusations fly
over GM corn shipped to Africa to avert famine
The shipment of genetically engineered corn to feed
starving people in Africa has raised a storm of controversy,
with each side claiming that the other is milking a
tragic situation for political ends. Several African
counties are facing potential famine this year as a
result of drought, the AIDS epidemic, and political
struggles. The United States has offered to send shiploads
of corn to Africa, but an estimated 20 percent of the
corn is likely to be genetically modified because the
U.S. does not routinely segregate GM and non-GM corn.
Several African countries have been reluctant to accept
the shipments, citing human health safety concerns and
potential disruption of future trade relations with
Europe. If African farmers plant some of the GM corn
and the GM genes spread to local corn populations, future
exports to Europe may not meet the EU's standards. Advocates
of GM technology say opponents are planting groundless
fears in people who may die if they do not receive imported
food. Opponents of GM technology say the U.S. is dumping
supplies of corn that are not marketable elsewhere.
Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Zambia initially refused the
U.S. offer of food aid, but Zimbabwe and Mozambique
later agreed to take the corn if it was ground into
flour before delivery so farmers would not be able to
plant it. In early October, Zambia was still refusing
to allow delivery of GM corn.
An examination of the controversy is available from
the Pew Foundation at http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/display.php3?StoryID=77.
Statements from Zambian officials are available in news
stories archived at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/8-2002/agnet_august_16.htm#ZAMBIA
TO REFUSE and http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/10-2002/
agnet_october_1-2.htm#AFRICANS. Allegations from
advocates and opponents of GM crops are contained in
a story at http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_
id=3937&start=1&control=117&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1.
A report from a village in Zambia is available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,813220,00.html.
Postscript: In late October, Zambia announced that
it has decided not to allow delivery of GM corn. A report
is available at http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news
&doc_id=4066&start=1&control=175&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1.
[Top]
August 2002: Report says
GM genes increase environmental fitness of wild sunflowers
Wild sunflowers that acquire the Bt insect-resistance
gene from GM sunflowers can produce 50 percent more
seeds than wild sunflowers that cross-pollinate with
conventional sunflowers, according to a recently completed
study. The results suggest that GM genes in cultivated
crops may move into closely related weed populations
and make them hardier. Sunflowers are native to North
America and weedy versions of the cultivated sunflower
are common. The experiment, done by Allison Snow, an
ecology researcher at Ohio State University, involved
crossing a GM sunflower (not available commercially)
with weedy versions. The hybrid progeny suffered no
reduction in fertility and were effective at warding
off damage from insects. The research was partially
financed by two commercial seed companies, Pioneer Hi-Bred
and Mycogen. Before the completion of the research,
both companies decided not to proceed with commercialization
because there was no market for GM sunflowers in North
America, according to a spokesperson from Pioneer.
A report from Ohio State University on this research
is available at http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/sungene.htm.
A story in Science News Online is available at http://www.sciencenews.org/20020817/fob2.asp.
[Top]
August 2002: U.S. government
proposes food safety reviews before GMO field trials
begin
The Office of Science and Technology Policy is proposing
that developers of new GM crops ask for a safety assessment
before they begin large field trials. The assessment
would be similar to the current review process, but
would occur at an earlier stage. The proposal is prompted
by concerns that GM crops not yet approved for commercial
purposes may spread their genes into the food supply,
either through cross-pollination between experimental
fields and commercial fields or through seed mix-ups.
If the spread of genes occurs and the GM crop under
development eventually fails to win approval under government
guidelines, then unapproved GM DNA would be present
in U.S. agricultural products. Concerns about unapproved
GM DNA in the food supply led to the recall of domestic
corn products in 2001 and to the rejection of some U.S.
food shipments to other countries. The government is
proposing a voluntary review, but a spokesman for the
Grocery Manufacturers of America said food companies
would prefer mandatory reviews.
The text of the government's proposal is available
at http://www.ostp.gov/html/redregbio.html.
A story on the proposal, including comments from pro-GM
and anti-GM advocacy groups and from the Grocery Manufacturers
of America, is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/8-2002/agnet_august_2.htm#EARLIER
SAFETY.
[Top]
July 2002: Bacteria
in human gut may be able to take up GM DNA
Researchers at the University of Newcastle have reported
that microorganisms in the human digestive system took
up a herbicide resistance gene after the human subjects
ate a meal of GM soy. The experiment was small, involving
12 people with intact digestive systems and 7 who had
undergone colostomies, in which their lower intestines
were removed. Stools were collected from people with
intact digestive systems and the contents of colostomy
bags were collected from the others. In people with
intact digestive systems, no GM DNA was found in the
stools and no microorganisms in the stools had taken
up GM DNA. But in people who had undergone colostomies,
about 4 percent of the GM DNA from the meal survived
the trip through the abbreviated intestinal tract and
a small number of microorganisms in the colostomy bags
had taken up GM DNA. The results suggest that transfer
of GM DNA from food to microorganisms can occur in the
human digestive tract under some circumstances. News
reports on this experiment are available at http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992565
and http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,756666,00.html.
A report from the researchers at the University of Newcastle
is available at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/gmnewcastlereport.PDF.
The information pertaining to this experiment begins
on page 22 of the report.
Britain's Food Standards Agency, which commissioned
the research, has released the results of four other
studies on this topic. They are available at
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/science/sciencetopics/gmfoods/gm_reports.
Post script: This research was published in the journal
Nature Biotechnology, Volume 22, Number 2, pages 204-209,
February 2004.
[Top]
July 2002: EU approves
broad labeling rules for GM foods
Human food and animal feed containing half a percent
or more of GE material will be labeled in the European
Union, the European Parliament decided. Advances in
technology that allow detection of lesser amounts of
GE material may lead to lower thresholds of tolerance.
Supporters of the measure say it will bolster consumer
confidence in food safety. The United States government
opposes the move, saying it discriminates against U.S.
products. Several U.S. farm products, such as soy and
corn, contain large percentages of genetically engineered
material. The U.S. does not segregate GM from non-GM
products and does not require labels on GM foods. The
EU is moving toward a system that would require both
measures.
Two news articles on the European Parliament vote
are available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,748691,00.html
and http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,748928,00.html.
The text approved by the European Parliament, "Texts
adopted at the sitting of Wednesday 3 July 2002," can
be accessed at the EU's web site, http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=
20020703&LANGUE=EN&TPV=DEF&LASTCHAP=16&SDOCTA= 5&TXTLST=2&Type_Doc=ANNEX&POS=1
.
[Top]
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
News
Updates--StarLink corn in the food supply
|
