|
Click on a headline to read the story.
August 2005:
Mexican landraces of corn no longer contain GM genes
December 2004: Two
seed companies fined for mistakes
November 2004: GM
corn genes not detected in blood or flesh of piglets
November 2004:
Committee issues recommendations on maize and biodiversity
in Mexico
November 2004: Vermont
requires labels on GM seeds
October 2004:
Starlink payments to begin soon, including back interest
October 2004: GM canola
reduces pesticide use in Canada
September 2004:
Latest figures on GM crops grown in the U.S.
September 2004:
Study finds long-distance gene flow via pollen from
creeping bentgrass
September 2004: EU
commission approves GM seed for cultivation, sticks
to zero tolerance for contamination of conventional
varieties
August 2004: Growers
association disputes USDA figures on GM corn
July 2004: U.S.
science organization calls for testing of GE and conventional
foods
July 2004:
EU approves a second GM crop for import
May 2004: Monsanto
wins fight against Percy Schmeiser
May 2004:
EU ends de facto moratorium on GE food
May 2004:
Gene flow from GE maize to refuges may undermine the
refuge strategy
May 2004: U.N.
wants GE technology to reach small farmers
May 2004: Monsanto
decides to wait on GE wheat
March 2004:
EU food safety agency declares a GM rapeseed variety
safe for consumption
February
2004: Shipments of GM seeds will be labeled under new
rules
February 2004: USDA to
review its regulation of genetically engineered organisms
February 2004:
European Union still cautious as deadline approaches
for labeling GM food
January 2004: 18%
of Canada's Bt corn farmers break the rules
January 2004: U.S.
panel recommends closer attention to possible escape
of GMOs
January 2004:
Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred say they didn't illegally
fix prices
News
Updates--StarLink corn in the food supply
Archive:
News Updates for July through December 2003
Archive:
News Updates for January through June 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
August 2005: Mexican
landraces of corn no longer contain GM genes
Scientists who sampled maize landraces in Oaxaca,
Mexico, in 2003 and 2004 did not find evidence of GM
genes. Samples were taken from the same area in which
GM genes were discovered in 2000 and 2001 by Quist
and Chapela. The genetic composition of maize is
important in Mexico because southern Mexico is the center
of origin of maize and contains a large reservoir of
diverse maize genes. In order to protect its prized
landraces from acquiring transgenes, in 1998 Mexico
imposed a ban on commercial planting of GM maize. U.S.
corn, about 40 percent of which is transgenic, is imported
into Mexico for food but is not supposed to be planted.
The discovery in 2000 and 2001 of transgenic material
in samples from fields in southern Mexico caused great
concern among government scientists and Mexican farmers.
Additional surveys were conducted in adjoining regions
and the Mexican government initiated a public information
campaign to warn against planting corn imported from
the United States. A joint Mexico-U.S. team of scientists
conducted follow-up testing in Oaxaca and reported their
findings (Ortiz-García
et al., 2005) in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.
For more information on the topic of GM maize in Mexican
landraces, see our page GM
Maize in Mexico.
[Top]
December 2004: Two seed companies
fined for mistakes
Seminis Inc., a producer of seeds for fruits and vegetables,
and the Scotts Company, a producer of grass seed, have
been fined for separate incidents in which they failed
to properly contain GM genes in their products. Seminis
was fined $2,500 for mistakenly sending GM tomato seeds
to the seed bank at the University of California at
Davis. Over the course of seven years the improperly
identified seeds were shipped as conventional seeds
to researchers around the world. The Scotts Company
was fined $3,125 for failing to report that genetically
engineered grass had escaped from a testing field.
More information on this story is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/12-2004/agnet_dec_1.htm#story2
and http://www.ebfarm.com/News/NewsStories/BiotechFines120104.aspx
[Top]
November 2004: GM corn genes
not detected in blood or flesh of piglets
GM genes in corn that was fed to piglets were not
detected in the blood or flesh of the animals, suggesting
that the genetically modified DNA is mostly broken down
during the digestions process. Researchers in Illinois
tested the stomach contents, small intestine contents,
blood and flesh of piglets that were fed GM corn. GM
DNA was detected in stomach and intestinal contents,
but not in blood or flesh. A previous study of larger
pigs found no traces of the GM DNA in the small intestine
or the feces. There have been concerns about incompletely
digested transgenic materials being introduced into
the environment via animal waste, and GM DNA has been
found in the blood of other species of animals fed on
GM food.
More information on this story is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/11-2004/agnet_nov_8.htm#story1.
[Top]
November 2004: Committee
issues recommendations on maize and biodiversity in
Mexico
Labeling of GM maize imports into Mexico, milling
of GM maize before import, or education programs warning
Mexican farmers not to plant maize imported from the
United States are among the recommendations made by
the Commission for Environmental Cooperation in response
to the discovery several years ago of genetically engineered
genes in Mexican landraces of maize. The Commission
for Environmental Cooperation, a group jointly supported
by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, looked at
issues involving gene flow, biodiversity, human health,
and sociocultural matters after researchers discovered
that GE maize had been planted in Mexico despite an
official ban on commercial planting. GE maize is imported
from the United States into Mexico for food and feed,
but it is not supposed to be planted in Mexico because
of the likelihood that GE pollen will spread foreign
genes to Mexico’s landraces of maize.
In addition to much stricter enforcement of the ban,
the commission recommended:
- additional research to determine the extent of
foreign gene flow into Mexico’s landraces.
- the evaluation of methods for eliminating foreign
genes from the landraces.
- additional research into the effects on human health
and the environment.
The U.S. government has been critical of the report,
calling it “fundamentally flawed and unscientific.”
The committee’s report, titled Maize and Biodiversity:
The Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico, is available
on the commission’s web site at http://www.cec.org/files/pdf//Maize-and-Biodiversity_en.pdf.
More information about this story is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/9-2004/agnet_sept_29-2.htm#story1
and http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/11-2004/agnet_nov_8.htm#story0.
For more information on the topic of transgenic maize
in Mexico, see our
page on GM Maize in Mexico. The Pew Initiative on
Food and Biotechnology (PIFB) and the U.S.-Mexico Foundation
for Science (FUMEC) held a two-day public conference
in September 2003 in Mexico City, titled Gene Flow:
What Does It Mean for Biodiversity and Centers of Origin?
Proceedings from the conference are available at http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0929/Proceedings-English.pdf.
A description of the conference is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/10-2004/agnet_oct_21-2.htm#story6.
Responses from the U.S. government are available at
http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/11-2004/agnet_nov_9htm#story0
and http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/11-2004/agnet_nov_9-2.htm#story0.
Another view focusing on the lack of negative effects
from the accidental contamination is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/11-2004/agnet_nov_9-2.htm#story1.
[Top]
November 2004: Vermont requires
labels on GM seeds
Genetically engineered seeds sold in the state in
Vermont must carry a label specifying the GE traits
that they contain. The new law, the first of its kind
in the United States, went into effect in early October.
Steve Kerr, Vermont’s Secretary of Agriculture, added
that he wants to see a “plain English disclosure” that
such seeds are genetically engineered.
More information on this story is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/11-2004/agnet_nov_1-2.htm#story3.
The text of the law is available at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=06&Chapter=035&Section=00644.
[Top]
October 2004: Starlink
payments to begin soon, including back interest
Farmers who suffered economic losses as a result of
the StarLink corn scandal can expect to begin receiving
payments soon, including 4 percent interest dating from
September 2002. Farmers who did not grow the GM StarLink
corn but suffered from loss of consumer confidence after
the scandal broke will receive money from the settlement
reached with companies that produced and distributed
the corn. StarLink was a GM variety that was approved
only for use as animal feed, not for use as human food.
In violation of that limitation, StarLink corn was sold
for human food. The discovery of StarLink corn in products
on supermarket shelves in 2000 prompted a recall of
several brands of corn products and affected the market
price of corn. The level of StarLink contamination in
the nation’s corn supply dropped rapidly following clean-up
efforts, but grain handlers still test for StarLink
in loads of corn. Farmers in Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, and other major corn growing states will
share a settlement of $110 million.
More information on this story is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/8-2004/agnet_aug_24-2.htm#story2
and http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/10-2004/agnet_oct_27-2.htm#story3.
A short history of the StarLink scandal can be found
on the StarLink
News Updates page on this site and a discussion
can be found on our StarLink
Corn page.
[Top]
October 2004: GM canola reduces
pesticide use in Canada
As Canadian farmers have increased their plantings
of herbicide-tolerant canola they have reduced their
use of pesticides, according to a report by Brimner
et al. in the journal Pest Management Science. The
decrease in herbicide use is attributed partly to the
use of single pesticides rather than mixtures of pesticides
and partly to the ability to spot-spray weed-infested
areas while the crop is growing rather than spraying
entire fields before planting. Brimner et al. found
that both the pounds of active ingredient applied and
the environmental impact of the herbicides used were
lower in fields planted with herbicide-tolerant varieties
than in fields planted with conventional varieties.
More information on this story is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/10-2004/agnet_oct_20-2.htm#story0.
[Top]
September 2004: Latest
figures on GM crops grown in the U.S.
Government figures for GM crops grown in the United
States in 2004 are available on the Pew Agbiotech. The
percentage of GM versus conventional varieties of soybeans,
corn, and cotton increased from 2003 to 2004. About
85 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States
are GM varieties, as are 45 percent of the corn and
76 percent of the cotton. The United States Department
of Agriculture surveys farmers each year to estimate
how many acres of each crop are grown. Since the advent
of GM varieties, the government has included questions
about the percentage of conventional versus GM varieties
in its survey.
For more information, visit the Pew web site at http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/crops/
or http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/9-2004/agnet_sept_23-2.htm#story1.
[Top]
September 2004: Study finds
long-distance gene flow via pollen from creeping bentgrass
A GM turfgrass proposed for use on golf courses spread
its pollen up to 21 kilometers (about 13 miles) away,
in tests carried out in central Oregon, according to
a report by Watrud
et al. published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. The test location in Oregon is
significant because much of the U.S. commercial crop
of cool season turf grass seed is produced in Oregon.
The long-distance spread of transgenes from creeping
bentgrass could contaminate conventional varieties of
bentgrass being grown in the region. Creeping bentgrass
also frequently cross-pollinates with closely related
wild grasses. The spread of herbicide-tolerance transgenes
into wild grasses would increase the difficulty of eradicating
some weeds from farmers’ fields and could complicate
efforts by the U.S. Forest Service to keep commercial
grasses out of national forests. Herbicide-tolerant
bentgrass has been under development for several years
because it would allow golf course personnel to spray
herbicides to kill weeds without killing the turf. The
potential danger of spreading the transgene to nearby
plants has been raised before, but the distance over
which the pollen could spread had been previously believed
to be much smaller.
More information on this story is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/9-2004/agnet_sept_20.htm#story10
and http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/9-2004/agnet_sept_21.htm#story0.
[Top]
September 2004: EU commission
approves GM seed for cultivation, sticks to zero tolerance
for contamination of conventional varieties
The European Commission approved 17 varieties of GM
seed corn for cultivation in Europe, ending the ban
on GM varieties that began in 1998. The European Union
halted importation and cultivation of GM plants because
of concerns about damage to the environment and to human
health. Import of a few varieties has been approved
gradually in recent years. David Byrne, Health and Consumer
Protection Commissioner for the Commission, said years
of assessment show that GM corn is safe. However the
approved varieties will be clearly labeled as GM because
public sentiment in Europe runs against GM food. In
a related move, the European Commission refused to approve
low levels of GM contamination in batches of conventional
seeds, maintaining the standard of absolute seed purity.
More information on these stories is available at
http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/9-2004/agnet_sept_8.htm#story0,
http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/9-2004/agnet_sept_9.htm#story0,
and http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/business/worldbusiness/09seed.html.
[Top]
August 2004: Growers association
disputes USDA figures on GM corn
Estimates by the United State Department of Agriculture
overstate the percentage of GM corn grown in the United
States, according to the American Corn Growers Association.
A survey sponsored by the growers’ association found
that U.S. farmers planted about 34 percent of their
corn acreage with GM varieties in 2004, while the Department
of Agriculture survey reported that 45 percent of the
corn acreage was GM. The survey asked 500 farmers from
the nation’s top corn producing states about their corn
acreage in 2003 and 2004. The respondents reported planting
32 percent of their corn acreage with GM varieties in
2003 and 34 percent with GM varieties in 2004. The survey
has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. The
Department of Agriculture’s survey covers more states
but does not include from all 50 states. It has a margin
of error of plus or minus 2 percent. The American Corn
Growers Association is one of two such associations
in the U.S., the other being the National Corn Growers
Association.
More information on this story is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/8-2004/agnet_aug_20-2.htm#story0.
[Top]
July 2004: U.S. science
organization calls for testing of GE and conventional
foods
Both genetically engineered foods and conventional
foods should be evaluated for potential unintended health
effects before being marketed and in some cases should
be tracked after marketing has begun, according to a
report published by the National Academy of Sciences.
All techniques for modifying crop plants carry some
risk of unintended results, according to the NAS report,
and testing of the final products is needed. The NAS
committee recommended that safety assessments be done
on foods that show either intentional or unintended
changes in composition. Information about the nutrients,
anti-nutrients, toxicants and allergens in genetically
engineered foods should be made available to the public
along with typical levels found in conventional foods,
the committee said.
The full NAS report is available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977.html.
A story in the New York Times is available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/28/science/28study.html?
ex=1092110400&en=37e9be32f76623e4&ei=5070&8br. A
story in the magazine The Scientist is available at
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040729/02.
[Top]
July 2004: EU approves
a second GM crop for import
The European Union has approved a second GM corn variety
for importation, but not for cultivation. Following
the decision in May to allow a variety developed by
the Swiss company Syngenta to be used for human food
and animal feed, this month’s decision allows a corn
variety developed by the American company Monsanto to
be imported for animal feed.
A story on the decision is available at http://www.iht.com/articles/530211.htm.
The press release by the European Union is available
at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/press/press341_en.pdf.
[Top]
May 2004: Monsanto wins
fight against Percy Schmeiser
The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that farmer Percy
Schmeiser violated Monsanto's patent rights when he
grew Roundup Ready canola without paying Monsanto royalties.
Schmeiser's case has been in the court system for years
and Schmeiser has become a hero to some opponents of
GE technology. Monsanto hailed the 5-4 decision as protection
for intellectual property rights. The dissenting judges
argued that the court's own recent ruling against patenting
higher life forms negates Monsanto's claim to patent
protection.
A news story on the decision is available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/5-2003/agnet_may_21-2.htm#story0.
[Top]
May 2004: EU ends de
facto moratorium on GE food
The European Union has approved the importation of
a GE sweet corn. Syngenta's pest-resistant corn is the
first such product to be approved since 1998. In the
absence of decisions by both the GM Regulatory Committee
and the Council of Ministers, the European Commission
ruled that importation for use as human food would be
permitted as long as the corn is labeled as genetically
modified. Cultivation of the GE corn in Europe is still
not permitted.
More information is available at http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/663&format
=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en and http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1220460,00.html.
[Top]
May 2004: Gene flow
from GE maize to refuges may undermine the refuge strategy
The "refuge strategy," advocated as a way to delay
the development of resistance to pesticides used in
GE plants, may be undermined by gene flow from GE crops
to nearby refuges, according to recent
research published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science. In experiments done in Texas, the
Bt gene was found in kernels as far as 30 feet inside
a non-GE refuge, raising the possibility that seed-feeding
insects such as the corn earworm in the refuge were
being exposed to low levels of Bt. The refuge strategy
is intended to provide a non-Bt environment that will
foster the presence of pesticide-susceptible genes and
delay the development of pesticide resistance in the
insect population. Proximity of refuges to GE fields
has been considered advantageous until now. The U.S.
government recommends that farmers plant refuges within
a quarter mile of GE fields, and many farmers plant
their refuges immediately beside their GE plantings.
The researchers involved in the Texas study recommend
that refuge requirements be modified to avoid gene flow
from GE fields to refuges.
[Top]
May 2004: U.N. wants GE
technology to reach small farmers
GE technology has the potential to help small farmers
in poor countries, but has so far fallen short, according
to the Food and Agriculture Organization, an arm of
the United Nations. While calling for effective regulation
and more research into environmental impacts, the FAO
encouraged governments to provide incentives that will
direct research toward efforts that help the poor as
well as the rich.
A summary of the report is available at http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2004/41655/index.html.The
full report is available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/Y5160E00.HTM.
[Top]
May 2004: Monsanto decides
to wait on GE wheat
Faced with widespread opposition to its proposed GE
wheat, Monsanto has announced plans to concentrate on
other products until the market is more favorable. Exports
of wheat from the United States and Canada to Europe
and Japan would have been threatened by the introduction
of GE wheat in North America. Some millers announced
that they would refuse all North American wheat shipments
if GE wheat were introduced, because of worries that
mixing of GM and non-GM wheat would inevitably occur.
More information is available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1213958,00.html,
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/04/05-10-04.asp,
and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/11/tech/main616811.shtml.
[Top]
March 2004: EU food safety
agency declares a GM rapeseed variety safe for consumption
Monsanto's GM rapeseed variety GT73 has been declared
safe for consumption by humans and animals. This is
the second GM food to win the approval of the European
Union's food safety agency. The first was a GM maize,
variety NK603. The agency approval is for consumption
only, not for cultivation within EU countries. Importation
of the GM rapeseed will require approval by other EU
bodies. Stories on the safety assessment by the EU are
available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/3-2004/agnet_march_2.htm#story2
and http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id
=7251&start=1&control=201&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1.
The agency's announcement is available at http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/174_en.html.
[Top]
February 2004:
Shipments of GM seeds will be labeled under new rules
Members of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety have
adopted labeling requirements for trade in genetically
engineered organisms, including bulk shipments of seeds
such as maize and soybeans. Under the new rules, a "may
contain LMOs" label must accompany such shipments. LMO
stands for living modified organism, another way of
referring to genetically modified organisms or genetically
engineered organisms. Importing countries may also ask
for more details about the nature of the genetic modification
that is present. The United States, the world's biggest
producer of GM crops, is not a signatory to the protocol
and is not bound by the new rules. However, the U.S.
sent a delegation to lobby for weaker rules than those
that were eventually adopted. An official speaking for
the Cartagena Protocol said the new system will allow
countries to enjoy the benefits of biotechnology while
avoiding potential risks. More information on the rules
adopted under the Protocol on Biosafety is available
at http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=7249
&start=11&control=202&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1,
http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/2-2004/agnet_feb_27-2.htm#story0,
and http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/2-2004/agnet_feb_27-2.htm#story1.
An announcement by the United Nations Environment Program
is available at http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?
DocumentID=383&ArticleID=4373&l=en.
[Top]
February 2004: USDA to review
its regulation of genetically engineered organisms
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced
its intention to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
concerning potential changes in its regulation of genetically
enginered organisms. Issues to be studied include expanding
APHIS's role to include regulation of genetically engineered
organisms that are biocontrol agents or pose a noxious
weed threat, allowing post-release monitoring of genetically
engineered organisms, strengthening regulation of genetically
engineered organisms that produce pharmaceutical or
industrial compounds, and relaxing regulation of organisms
considered to pose low risk. Public comments on this
action are solicited until March 23, 2004. The Federal
Register notice is available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
Enter 04fr03271-APHIS_USDA_04-1411 in the Search window.
[Top]
February 2004: European
Union still cautious as deadline approaches for labeling
GM food
The possible negative consequences of growing and
eating GM foods continue to worry European countries
even as they prepare for strict labeling laws. The farm-to-fork
system for tracing and labeling foods that contain or
were derived from GM ingredients, including animals
that were fed GM products, was intended to alleviate
consumer concerns about lack of information and lack
of choice. With the rules due to take full effect in
April, EU officials have begun reviewing applications
by biotechnology companies eager to gain approval for
commercialization of their products in one of the world's
major markets. But concern about environmental effects
is limiting the scope of acceptance even as the applications
move through the system.
Two GM corn varieties, one that is resistant to insects
and one that tolerates exposure to the herbicide RoundUp,
have received favorable reviews from committees and
may be officially approved for importation within three
months, but they will not be grown in the EU. A corn
variety that carries both these GM traits has been released
in Spain and will be labeled accordingly. A British
newspaper, claiming advance knowledge, predicted that
the British government will soon approve the cultivation
of GM corn for one year only, but will ban cultivation
of GM beets and GM oilseed rape on the grounds that
they may harm the environment. Belgium has approved
the importation of GM oilseed rape, but not the cultivation
of it, citing the British studies showing environmental
effects.
Although a few GM foods were approved for import or
cultivation in Europe during the early days of commercialization,
no approvals have been given since 1998. European consumers
are largely opposed to GM foods. U.S. experts warn that
the new labeling laws may be just as hard to surmount
as the unofficial ban on approvals has been. Food producers
have been arranging for non-GM sources, even to replace
approved GM ingredients, rather than place GM labels
on their products. Supermarkets in Austria have announced
that they will be GM free when the laws go into effect.
And many EU countries are exploring the possibility
of declaring GM-free agricultural zones to avoid gene
flow from GM crops to non-GM or organic crops, which
are quite popular in Europe.
Only one food producer is seeking to turn the GM label
to advantage. A Swedish beer that contains GM corn debuts
this month amid a flurry of publicity aimed at profiting
from the public controversy over GM food. Consumer preference
surveys show that Swedish consumers, like consumers
all over the EU, are wary of GM food, so some observers
are eager to see whether the GM beer will meet with
consumer approval.
Stories on the recent developments in the European
Union include:
EU on line to prohibit GM oilseed rape crops http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1137416,00.html
GM crop closer to European growing ban http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/2-2004/agnet_feb_3-2.htm#story1
EU sees GM import soon, Belgium bans rapeseed http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/2-2004/agnet_feb_2.htm#story0
Austrian supermarkets to ban gene-altered foods http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_30-2.htm#story4
'Modified' label will make debut: GM beer http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_30.htm#story7
GMOs: commission takes stock of progress http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_28-3.htm#story9
State of play on GMO authorizations under EU law http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_28-2.htm#story2
Questions and answers on the regulation of GMOs in the
EU http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_28-2.htm#story3
EU commission backs GM maize http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_28.htm#story0
Eu's new biotech-crop laws may raise, not lower, barriers
http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_21.htm#story3
Monsanto notified GM maize released in Spain http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_16-2.htm#story2
Ministers to approve commercial growth of crops next
month http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_16-2.htm#story4.
[Top]
January 2004: 18% of Canada's
Bt corn farmers break the rules
Eighteen percent of farmers who grew Bt corn in Canada
failed to comply with the requirements for an insect
refuge, according to a survey done in the summer of
2003. An insect
refuge is a place where insects do not encounter
the toxic Bt protein that is built into insect-resistant
Bt corn. Scientists believe that insect refuges are
essential to delay the development of resistance to
Bt among insects that damage corn. Farmers are required
to plant 20 percent of their total corn acreage to non-Bt
varieties, and to locate the non-Bt acreage within a
quarter mile of their Bt corn fields. Interviews with
762 growers in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba indicated
that 82% of farmers were heeding the requirements, a
slight increase over the 79% who followed the requirements
in 2001. In the United States, 92% of Bt corn farmers
complied with similar requirements in 2003. The high
compliance rate in the U.S. was achieved after several
years of aggressive publicity campaigns about the need
for insect refuges and after government warnings that
Bt corn seed would not be sold to farmers who continued
to break the rules (see our story on the U.S.
compliance rate).
Results for the three Canadian provinces are available
at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_26-2.htm#story0
and at http://www.cornpest.ca/lib/news.cfm.
The full report is available at http://www.cornpest.ca/documents/btcorncomplianceStudy-2003.pdf.
The study was done on behalf of the Canadian Corn Pest
Coalition at the request of the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency.
[Top]
January 2004: U.S. panel recommends
closer attention to possible escape of GMOs
Protection of the environment may require that some
genetically engineered organisms be restricted by several
different systems to ensure that escape is impossible,
according to a report from the National Research Council
of the National Academy of Sciences. Methods to prevent
escape are called "confinement" methods. They include
physical restrictions such as isolated ponds for growing
fish and greenhouses for growing plants. Scientists
are also experimenting with biological containment methods
such as sterilization, that prevent the genetically
engineered organism from disseminating its genes. The
panel concluded that multiple methods should be used
to guarantee confinement in some cases, since no single
biological containment method is fool-proof. The panel
also recommended that some industrial compounds should
be produced in nonfood organisms rather than in plants
that are commonly used as food. Stories on the report
are available at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2004/1-2004/agnet_jan_21-2.htm#story0
and at http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040121/02.
The full report is available at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309090857/html.
[Top]
January 2004: Monsanto
and Pioneer Hi-Bred say they didn't illegally fix prices
Executives from two of the biggest biotechnology companies
say their price discussions in the 1990s were legal
business talks concerning their genetically engineered
seed products. An investigative report in the New York
Times alleges that the discussions raise questions about
attempted price-fixing. Scientists at Monsanto were
among several groups that developed genetic engineering
techniques in the mid 1980s. Monsanto later licensed
some of its technology to Pioneer. Together Monsanto
and Pioneer now sell about 60 percent of the GE corn
and soybean seeds in the United States. The questions
raised by the NY Times touch on the larger issue of
potential for control of seed markets. Some farmers
both in the United States and worldwide have accused
the big biotechnology companies of attempting to control
markets and raise seed prices, thus threatening the
livelihood of farmers. The New York Times report is
available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/business/06SEED.html.
A short version is available at http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction
=news&doc_id=6871&start=41&control=120&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1.
[Top]
Archive:
News Updates for July through December 2003
Archive:
News Updates for January through June 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
|
