THE GENETIC ENGINEERING DEBATE (v1.02)

0.1. This document supports the campaign against the risks of genetic engineering (GE), particularly in food and agriculture. It will try to summarize all claims made by the proponents of GE, and the responses by the critics of GE. Supporting data and summaries of scientific studies will be included as much as possible.

0.2. Suggestions, corrections, improvements and new information are most welcome. Especially important are corrections to factual or argumentation errors/weaknesses. Style, syntax and grammar corrections are also welcome. My real role is to coordinate what will hopefully be a worldwide group effort.

0.3. We need the following contributions: a) facts, together with the source or URL, preferably both; source can be an email posting or news item, but scientific publications are preferred; peer-reviewed articles are even better; b) arguments, whether for or against GE; we also want the strongest arguments of the other side, so we can research how they may be answered properly.

0.4. IMPORTANT: When sending me a suggested change or addition, please do not (repeat: DO NOT) send me back the full edited document. Send only the paragraph(s) you want to add/change, the version number of the document you have (e.g., v1.0), and the section heading of the paragraph (e.g., 1.4).

0.5. Updated versions of this document will be released regularly at the GENTECH (gentech@ping.de) and BAN (ban@tao.ca) mailing lists. You are welcome to post parts of this document on mailing lists or the whole document on a website. If you put it on a website, it would be nice to inform me by email.

0.6. Some conventions: + is a pro-GE argument; - is an argument against; ++ or -- means the item is a new or edited entry in this version of the document; * is for useful data.

1. Examples of genetic engineering

1.1 GMOs in food.

Although there are numerous examples of food and crop GE, remember than more than 95% of all commercial food and GE applications involve only two GE traits: herbicide-tolerance (HT) in crops, so that they can survive the spraying of herbicides without any harm; and insect-resistance through the insertion of the Bt toxin gene in crops, making them produce their own insecticide.

Here are other examples, but most these are still experimental or at a very early stage of commercialization:

In New Zealand, AgResearch, a government research agency, has created the world's first herd of cloned cows from a ``parent'' renowned for the vast amounts of milk she produced. Scientists there are also seeking government permission to take a naturally occurring mutant gene isolated from double-muscled Belgian blue cattle, which makes them grow exceptionally large, and insert it into sheep. (See: The Calgary Herald, 24 Apr 2000, pg. A1, "Giant lobster could be food of the future")

A Canadian firm, Af Protein, has created a commercially viable transgenic super-salmon by inserting a gene from Arctic char, which makes the fish grow faster and larger. (See: The Calgary Herald, 24 Apr 2000, pg. A1, "Giant lobster could be food of the future")

Geneticists in the U.S. are creating the world's biggest lobster after discovering how to block the genes that limit animals' natural growth. In secret laboratory experiments, they have also applied the technique to make giant chickens, sheep and pigs and are attempting to do the same with cattle. The giant creatures are being developed by MetaMorphix, a company set up by Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in the United States. It was there that Se-Jin Lee, professor of genetics, discovered the gene that controls myostatin, a substance which regulates muscle growth. That discovery has been used by Cape Aquaculture Technologies (Cat) of Massachusetts, to create giant fish; trials are under way on lobsters and shellfish. Robert Curtis, chief executive of Cat, said he could not identify the fish species or reveal how large his lobsters would grow but added: ``Shrimps, mussels and scallops are also a possibility.'' (See: The Calgary Herald, 24 Apr 2000, pg. A1, "Giant lobster could be food of the future")

In the tanks at Aqua Bounty Farms on the island off New Brunswick, Canada, hundreds of truly novel fish swim: schools of genetically engineered salmon that await approval for sale in the United States. These fish look like Atlantic salmon found in groceries around the world, but for their age they are enormous. Endowed with foreign genes that produce growth hormones, they grow to market size about seven pounds in 18 months, twice as fast as normal salmon. (See: The New York Times, 1 May 2000, "Altered Salmon Lead the Way to the Dinner Plate, but Rules Lag" By CAROL KAESUK YOON)

1.2. GMOs in medicine.

US company GeneWorks of Michigan state has 50 to 60 GE birds, some of which carry a gene for producing the human growth factor in their eggs, and others which produce a human antibody which could be used to treat disease. Another US company. AviGenics, has birds which produce a cancer treating interferon. It says the gene - injected into bird embryos as a protein contained in a harmless virus - has already been passed on to further generations of birds, saving on repeating the process. (New Scientist, 13 Nov 1999)

1.3. GMOs in industry.

Australian researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) have created a flock of 120 transgenic ``ball-of-wool'' sheep which grow faster, need less food and produce far more wool than normal. Dr. Kevin Ward, one of CSIRO's senior scientists, said: ``They are strong, they grow faster and bigger but they eat the same amount of grass to do it.'' (See: The Calgary Herald, 24 Apr 2000, pg. A1, "Giant lobster could be food of the future")

The most striking of the new creatures being concocted by plucking a gene from one organism and inserting it into the DNA of another are what are known as pharm animals. These domesticated beasts cows, pigs, goats, sheep and chickens have been given the ability to produce pharmaceuticals and other valuable substances in their milk, eggs or semen. Endowed by scientists with foreign genes, often taken from humans, these animals, or bioreactors, as they are also known, earn their keep as living chemical factories. Many other animals are still in the development stage. For example, Nexia Biotechnologies in Canada is working on a goat that carries a gene from spiders allowing it to produce spider silk in its milk. When the spider silk, which consists of extremely strong, light proteins, is extracted from the goat's milk, the substance, potentially, can be used in applications like bulletproof vests. (See: The New York Times, 1 May 2000, "Altered Salmon Lead the Way to the Dinner Plate, but Rules Lag" By CAROL KAESUK YOON)

According to the UK GM trial database compiled by Primal Seeds, year 2000 trials include an environmental release of a new pesticide which made from a GE virus. The GE virus in question is a baculovirus. Baculoviruses are a group of viruses that are specific to arthropods (insects, spiders, crustaceans). (See: NLP Wessex Release, 9 May 2000, "Release of Genetically Engineered Viral Pesticide") <http://www.primalseeds.org/testsite.htm>

The Academy pointed out that roughly 40 GE food products have, so far, been approved for sale in the U.S. but approvals have also been given for an additional 6,700 field trials of genetically modified plants.[13,pg.35] And a NEW YORK TIMES story May 3 about super-fast-growing GE salmon noted that "a menagerie of other genetically modified animals is in the works.... Borrowing genes from various creatures and implanting them in others, scientists are creating fast-growing trout and catfish, oysters that can withstand viruses and an 'enviropig,' whose feces are less harmful to the environment because they contain less phosphorus."[14] [14] Carol Kaesuk Yoon, "Altered Salmon Leading Way to Dinner Plates, But Rules Lag," NEW YORK TIMES May 1, 2000, pg. A1 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695.

1.4. Cloning.

An intense effort to clone rhesus monkeys for medical research is underway in the U.S. Tanja Dominko at the Oregon Regional Primate Centre said: "We are working really hard to make it happen in any way we can." She said this would allow testing of new drugs and vaccines on genetically-identical animals, and success means a step nearer to human application. She admitted it may be years before they succeed in cloning monkeys, despite a narrow failure 3 years ago, when two monkeys were born after 166 nuclear transfer attempts. But they were not identical as the nuclei came from different sources. Also, the cells used came from embryos, not adults. Dominko's colleague, Don Wolf said: "If we can do this in monkeys, most people will see the significance of that to humans." Primates are preferred as lab animals because they are closely related to humans. Rhesus monkeys are not an endangered species and their reproductive organs function almost identically to those of humans. Female rhesus monkeys' menstrual cycle is even as long as that of humans. This similarity, and the similar scarcity of eggs, would mean that any cloning technique successful in rhesus monkeys would likely be applicable to humans. (BBC, "Multiple monkey cloning attempt," 9 Apr 1999)

2. CLAIM: The safety of GE products has been scientifically established.

2.1. CLAIM: There is scientific consensus that GE products are safe

- There is no scientific consensus at all. In fact, the scientific debate has intensified: some scientists, mostly from industry, insist that GE crops are safe; other scientists insist that we do not know for sure at this time because of lack of scientific studies; and an increasing number of scientists insist they are not safe.

- Statement by scientists: We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products; for patents on life-forms and living processes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all. ... The hazards of GM crops and products to biodiversity and human and animal health are now becoming apparent, and some even acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments. In particular, the horizontal spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes from GM crops will compromise the treatment of life-threatening infectious diseases which have come back worldwide. New findings show that the horizontal spread of transgenic DNA can occur, not only by ingestion but via breathing in pollen and dust. The cauliflower mosaic viral promoter, widely used in GM crops, may enhance horizontal gene transfer and has the potential to generate new viruses that cause diseases. (Signed: 231 scientists from 31 countries, 14 Dec 1999) <http://www.i-sis.dircon.co.uk>

- Some 200 scientists from Health Canada's Health Protection Branch signed a petition that, among other things, raised alarm at the acute shortage of scientists for evaluations and risk assessments of GE foods. Public-health critics also attacked the regulatory system for relying on data supplied by industry rather than original research. (See: The Ottawa Citizen, 30 Nov 1999, "Government fast-tracked Monsanto's GM potatoes" by Pauline Tam)

- Swiss panel slams EPA. A prestigious panel of Swiss scientists, commissioned by Greenpeace, on April 19 issued a peer-reviewed critique of the shoddy science endorsed by the EPA to certify the environmental safety of Bt corn. The EcoStrat report reveals that tests submitted by the biotech companies Novartis and Mycogen to determine whether their GE corn could harm non-target insects were so poorly designed that there was virtually no chance that adverse effects would be observed. Despite the flawed methodology, EPA accepted the tests as scientific evidence that the gene-altered crop was harmless to non-target insects, and continued to accept the same flawed testing procedures for approval of other companies' insect-resistant Bt crops. According to Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, a science advisor to Greenpeace, "We now know that EPA's approval of insect-resistant crops was based on false assumptions, shoddy methodology, and skewed results." For more information on the EcoStrat report see <www.greenpeaceusa.org/> (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

- On April 5 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released their long-awaited report on GE crops. Nearly every media organization in the country reported that the NAS report was plagued by charges of conflict of interest. The majority of the dozen scientists on the NAS panel receive money from GE firms or labs under contract to the industry, while the original head of the panel, Michael Phillips, left the NAS to work as a PR flack for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. As Rachel's Environment & Health weekly (May 11) <www.rachel.org> points out, however, a close reading of the NAS report is actually quite damning for the biotech industry and the nation's regulatory agencies (the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA). Among other things the NAS report admits that: 1. New allergens and toxins may be introduced into foods. 2. Existing toxins in foods may reach new levels, or may be moved into edible portions of plants. 3. New allergens may be introduced into pollen, then spread into the environment. 4. Previously unknown protein combinations now being produced in plants might have unforeseen effects when new genes are introduced into the plants; 5. Nutritional content of a plant may be diminished. (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

- Here are some highly respected scientists who have taken a position against GE and its risks:

- PROF. RICHARD LACEY, microbiologist, medical doctor, and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University has become one of the best-known figures of food science since his prediction of the BSE (mad cow disease) crisis, made more than seven years ago. Recently Professor Lacey has spoken out strongly against the introduction of GE foods, because of the "essentially unlimited health risks." "The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of [GE] foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction." (From: Protect Organic! Campaign jasonab@mediaone.net (617) 661-5609)

- DR. JOSEPH CUMMINS, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario warns: "Probably the greatest threat from [GE] crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses -from such constructions'. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus meaning that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power." (From: Protect Organic! Campaign jasonab@mediaone.net (617) 661-5609)

- DR. JOHN FAGAN, an award-winning microbiologist and cancer researcher, Professor of Microbiology at Maharishi University of Management, has renounced $3 million in US government research grants to publicize the dangers of misuse of biotechnology. He advocates a science-based precautionary approach requiring the labeling of all novel foods. He says "without labeling it will be very difficult for scientists to trace the source of new illness caused by [GE] food." (From: Protect Organic! Campaign jasonab@mediaone.net (617) 661-5609)

- PROF. RICHARD LEWONTIN, Professor of Genetics at Harvard University: "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another." (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech)

- PROF. MAE-WAN HO of the UK Open University Department of Biology says, "[GE] bypasses conventional breeding by using artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as inside cells. These vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has' long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of the organism." (From: Protect Organic! Campaign jasonab@mediaone.net (617) 661-5609)

- PROF. DENNIS PARKE of University of Surrey School of Biological Sciences, a former chief advisor on food safety to Unilever Corporation and British advisor to the US FDA on safety aspects of biotechnology writes: "In l98 hundreds of people in Spain died after consuming adulterated rapeseed (canola) oil. This adulterated rapeseed oil was not toxic to rats." Dr. Parke warns that current testing procedures for GE foods - including rodent tests - are not proving safety for humans. He has suggested a moratorium on the release of GE organisms, foods, and medicines. (From: Protect Organic! Campaign jasonab@mediaone.net (617) 661-5609) b - SHIRLEY WATSON, DC, director of education for the American Chiropractic Association's (ACA) Council on Nutrition: "Some hazards from the GE process could directly impact patients who ingest the food. Other hazards are indirect, operating through pollution of other food species or through unintended effects on local and global ecosystems." (See: Journal of the ACA, May 2000)

- DR. PETER WILLS, theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes "Genes encode proteins involved in the control of virtually all biological processes. By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for eons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can, under certain circumstances, be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease."' (From: Protect Organic! Campaign jasonab@mediaone.net (617) 661-5609)

- DR. SUZANNE WUERTHELE (BS in Biology, MA in Teaching Science, PhD in Pharmacology, 7 years of post-doctoral work, board-certified toxicologist, worked in a U.S. EPA regional office for 13 years, a national expert in toxicology and risk assessment): I was introduced to GE a few years back when I was shown the "risk assessment" for a GE nitrogen-fixing bacteria, Rhizobium meliloti... I learned some very disturbing things about regulation of GE:

o There is no process - across all U.S. federal agencies - to evaluate the hazards of GE organisms (we have such a process for chemicals and it works pretty well). For GE, however, no formal risk assessment methodologies. No science policies... No conferences where scientific issues of GE are debated. No understanding of the full range of hazards from GE organisms. No discussion of or consultation with the public to determine what constitute "unacceptable risk". No method to even measure magnitude of risks. Etc.

o When peer review panels are put together, they are not necessarily unbiased. They can be filled with GE proponents or confined to questions which avoid the important issues, so that a predetermined decision can be justified.

o ...we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences. In fact, we don't even know yet the full extent of what it can do to the environment and to our health. The few scientists in regulatory agencies who are concerned are ignored or their concerns are dismissed. Or they are told to be silent. Good risk assessment and good science, which if they were used rationally, would tell us that we're making a big mistake, is not being used or is being twisted. (Susan Wuerthele, toxicologist)

- The BRITISH and PORTUGUESE MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS are calling for a global moratorium on the planting of GE crops.

2.2. CLAIM: Pro-GE scientists are objective and motivated by pure science

- Some 90% of GE research is funded by the biotech industry. (Data from Terje Traavik, University of Tromso, Norway)

2.3. CLAIM: Studies which highlight unsafe aspects of GE are flawed

- An increasing number of researches, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, are raising concerns about the safety of GE crops. Instead of doing more scientific research to confirm these findings, the biotech industry is instead engaging in an unethecal campaign to malign and discredit independent scientists.

- It is easy for pro-GMO scientists to criticize these studies in public as "flawed", but unless their criticism is likewise accepted in peer-reviewed journals, they have little scientific weight.

- Monsanto Co. and its biotech rivals have begun a $50 million campaign to sell Americans on the benefits of GM food. With TV and print ads along with a Web site and toll-free number, the newly formed Council for Biotechnology Information says it may spend as much as $ 250 million on the campaign over the next five years toward shaping opinion in the U.S. and Canada. (See: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4 Apr 2000, "Biotech Rivals Team Up in Effort to Sell Altered Food; Monsanto, Others Launch Campaign in U.S., Canada" by Bill Lambrecht)

- The biotech industry should stop maligning independent researchers simply because their results raise concerns about commercial products.

2.3.1. CLAIM: Pusztai's lectin potato study is flawed so it is right to sack him

- Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a world-reknowned expert on lectins, had began a #1.6-million study which indicated that a GE-potato diet weakened rats' immune systems and adversely affected the animals' internal organs. When he shared with the media (with his superior's permission) some of his concerns, Pusztai was promptly sacked from his research post. His papers were confiscated, he was prohibited from talking to the media, and his research team was closed down.

- Some 20 scientists from 13 countries issued a statement deploring the harsh treatment by Scotland's Rowett Research Institute of world-renowned British researcher and lectin expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai and demanding his reinstatement. (See: )

- In April last year [1998], a scientist, Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely announced on television that experiments had shown intestinal changes in rats caused by eating GE potatoes. He said he would not eat such modified foods himself and that it was "very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guineapigs". A storm of publicity overtook Pusztai. He was removed from his job, a sacrifice that did not quell public alarm in the UK or in Europe. Last week (May 22, p1769 ) we reported that the Royal Society had reviewed what it could of Pusztai and colleagues' evidence and found it flawed, a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work. (See: The Lancet, Vol 353 No 9167, 29 May 1999, "Health risks of genetically modified foods")

- Monsanto funded the Rowett Research Institute: The Institute that sacked and alienated Arpad Pusztai over his GE research received a sum of PST 140 000 before the controversy blew up. Monsanto's media adviser claims the money was granted to the Institute's Dairy Business Group research. After initially supporting the findings disclosed by Pusztai on British television last year, the Institute sacked him and accused him of scientific inaccuracy and bumbling. (Source: Mail on Sunday, 13/2/99)

- Despite the publication of Pusztai's research in the Oct 1999 issue of the Lancet, pro-biotech advocates continue to repeat the industry lie that his research as "flawed".

- Thanks to the courageous example of Dr. Arpad Pusztai and other independent researchers, an increasing number of scientists are coming out with their research results, which are not necessarily favorable to the biotech industry.

- The scientist who suggested that genetically modified foods could damage health - and was comprehensively rubbished by Government ministers and the scientic establishment as a result - is to have his reputation dramatically vindicated.. Britain's top medical journal, The Lancet is shortly to publish Arpad Puzstai's research showing changes in the guts of rats fed with GM potatoes. This will reignite fears that eating GM foods may endanger human health. The Government has sought to discredit Dr Puzstai's work on the grounds that it has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Other scientists have made similar claims and attacked it as "flawed" and unpublishable. (See: INDEPENDENT - London, 3 Oct 1999, "EXPERT ON GM DANGER VINDICATED", By Geoffrey Lean)

- Puzstai's research is important because few papers have so far been published on the health effects of GM foods, despite the rapidity with which they spread onto supermarket shelves. Indeed Dr Puzstai - who was travelling in Europe last week and unable to comment on the news - began his experiments because he could find only one previous peer-reviewed study, led by a scientist from Monsanto, the GM food giant, which had found no ill-effects. (See: INDEPENDENT - London, 3 Oct 1999, "EXPERT ON GM DANGER VINDICATED", By Geoffrey Lean)

- Puzstai started his 3-year research - funded by the Scottish Office to the tune of #1.6 million - at Aberdeen's Rowett Research Institute as a self-confessed "very enthusiastic supporter" of GM technology, who fully expected his experiments to give it "a clean bill of health." (See: INDEPENDENT - London, 3 Oct 1999, "EXPERT ON GM DANGER VINDICATED", By Geoffrey Lean)

- The 68 year-old Puzstai, who has published 270 sceintific papers and is acknowledged as the leading authority in his field, fed rats on three strains of GE potatoes and one ordinary one. In his first full interview after being gagged by his institute, he said: "I was absolutely confident I wouldn't find anything. But the longer I spent on the experiments, the more uneasy I became." His findings sparked public concern, and ignited a furious row about GM foods, after he briefly mentioned them, with the Institute's permission, on a television programme last year. They contradicted repeated assurances from the Prime Minister down, that GM food is safe, and undermined the assumption behind the regulation of GE crops that there is no substantial difference between them and their conventional equivalents. Despite his eminence, Dr Puztai - who came to Britain after the suppression of the 1956 Hungarian rising beacuse of the country's "tolerance" - underwent one of the most extraodinary treatments ever meted out to a reputable scientist. He was suspended from his work on the experiments, his computers were sealed, his data confiscated and he found himself "sent to Coventry" by his colleagues. He was forced into retirement and forbidden to talk about his work. He came under comprehensive attack from ministers and the scientific establishment. Sir Robert May, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, accused him of violating "every canon of scientific rectitude". The Royal Society claimed that his work was "flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis" and said that "no conclusions could be drawn from it." And Professor Tom Sanders, of Kings College, London, said that none of the major scientific journals would publish the research. Cabinet enforcer Dr Jack Cunningham, who is in charge of the Government's GM strategy, said Dr Pusztai's work had been "comprehensively discredited" , and top Downing Street advisers consistently stressed it should be disregarded because it had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Dr Pusztai retorted that he was eager to publish, and pointed out that the scientific criticism was based on incomplete information that he had put on the internet at the Institute's request, while being denied full access to his data, which was only released to him this spring. (See: INDEPENDENT - London, 3 Oct 1999, "EXPERT ON GM DANGER VINDICATED", By Geoffrey Lean)

- Although most of the attacks on us were very personal and the language sometimes touching the level of the gutter, I am not willing to join in such a debate debasing science. However, I shall want to summarize the scientific, quasi-scientific and misinformed criticisms on our paper, which appeared mainly in letters to Editor in the Lancet and also some magazine/newspaper articles. I shall also try to summarize our responses to these which appeared mainly in the 13 November issue of the Lancet. Even before our article appeared in the Lancet on 15 October, Prof. Pickett, one of the six referees of our paper who apparently opposed its publication, broke the over 200 year gentleman's-convention of refereeing and gave interviews to the press in which he stated his opposition to the paper in a few not-so-gentlemanly sentences. However, his main "scientific message" was that our results were uninterpretable because we "changed horses in mid-stream", meaning that we changed the diets of the rats from GM-potatoes to controls diets. We have but two interpretations of this criticism: either Prof. Pickett did not read the paper he was supposed to have refereed or he deliberately misinformed the reporter. In either case, he was not the right person to referee our paper. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- Sir Aaron Klug, the President of the RS criticised our paper and said that it would not have been accepted by the RS for publication because we did not have low-protein control diets in our experiment. Apart from the fact that the RS does not publish peer-reviewed scientific papers, his comments suggested that he may not have read our paper in which it is clearly said that all diets (including control diets) contained the same amount of protein and were iso-energetic. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- In the Lancet letters mainly two peoples' comments were scientifically worthy of reply. In the invited commentary letter Kuiper et al (13 October) addressed two main issues: The first one concerned the specific criticisms of our paper and secondly they dealt with the issue whether there are adequate methods for the testing of the safety of GM-foods and whether this is necessary at all. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 1. Although we suggested that the changes in gut structure and metabolism reported in the paper were due to compositional changes in the potato on genetic modification, we did not report these changes. - Clearly, in a short research letter this was not permitted by the journal. However, Kuiper et al have a copy of the two Rowett internal reports in the public domain which were released by the Rowett on the internet against my expressed wishes (and not by me as Kuiper et al say) with the results of extensive analyses. He could have checked up on these showing that the two GM-potato lines were not substantially equivalent in composition with the parent line or with each other. All the same, and most importantly, the GM-line 71 used for the Lancet experiment had the same protein content as the parent line and therefore all diets (including the controls) were iso-proteinic and iso-energetic. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 2. The diets were protein-deficient, contained only 6% protein and therefore the rats were "starved". - It is true that 6% protein is just over half of the protein content of the optimal rat diet. However, in a short-term (10 day) experiment the rats can cope with that and in any case the control diets had the same low protein content and the results were therefore comparable. In contrast, Kuiper et al say that low protein diets impair rat metabolism and therefore invalidate our results. Unfortunately, as their reference shows this conclusion is more likely to be valid only for rats kept on protein-free diet and food restriction. Starvation is an emotive and meaningless term in respect of our experiment because despite the low protein content of the diet the rats were in fact growing, albeit less slowly than on optimal diets. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 3. Our results are probably due to the presence of poorly digestible carbohydrates in our GM-potato diets. - All our diets, including control diets contained the same poorly digestible raw potato starch. Moreover, some of the changes in gut parameters also occured in rats fed diets containing boiled GM-potatoes when compared to non-GM boiled potato diets and these contained no poorly digestible raw potato starches. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 4. Our experiments were incomplete, contained too few animals per group and there was no optimal control group, necessary to discern any toxicological significance. - Our study was not a toxicological but a nutritional study. Kuiper et al confuse these two different types of evaluation experiments. In our experiments there were six rats per group. This was more than adequate in comparison with the four or five rats per group usually used in nutritional experiments and described in top nutritional journals. I have published at least 40 such papers of nutritional evaluation of rat diets in the past 20 or so years. In any case, toxicological LD50-type experiments are only permitted in exceptional cases in the UK. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 5. We had no "empty vector" (no GNA gene but all other genes in the vector) containing potatoes as controls. - True, this potato was created at Durham at my request but our work was stopped before we could test these. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- The general comments of Kuiper et al which refer to the adequacy of the testing of GM-food: 1. Investigation of the gene product's role should not be confined to only its effect on the gastrointestinal tract. - Although they hold up as an example of [this] some work carried out in Kuiper's lab that was published as a book Chapter (and not peer-reviewed!) this was somewhat disingenious on their part because the work (Bt toxin from GM-tomatoes) was not carried out with the gene product isolated from the GM-plant as it should have been but was done with an E. coli recombinant. As these two are quite different, conclusions drawn from recombinant work cannot be accepted as valid. Incidentally, all biotech companies do the same according to their submitted evidence to the regulatory authorities. All the same, we wholeheartedly endorse Kuiper's views that ALL GM-PRODUCTS SHOULD BE FULLY TESTED FOR THEIR BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON ANIMALS AND THEN HUMAN VOLUNTEERS! However, such studies have so far only been carried out by us at the Rowett on GM-potatoes and GM-peas and only with rats but their results have been published! (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 2. All presently accepted GM-crops, GM-soya, GM-maize, etc have been adequately tested. - This is a really strange statement because no such studies, except one on round up-ready-soya in 1996, can be found in the scientific literature. In fact, what is in the literature (even in the above Monsanto paper) shows that GM-soya is compositionally different from non-GM-soya. I am afraid, as scientists we need more published evidence before we can accept the GM-foods already on the market are adequately tested. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 3. Safety testing will have to be adjusted for the "second generation" of GM-food plants. - This is a baffling statement. What is the difference between the need to test the first and second generation of GM-food? Why is it that it is only the second generation of GM-food that needs to undergo "extensive toxicological and nutritional (for the first time that this is demanded by someone high up in the EU authorities) testing"? (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- We do not argue against this because it is a great advance on Kuiper et al's previous stance but we need to stress that this statement should equally apply to the first generation! We have no objections to the incorporation into the testing procedures his proposed more sophisticated analytical testing methods (microarray technology, mRNA fingerprinting, proteomics, etc) but find their logic somewhat inconsequentional when they say that "depending on these studies, further toxicological and nutritional studies may be needed". This means in plain language that they first propose to carry out the analytical testing for some toxicant or allergen in the GM-crop but without knowing if they are there at all. How can you find something that you do not know what to look for and whether it is there. Surely, one does not want to waste time and precious resources by performing a lot of sophisticated analytical tests when in fact the GM-food may not show any signs of harming animals or humans. It is more logical that after some crude analyses (protein, starch oil) needed for formulating diets for animal testing, nutritional and toxicological evaluations are carried out first and if these indicate problems with the GM-food, we ought to find what is the cause(s) for them. However, considering everything Kuiper et al's commentary is a good step forward in the safety testing of GM-food. Now we only want to establish who is doing the testing, where is it going to be done and who is going to pay for it? It is gratifying to know that someone like Kuiper to whom funds for such testing have already been allocated by the EU is a passionate advocate for the biological testing of at least the second generation of GM-crops. Hopefully, and particularly if the first generation is also included in his testing programme, the EU consumers will reap the benefits, and if all these studies will be as transparently presented to the scientific community (and consumers!) as promised by him in the last sentence of his Lancet commentary. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- Allan Mowat in his letter to the Lancet (15 November) also makes a number of points which, together with our replies, are dealt with in the following: 1. Mowat raises a technical point of doubts about the role of tissue fixation and its potential to create problems and urges extreme caution in the interpretation of our results of gut histology, particularly as the crypt depths reported in our paper are below (about 60 um) what is usually found by others. - He is right, the values found with these potato diets are below of that found in well-fed normal rats. However, Mowat does not appreciate that as the potato lectin is antimitogenic it causes a reduction in crypt size and this is re-inforced by the low protein content of all the diets. It is the more remarkable therefore that even in the presence of such factors the GM-potato diet dramatically and significantly increases crypt depth to about 90 um. In any case, we have something like well over ten years of experience in carrying out these measurements on our rats kept on a great variety of different diets and therefore we are in a unique situation to make authorative statements on comparative and absolute values of crypt depth. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 2. Mowat raises another technical point concerning IEL (intraepithelial lymphocyte infiltration) counts in our jejunal sections. According to him, increased IEL is a sure sign of immunologically-mediated damage to the gut induced by the use of lectins and not due to exposure to GM-potatoes. In any case, GNA as lectin could cause this. - We did not give IEL counts in the gut of rats fed on GNA-spiked potato diets for the simple reason that in our previous studies no lymphocyte infiltration was observed even with a 1000-fold excess of GNA in the diet. Moreover, as published by us even a 1000-fold excess of PHA, kidney bean lectin, caused no significant IEL increase in the gut. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 3. Our data do not confirm that the crypt hyperplasia observed by us in GM-potato diets was due to genetic modification in the absence of data on the increase in mitotic counts. It is possible that the changes are secondary to lectin-induced villus damage. - First, there is no villus damage! Second, it is true that mitotic counts are not given in the paper but these will be included in a second paper which is in preparation. However, we can confirm that only the GM-potato diets increased mitotic counts and no such increase was observed with the parent potato diets, with or without spiking with GNA. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- Peter Lachmann's criticisms in the same issue of the Lancet were hostile but as they touched on scientific issues we decided to deal with them: Points no. 1 & 2 have already been answered above. 3. Were the assays done blind on coded samples? - Yes, they were. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 4. Lachmann states that as the differences in gut structure between rats fed GM and non-GM diets may not be pathological, they can be dismissed. - This just shows that Lachmann does not understand the issue. All GM-foodstuffs so far accepted have been passed on the basis that they were substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts. Thus, we do NOT have to prove pathological differences but only that the differences are significant. It is up to the companies and the regulatory authorities to show whether the changes are pathological. In any case, with Lachmann's background in medicine he ought to have appreciated that stimulation of gut growth in the young is at the expense of body growth (which is potentially harmful) as intestinal turnover uses up somewhere between 30-40% of the dietary intake of proteins. In the colon it is potentially even more serious because crypt cell proliferation in the colon may aid the development of tumours, and you cannot have anything more pathological than that. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- 5. His final point is that we have made no correction for "data dredging" in our statistical analysis. - We did not have to correct for data dredging because we did do no such thing. The statistical methods of multivariate analysis of significance, one-way ANOVA, paired t-tests and Tukey's tests are all described in our Table 1. These analyses have been seen and approved by independent statisticians, including one of the referees of our paper. We are more likely to accept the advice of these independent people than that of Lachmann with his partizan views and of rather unproven statistical expertise. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- In our final analysis, most of the comments by Kuiper et al and Mowat had legitimate scientific basis and were not personal. This is something that cannot be said of most of the others. We think that overall the Lancet initiative was helpful for both science and consumers by moving away from personal attacks and misinformation to a valid scientific debate on the safety testing of GM-foodstuffs. Let us hope that some of the conclusions will pass into practice and be accepted by the EU and all the regulatory authorities whose job was in the first place to start up this process but did not do so. (See: "Genetically Manipulated Plants Used for Food - Arpad Pusztai writes about what happened around the Lancet article", A commentary by Arpad Pusztai, made available on the internet by Thorkild C. Bog-Hansen, Senior Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 23 Nov 1999) <http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>

- For the Lancet report go to: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10533866&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b>

2.3.2. CLAIM: Hilbeck's green lacewing study is flawed

- Hilbeck's study was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It showed that Bt toxin may harm green lacewings, a corn borer predator and non-target species. (See: Hilbeck, A., Baumbartner, M., Fried, P.M. and F. Bigler, 1998. Effects of transgenic Bt corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 27: 480-487)

2.3.3. CLAIM: Losey's monarch butterfly study is flawed

- Losey's research was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It showed that Bt toxin may harm Monarch butterflies, a non-target species. Losey warned that their lab findings should not be automatically extrapolated to field conditions. This simply means that field studies must also be done. Why were these studies not done before millions of acres were planted with Bt corn? (See: Losey, J.J.E., L.S. Rayor & M.E. Carter, 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399: 214)

2.3.4. CLAIM: Stotzky's Bt toxin soil persistence study is flawed

- The Stotzky et al. studies were all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. They showed that Bt toxin persisted in the soil for up to 234 days, its insecticidal properties intact and that Bt corn exuded the toxin from its roots.

2.3.5. CLAIM: Mae Wan Ho's anti-GE stand is unscientific

- Ho's warnings against the use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter and the danger of horizontal gene transfer have recently been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (See: Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan, and Joseph Cummins, "Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promotor - A recipe for Disaster?", Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (Dec 1999).

3. CLAIM: The risks associated with GE products can be assessed and managed rationally

- Since there is no scientific consensus about many of the risks of GE, there is clearly a strong element of uncertainty at this time in the consequences of this technology.

3.1. CLAIM: GE is like any other tool subject to risk assessment and risk management

- GE is not like any other tool. It is a technology of incredible power to disrupt the very basis of life on Earth. Most risk assessments assume well-intentioned genetic engineers. Very little public debate has occurred regarding the risks associated with GMOs that may be created by ill- or evil-intentioned technologists with access to typical university biotech labs.

- Joseph Rotblat, the British physicist who won a 1995 Nobel Prize: "My worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of mass destruction, maybe more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible area, because of these dreadful developments that are taking place there." (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list) - There are at least two problems with GE risks: 1) they are unpredictable; 2) they increase over time because they are carried by GMOs that reproduce and multiply.

- Swiss Re, a Swiss company that insures insurance companies against catastrophic loss, recently issued a report on GE foods. Swiss Re said genetic engineering "represents a particularly exposed long-term risk" and "genetic engineering losses are the kind which have not yet, or only rarely, occurred and whose consequences are extremely difficult to predict." Swiss Re then asked (and answered) the question, "...so how can genetic engineering risks be insured?" Here is Swiss Re's answer: "It is currently not possible to give a direct answer to this question. A lot depends on whether consensus can be reached on the relevant loss scenarios in a dialogue involving the genetic engineering industry, society, and the insurance industry. This will make genetic engineering risks more calculable and more interesting to traditional insurance models. From the point of view of the insurance industry, WE ARE AT PRESENT A LONG WAY OFF. [Emphasis added.] "Today we must assume that the one-sided acceptance of incalculable risks means that any participants in this insurance market run the risk not only of suffering heavy losses, but also of losing control over their exposure." (See: Swiss Re, GENETIC ENGINEERING AND LIABILITY INSURANCE; THE POWER OF PUBLIC PERCEPTION - UNDATED) <http://www.swissre.com/e/publications/publications/flyers1/genetic.html>

3.2. CLAIM: GE risks are lower because GE is more precise and its results more predictable.

- Inserting foreign genes into an organisms involves random factors and may therefore result in unpredictable side effects.

- GE is only precise in so far as the foreign genes which will be inserted into a target organism are known. But GE has no control where into the target organism's genome the foreign genes will be inserted. The insertion site is totally random and unpredictable. Since genes do not operate in isolation, but interact in a complicated way and change their behaviour in response to influences from nearby and even distant genes, the behaviour of the transformed target organism is also unpredictable.

+ GE foods vary from non-GE foods only in the characteristic that has been modified.

- The random insertion of foreign genes into the genetic material may cause unexpected changes in the functioning of other genes. Existing molecules may be manufactured in incorrect quantities, at the wrong times, or new molecules may be produced. GE foods and food products may therefore contain unexpected toxins or allergenic molecules that could harm our health or that of our offspring. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)

+ There are techniques that ensure a precise integration into the genome (eg double recombination using a suicide gene or by using chimeraplasty which precisely changes an already existing gene)

- The commercially-available GE-crops did not use these new experimental techniques, but random techniques like the "gene gun" or bioballistics.

+ Even with random methods, it is possible to determine the insertion site(s) afterward and choose clones accordingly.

- Even after the insertion site has been determined, the interaction between the inserted promoter and miscellaneous foreign genes on the one hand and the neighboring genes on the other hand must still be determined. We know too little today about most target genomes to determine these interactions precisely.

- There is no data documenting the stability of any transgenic line in gene expression, or in structure and location of the insert in the genome. Such data must include the level of gene expression, as well as a genetic map and DNA base sequence of the insert and its site of insertion in the host genome in each successive generation. No such information has been provided by industry, nor requested by regulatory authorities. (32) (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)

- Michael Hansen, research scientist at the Consumer Policy Institute, the research arm of Consumers Union, argues that transgenic foods present unique risks and therefore should be required to achieve a standard of safety at least as strong as that for food additives. "Conventional plant breeding shuffles around aberrant versions [alleles] of the same genes, which basically are fixed in chromosomal locations as a result of evolution," he says. "With genetic engineering, one inserts genes on an essentially random basis, using a gene 'gun' or other techniques, into a plant's chromosomes," he explains. "Frequently, the genes come from living things with which the host organisms would never cross in nature," he notes. (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

- The identity of the transferred material may be completely known. But, Hansen says, the process of insertion of genetic material involves a number of unpredictable elements: the number of inserts of transgenic DNA, their precise position on a chromosome, and their functional and structural stability. The most important of these is the random or semirandom location of the genetic insert, he says. The insertion site can affect expression of the inserted transgene itself as well as the expression of the genes in the recipient organism, he explains. "If the material inserts itself into the middle of an important gene, that gene would functionally be turned off," Hansen states. For example, "if the turned-off gene happens to code for a regulatory protein that prevents the expression of some [natural] toxin, the net result of the insertion would be to increase the level of that toxin." (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

3.3. CLAIM: Inserting one gene produces the trait expressed by the gene and nothing else.

- Aside from the desired gene, GE inserts other DNA fragments, like promoters and markers. These fragments can create their own side-effects.

- The expression of a trait does not depend on the inserted gene alone, but also on the location of insertion. Since the insertion site is completely random, the side-effects of the insertion of even a single gene are unpredictable.

- Genes interact in complex ways with other genes. Therefore, a changing or inserting a single gene may not only produce a single desired effect, but also a number of unintended side-effects. Multiple effects from a single gene is called pleiotropy.

- Many GE crops have already shown unintended side-effects, often harmful to the crop or to its environment.

- By 1992, there were already 7 known instances of unexpected results from GE. One can only imagine how many more there have been in the interim. (Bereano, Philip and Nachama Wilker, "Regulations for Genetically Engineered Foods," Science, Vol. 258, 4 Dec 1992, p. 1561-2) The following are additional examples of GE unpredictability:

- GE SOYA SPLITS IN WARM SOIL: Bill Vencill of the Univ of Georgia examined the effects of heat on GE soya beans after Georgia farmers alerted him to unexpected crop losses, esp. during Georgia's two hottest springs since the beans were launched in 1996. "In the years we saw the problems, the soils were reaching 40 to 50 C," says Vencill. His team replicated these conditions in lab growth chambers, comparing the hardiness of the Monsanto plants with conventional strains. In soils that reached only 25 C during the day, the GM Monsanto beans grew as well as other beans. But in warmer soils, the GM plants appeared stunted. In soils reaching 45 C, the differences were marked. Vencill described the findings at a British Crop Protection Council meeting in Brighton this week. "We saw lower heights, yields and weights in the Monsanto beans," says Vencill. Worse, stems of nearly all the GE beans split open as the first leaves began to emerge compared with 50-70% of the other test plants. This had occurred on farms, but had been blamed on fungal disease. "Instead, we think the stem splits, and it exposes the plant to secondary infection," says Vencill. Vencill suspects the changes in plant physiology caused by the addition of GE resistance to glyphosate, the herbicide marketed as Roundup by Monsanto. These herbicide-resistant plants have been shown to produce up to 20 per cent more lignin, the tough, woody form of cellulose. "We think it might make the plants more brittle," says Vencill. (See: Andy Coghlan, New Scientist, 20 Nov 1999)

- TOBACCO PRODUCED TOXIC ACID: The unpredictability of the genetic engineering process can lead to a number of adverse consequences, such as the production of a toxin that does not normally occur in the plant, Hansen says. For example, tobacco plants engineered to produce linolenic acid also produced high quantities of the toxic compound octadecatetraenoic acid [Nat. Biotechnol., 14, 639 (1996)]. Also, the response of the promoter and transgene to extreme environmental conditions may be responsible for sudden crop failure, he says. (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

- YEAST FOR FERMENTATION PRODUCED TOXIC METABOLITE: The Journal of Food Science reported in 1995 that a yeast engineered for higher fermentation efficacy also unexpectedly produced increased amounts of methyl glyoxal, a toxic metabolite. (See: Organic Matters, Jan-Mar 2000, "Health Hazards of Genetically Modified Organisms" by Romeo E. Quijano, MD, Assoc Prof, Dept of Pharmacology, Coll of Medicine, Univ of the Phils)

- The following examples illustrate some of the unexpected results from GE:

- A study published July 1, 1999 in the Journal of Medicinal Food presents new information about biologically active components in GM soybeans resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Dr. Marc Lappe, Director of the Center for Ethics and Toxics (CETOS) and principal investigator says, "Based on corporate representations, the phytoestrogen concentrations of Monsanto's Roundup Ready and conventional soybeans were supposed to be equivalent. But the initial industry studies were performed on unsprayed soybeans. We found significant differences when we examined herbicide-sprayed soybeans analogous to those used in foods. The study shows an overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14 percent in the genetically altered soybean strains. Most of this reduction was attributable to reductions in genistin and to a lesser extent daidzin levels, which were significantly lower in modified compared to conventional soybeans in both strains. The apparent differences found may be an important discovery because consumers tend to buy soy products for their naturally occurring phytoestrogens which are thought to protect against breast cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis. As GE strains replace conventional ones, any differences in phytoestrogen levels becomes increasingly important." (See: "Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans", Maryanne Liebert Publishers, J. of Medicinal Food, Vol. 1 No. 4, 1999) (6 Jul 1999) <http://www.cetos.org>

3.4. CLAIM: GE crop risks are low and acceptable.

- Assessing risk means to anticipate the various potentially harmful events that can occur, and totaling the probability of each event multiplied by the consequence of that event. This means an event of low probability can still be very risky if its consequences are very serious. For GE organisms, we still lack the knowledge to anticipate many of the harmful events, or to measure their probability or consequences.

- Funds for research on environmental risk assessment are very limited. For example, the USDA spends only 1% of the funds allocated to biotechnology research on risk assessment, about $1-2 million per year. Given the current level of deployment of GE plants, such resources are not enough to even discover the "tip of the iceberg". (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)

- Risks increase as the GE organisms that carry them multiply. Unlike oil spills, chemical releases or nuclear leaks, which eventually dissipate, living GE organisms reproduce and multiply, and they cannot be recalled once released. GE risks can be low in the beginning, but as GMOs multiply, the risks multiply with them. For instance, if a GM bacterium doubles every hour, the risks it carries will also double every hour. Given enough doubling times, low risks will become high risks.

- The British Medical Association urged that: the precautionary principle should be applied in developing GM crops or foodstuffs, as we cannot at present know whether there are any serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in producing GM crops or consuming food products. (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999)

3.5. CLAIM: We have assessed the risks from GE crops as minimal

- In fact methods for risk assessment of transgenic crops are not yet well developed. (Kjellsson, G and V. Simonsen (1994) Methods for risk assessment of transgenic plants, p. 214. Birkhauser Verlag, Basil. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- There is also justifiable concern that current field biosafety tests tell little about potential environmental risks associated with commercial-scale production of GE crops. (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)

3.6. CLAIM: There is no such thing as zero risk or 100% safety. Everything involves some risk.

- We are not asking for zero risk or 100% safety. But we must first objectively assess the actual risk from a GE product, so that the public or whoever will be at risk can decide for themselves if they want to be exposed to that risk or not. This decision cannot be made the scientists or experts alone. Risk is the product of the probability of an event and the cost of its consequences, if it occurs. Today, we do not know enough about the potentially harmful events that can occur from GE products, nor their probability of occuring or the cost of their occurence. We simply know very little today. This justifies holding off field releases until the public has enough information to decide.

3.7. CLAIM: Risks attributed to GE-crops may also occur with conventionally-bred hybrids especially when breeding with wild relatives.

- GE-crops are inherently riskier, because the results of the random insertions are unpredictable. When we breed a natural corn variety that is safe to eat with another natural corn variety that is also safe to eat, we can reasonably assume that the result would also be safe to eat, unless proven otherwise. No foreign genes have been introduced. If we cause mutations through GE (or even through high-intensity radiation), we cannot reasonably assume that the mutant is safe to eat, without thorough testing. If we breed this presumably unsafe mutant with a natural corn variety, we cannot assume that the result is safe to eat either.

- Because of these unpredictable phenomena, Hansen wants FDA to require additional data, including the total number of inserts of transgenic DNA, the exact chromosomal position of each insert, the structure of each insert, and a genetic map of at least 10,000 base pairs of the flanking host genome DNA on either side of the insert. FDA should also require information on the transgene's stability and its level of expression during the growing season and over successive generations, he says. (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

-- "An example of this [unintended and poorly understood consequence of altering the nutritional content of food using genetic modification] is Monsanto's introduction of genes into oilseed rape to increase carotenoid levels. The introduction resulted in an unintened and unexplained reduction in tocopherol (including Vitamin E) and a change to the fatty acid composition of the plant. In this climate British farmers are unlikely to voluntarily grow GM crops....." (See: Farming News, "Behind the headlines...", 25 May 2000, TO GROW OR NOT TO GROW)

-- Monsanto has revealed that its most widely used GM product contains unexpected gene fragments, raising fresh doubts that the technology is properly understood. Two extra gene fragments have been found in modified soya beans that have been grown commercially in the US for four years and used as an important ingredient in processed foods sold in Britain for a similar period. The company and the British government, which approved the soya's use in food and animal feed on behalf of the EU, yesterday insisted that the beans were no more risky to human health than conventional types. However, the revelation will cause further problems for ministers trying to prove they can manage and monitor the introduction of the technology. Monsanto alerted the Department of the Environment to the results of new studies on its Roundup Ready soyabeans on May 19, two days after ministers revealed that thousands of acres of oilseed rape had been grown unwittingly from conventional seed contaminated by GM material. German research has suggested that a gene used to modify rape seed could leap the species barrier into the guts of bees. Monsanto said the new studies used more advanced techniques to provide "updated molecular characterisation" of its beans which contain an inserted gene to ensure they are not destroyed by weedkiller. The tests found that two "inactive" pieces of genetic material were inserted at the same time as the whole gene. Dan Verakis, a spokesman for the company, said: "All this means is we are able to see genes in soya more clearly now. It is like putting a telescope in orbit allows astronomers to see stars better." He insisted that the fragments were in the product when it passed safety assessments by US authorities in 1992 and in Britain in 1996. The company's letter to the government says that nearly 100m acres of such beans have been cultivated round the world since 1996 "without adverse impacts on the environment or human health. They have also been widely consumed in Europe in foods and animal feedstuffs without adverse effects." No GM soya is grown in Britain. The Department of the Environment said its own preliminary study "suggests that the risk from these beans when used in food or animal feed is no different from conventional soya beans". The information was considered by one advisory committee, on releases of GM material into the environment, last Thursday. The government has promised to publish its final verdict which will be passed on to the European commission. Andy Tait, GM campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: "This shows exactly what we have been saying for years, that genetic modification is inherently unpredictable and will have all sorts of knock-on effects once released into the environment." Soya is used in a wide range of foods. About half the US harvest is now thought to be GM. (See: Soya gene find fuels doubts on GM crops by James Meikle, Wednesday May 31, 2000 The Guardian)

4. CLAIM: Commercial GE foods/crops are substantially equivalent to their natural counterparts

4.1. CLAIM: We have been doing biotechnology for thousands of years.

- But not genetic engineering (GE). Traditional biotechnology (fermentation, conventional breeding, etc.) may be old; but modern biotechnology or genetic engineering (GE) is very recent. The first commercial GE products were released only in the 1990s, and there have not been enough time to identify harmful effects. If we look at our experience at DDT and other toxic chemicals (produced by the same firms now engaged in GE), it took 20-30 years to determine they were bioaccumulating through the food chain and causing cancers, and some 40-50 years to determine that they were mimicking some human hormones and disrupting our endocrine systems.

+ GE is just an extension of conventional breeding.

- No, GE and conventional breeding are radically different. Conventional breeding works only within the same or closely related species (e.g., bacteria to bacteria, corn with corn, pigs with pigs, etc.), using mechanisms provided by nature. In contrast, GE involves mixing genes from very distantly related species that in nature will never breed with each other (e.g., bacteria to corn, or pig to human beings), using mechanisms like gene guns which literally shoot DNA into target genomes.

- Whoever argues that GE is no different from conventional breeding is probably laying the groundwork for the concept of "substantial equivalence": that the products of genetic engineering are as safe as the products of conventional breeding. This dubious concept is often used as excuse to avoid thorough and rigorous testing.

4.2. CLAIM: Because they are substantially equivalent, commercial GE foods as safe as their conventional counterpart.

+ In September 1996, WHO and the FAO convened a consultation with experts on GE-food in Rome, which adopted the same industry line that: 1) safety issues in GE-foods were "basically of the same nature" as in foods from conventional breeding; 2) the substantial equivalence concept can be used to show GE-food safety; and 3) once substantial equivalence is shown, "no further safety consideration is needed." (See: "Biotechnology and food safety: Report of a joint WHO/FAO consultation", Rome, Italy, 20 Sep - 4 Oct 1996)

- The 1996 WHO/FAO report made clear that the participants were invited "in their individual capacities and not as representative of any organization, affiliation or government." So the report describes individual opinions and not official WHO or FAO position. (See: "Biotechnology and food safety: Report of a joint WHO/FAO consultation", Rome, Italy, 20 Sep - 4 Oct 1996, p.1)

- Biotech firms often refer to this 1996 report to falsely claim that the "WHO/FAO have declared that Bt corn [or some other GE-product] is as safe as its conventional equivalent for animal and human consumption." Yet, the WHO and the FAO themselves have no such official position.

- Although the biotech industry and U.S. regulatory agencies claim GE products are no different from their natural counterparts, these very same products are then submitted and approved for patenting, based on the opposite claim that they are substantially different from their conventional counterparts.

+ The U.S. FDA has declared that GE crops are as safe as their conventional counterpart.

+ On May 18, 1994, the US FDA announced that a GE tomato was as safe as conventional tomato. In a nutshell, the FDA position is that labeling isn't required unless a GE product "differs significantly from its conventional counterpart" - if it contains a new sweetener, for example - or if it introduces an allergen. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News)

- Because the FDA accepted the concept of substantial equivalence, it did not require feeding and other rigorous tests that pharmaceuticals or food additives normally require. (See also "Revolving door" under "Government/Industry collusion")

- Confidential documents made public in an on-going class action lawsuit have revealed that the FDAs own scientists do not agree with concept of "substantial equivalence between GE and normal seeds.

- The U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act prescribes that additives like the foreign genes in GE foods can only be recognized as safe based on tests that have shown the foods are harmless. But no such tests exist for GM foods. So, although the GRAS exemption was meant for substances whose safety has already been shown through testing, the FDA is using it to avoid testing and to approve substances based largely on conjecture - one that is dubious in the eyes of its own and many other experts. (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods)

+ FDA can demand extensive safety testing if the new gene "differs substantially" from those generally found in other food.

- That's a hollow promise. All 44 crops that so far have gained FDA marketing approval have avoided scrutiny because FDA has accepted the industry's claims that they are "substantially equivalent" to conventional food. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>

- Some scientists have questioned substantial equivalence as "a commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific... primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests." (See: Letter to Nature by Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner and Sue Mayer, 7 Oct 1999)

- The Codex Alimentarius itself, the UN agency which WHO and the FAO defer to on food safety issues, has not adopted the concept for its food safety assessments.

- The British Medical Association rejected the notion that GM foods should be assumed to be safe when they are said to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, which is the basis of U.S. regulation of biotech foods. "This concept does not account for gene interaction of unexpected kinds, which may take place in GM foods," the BMA asserts. "The possibility that certain novel genes inserted into food may cause problems to humans is a real possibility, and 'substantial equivalence' is a rule which can be used to evade this biological fact." (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999)

- In February 2000, govts signed the Intl BioSafety Protocol, in which all 130 signatory-nations agreed that GM crops are significantly different from traditional crops, repudiating "substantial equivalence".

- BT: GE Bt toxin is significantly different from the topically applied Bt sprays which have been used by organic growers for 50 years. Natural Bt must react with enzymes and digestive acids in an insect gut in order to be toxic. On plants, it degrades under UV light in a matter of days. GE Bt is already activated; it is not dependent on digestive enzymes and acids to become actively toxic; and it does not degrade in UV light.

+ Crop varieties developed through conventional breeding do not undergo feeding tests. So, GE varieties shouldn't either.

- GE destabilizes the target genome, so it involves inherently higher risks than conventional breeding. Thus we should assume that GE varieties are unsafe unless proven otherwise through thorough long-term testing. Traditional varieties of food crops have evolved with us for thousands of years, and can be assumed to be safe unless proven otherwise. Modern hybrids may or may not need to be rigorously tested depending on the situation. (See discussion of risk assessment.)

- Because it accepts substantial equivalence, the U.S. FDA requires no pre-market testing on animal or human subjects (as would be required of new drugs or food additives) nor any labeling. "There isn't any difference between a GM product and a natural food in terms of its impact on consumer health," says Jim Maryanski, biotech coordinator for FDA, which oversees the safety of fruits, vegetables and other GE food products. FDA only requires a label if a product contains a known allergen or is nutritionally different - for example if a GM orange had more or less vitamin C, he says.

4.3. CLAIM: Animals don't notice any difference between GE and conventional crops.

- HOGS, CATTLE, DEER, RACCOON, MICE: Animals reject "substantial equivalence"? After four months of hearing anecdotes from Kansas to Wisconsin, it is time to collect stories more thoroughly from farmers: About the hogs that wouldn't eat ration when GMO crops were included. About one farmer who said "if you want your cattle to go off their feed, just switch them out to a GMO silage." About another whose cattle broke through an old fence and ate down the non-GMO hybrids but wouldn't touch the Roundup Ready corn, though "they had to walk through the GMOs to get to the Pioneer 3477 on the other side." About the cattle whose weight-gain fell off when switched over to GMO sources. About the organic farmer with a terrible deer problem on his soybeans, who drives out at night, and sees 40 of them mowing down his tofu beans while across the road not one doe is eating on the Roundup Readies. About the raccoons romping by the dozen in the organic corn, while down the road not one ear has been touched in the Bt fields. Even the mice will move on down the line if given an alternative to these "crops". (See: ACRES USA Special Report, 18 Sep 1999 by Steven Sprinkel, Yankton, South Dakota)

- COWS: Why do cows, when given the choice between GE corn fodder and non-GE fodder, consistently choose the non-GE feed?

- LIVESTOCK: In March 1998 a letter in the UK's Farmers Weekly reported that livestock on farms from Nebraska to Iowa were not grazing, as in the past, in fields of Bt corn. Unpalatability of the Bt stalks was suspected. One farm specialist from Dawson County, Nebraska, reportedly said: "At first we thought it was a joke, but I have heard it enough now that we are looking into what could be going on." (See: Farmers Weekly, UK, Mar 1998) <http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmanimalgrazing.htm>

- MICE: Rodents reject "substantial equivalence"? Consider the Flavr Savr tomato, which was given a gene to delay its ripening. When scientists tried to feed rodents the tomatoes, however, the animals wouldn't eat them, recalled Roger Salquist, a scientist involved in creating the Flavr Savr. "I gotta tell you, you can be Chef Boyardee and mice are still not going to like them." They went so far as to force-feed the rodents through gastric tubes and stomach washes. This made the rodents sick, and revealed nothing about the tomato's safety. The tomato ultimately won approval from the FDA but failed in the market in part because it was so expensive. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>

5. CLAIM: GE foods are safe

5.1. CLAIM: GE foods do not cause allergic reactions

- Gene from Brazil nuts made GE soya allergenic. One GE product you won't find on the market is a soybean to which genes from a Brazil nut had been introduced. A New England Journal of Medicine article in early 1996 suggested the GM soybean could cause reactions in people allergic to Brazil nuts. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl of Johnson, Iowa - which had developed the soybean and later funded that allergy study - said it won't market the soybean because of the allergy potential. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News)

* Pioneer Hi-Bred, the giant seed company, asked University of Nebraska scientist Steve Taylor in 1995 to study a new soybean they had invented. Pioneer had spliced a Brazil nut gene into soybean, to make it more protein-rich. Taylor was to check if the GM soybean would affect people allergic to Brazil nuts, a serious concern because such people wouldn't think to avoid soy. Just one of the nut's thousands of proteins was put into Pioneers' new soybean, and the odds of that one causing the nut's allergies were incredibly low, Taylor said. But one test, then another, and finally a third showed that the GE protein was indeed a major cause of Brazil nut allergies. In trying improve the soybean, Pioneer had made it potentially more deadly; it quickly halted the soybean project. Taylor's study is symbolic of all that is both scary and reassuring about GM food. It proved that GM food could cause an unexpected and potentially fatal reaction. But the problem was detected before the product was marketed. Symbolic because it was, and still is, one of the very few studies ever to look directly for any harm from a GE food or crop. That dearth of studies is the legacy of a U.S. policy that treats GM plants and food to be substantially the same as conventional ones. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>

+ This was a very predictable situation. The soya allergy was caused by the same protein that was responsible for allergic reactions to Brazil nuts.

- If the allergy was predictable, why did Pioneer even attempt to create that GE-soya?

+ The fact that the soya with the Brazil nut gene was recalled and not commercialized shows that the regulatory system worked.

- The system may have worked in that particular case. How about all the other cases of commercialized GE-soya?

- 50% increase in soya allergies: A study by the York Nutritional Laboratory, Europe's leading specialists on food sensitivity, found that health complaints caused by soya - the ingredient most associated with GM foods - have increased by 50% in 1998. Researchers said their findings provide real evidence that GE food could have a tangible, harmful impact on the human body. It is the first time in 17 years of testing that soya has crept into the laboratory's top 10 foods to cause an allergic reaction in consumers. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said: "We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods because it is impossible to guarantee that the soya used in the tests was GM-free." (See: UK Daily Express, 12 March 1999)

- FDA scientists warn that GE foods could "produce a new protein allergen" or "enhance the synthesis of existing plant food allergens." Without labeling, people with certain food allergies will not be able to know if they might be harmed by the food they're eating. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)

- Infants, sick and elderly are more susceptible: Dr. Martha Herbert, pediatric neurologist, Council for Responsible Genetics, is concerned about "the immature gut and immature body of infants." If introduced too early, even proteins that are normally part of our diet can lead to auto-immune and allergic reactions later on, she said. "If a substance harms adults, it may well harm babies, the sick and the elderly more severely, and after smaller exposures," Dr. Herbert warned in her June 1999 statement.

- Allergic reaction to Bt sprays: A study of Ohio crop pickers and handlers found that Bt can provoke immunological changes indicative of a developing allergy. With long-term exposure, affected individuals might develop asthma or other serious allergic reactions, notes study leader I. Leonard Bernstein of the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. His team did a health survey of farm workers before the spraying of Bt pesticides and 1 and 4 months after the spraying. Two groups of low and medium exposure workers were also assessed. While there was no evidence of occupationally-related respiratory disease, positive skin prick tests were seen in exposed workers, with a significant increase in the number of positive tests to spores 1 to 4 months after exposure to Bt. The increase was more significant in high rather than low exposure workers. The study concluded that exposure to Bt may lead to allergic skin sensitisation and induction of IgE antibodies or IgG antibodies - or both. (See: Bernstein J L et al. 1999. Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives. 107 (7): 575-582) (See also: Science News Online, Vol 156 No 1, 3 Jul 1999).

* BT: The EPA has been asked to approve a new kind of Bt corn toxin called cry9C, seen as a test case of the degree of risk the EPA is willing to accept. While other versions of Bt break down harmlessly in the human digestive tract, cry9C can survive digestion and remains stable in the human stomach. Thus, its potential to cause allergies is higher. The FDA demands extra allergy testing for new food with such stable proteins. AgrEvo, the German firm seeking cry9C approval, has conducted some more tests, including a comparison of cry9C's molecular structure with known allergy-causing proteins. So far, no similarities have been found. But as the EPA evaluates the corn for human ingestion, the reality is that there is no surefire way of testing new proteins like cry9C for their potential to trigger allergies. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>

- Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumer Union says that better methods of testing the allergenicity of transgenic crops are needed because virtually every gene transfer results in the production of some new protein. The gene products of transgenes could be novel allergens that people will start reacting to, he says. Also, allergens can be transferred via GE from foods that cause allergic reactions to foods that are safe. Currently, companies test the novel gene products to see if they are digestible and if they have a molecular sequence similar to known allergens. (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

- Why do farmers complain about burning lungs after breathing Bt corn dust?

- NAS said GE safety problems include the possible introduction of new allergens into foods. (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.63)

- Unfortunately, as the NAS pointed out, current tests are not adequate for determining all the problems that might occur because of pleiotropic effects. For example if a new protein is created that has not previously been found in the food supply, then there is no reliable basis for predicting whether it may cause allergic reactions. Allergic reactions are not a trivial matter, the NAS pointed out: "...food allergy is relatively common and can have numerous clinical manifestations, some of which are serious and life-threatening." (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.67)

5.2. CLAIM: GE foods are not toxic

- A case in which a GE-product might have resulted in toxic contaminants: a Japanese firm that makes the food supplement L-tryptophan changed its production process and switched to GE bacteria, at the same time removing some steps in their purification process. The new process resulted in a toxic contaminant that could have come from the GE-bacteria used in producing the L-tryptophan. Before the product could be recalled, it had killed 37 and hospitalized 1,500. <http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/NewsNov-Dec97/GENews12-23Trypt.htm>

- About 37 people died and some 1,500 became sick after Japanese company Showa Denko K.K. produced the amino acid tryptophan using GE - and inadvertently introduced a toxin. A Web site operated by survivors of the 1989 outbreak agrees with those basic facts, although one of the articles posted there lists only 28 deaths. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News)

+ The L-tryptophan contaminant came not from the GE-bacteria but from a non-GE source which was overlooked due to the change in the purification process

- A non-GE contaminant cannot be ruled out. Unfortunately, A mysterious fire destroyed all samples of the GE-bacteria used for the production process, making it impossible for investigators to conclusively determine the real cause.

- According to some FDA scientists, GE food may bring "some undesirable effects such as increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, increased capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment (e.g., pesticides or heavy metals), and undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients." In other words, scientists from the FDA itself suspect that GE could make foods toxic. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)

- Dr. Arpad Pusztai found that a diet of potatoes engineered to express the snowdrop lectin weakened rats' immune systems and adversely affected the kidney, thymus, spleen, gut and brain of the animals. If confirmed, Pusztai's conclusions will reinforce concerns that gene insertion itself may create new toxins; it will also implicate the toxin commonly used in other GE-crops - the Bt toxin which, Pusztai says, is also a lectin.

+ The Royal Society of London reviewed Pusztai's study and found it flawed and unworthy of publication.

- After the Royal Society's review, however, Pusztai submitted the results of his study to The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journal, which decided to publish the study. (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999)

* The UK's Royal Society has written to the Natural Law Party indicating that it has called for Dr Pusztai's work to be repeated because of the outstanding uncertainties it considers arise from it. (From: "NLP Wessex" <nlpwessex@bigfoot.com>, 19 Nov 1999) In a way, this is a recognition by the Royal Society that Pusztai's work deserves to be taken seriously, a reversal of their earlier condemnation of Pusztai's work.

+ BT: The Bt formulation has been in use as a biopesticide for decades and is not considered harmful to human beings. It is one of the few insecticides that organic farmers are allowed to use.

- BT: The Bt biopesticide is relatively safe, compared to chemical pesticides, but it is not completely safe.

- BT: The dried Bt spores, for instance, may be harmful to the human immune system. French scientists at le Bouchet army research labs found that the spores caused lung inflammation, internal bleeding and death in lab mice. Last year, French scientists isolated a Bt strain that destroyed tissue in the wounds of a French soldier in Bosnia. The strain, known as H34, also infected wounds in immuno-suppressed mice. Now the same team has found that H34 can kill mice with intact immune systems if they inhale the spores. Francoise Ramisse of le Bouchet and her colleagues found that healthy mice inhaling 108 spores of Bt H34 died within eight hours from internal bleeding and tissue damage. (See: New Scientist, 29 May 1999)

+ BT: Spores from mutants of the Bt H34 strain which did not produce the toxin were equally lethal to mice, suggesting that the Bt toxin was not to blame. Researchers think the symptoms are caused by other toxins. The bacterium's close cousin, Bacillus cereus, produces a toxin that ruptures cell membranes. And in 1991, Japanese researchers showed that B. thuringiensis produces the same toxin. (See: New Scientist, 29 May 1999)

+ BT: Since the natural Bt toxin is relatively safe, then the GE-toxin in corn is safe too.

- BT: The Bt corn toxin is not identical to the natural toxin. The natural Bt gene which produces the toxin was substantially modified before it was transferred to corn. The toxin gene in Bt corn is a truncated version (at both 5' and 3' ends) of the Bt toxin and is the smallest fragment that still possesses toxicity to insects. (See: M. Vaeck et al. Nature 328, 33-37, 1987, as cited by Heine Deelstra).

* BT: Why is it a bad thing if they are not identical?

- BT: This means that, unlike the natural Bt toxin, the Bt corn toxin has never existed in nature, until Bt corn started synthesizing it. It is risky to put into our gut any substance which our gut has never seen before, because we have not evolved to handle such a substance. In our experience with synthetic chemicals, this has led to various long-term problems like cancers.

+ BT: The Bt natural gene produces a large, inactive pro-toxin that is about 1200 amino acids in length. This pro-toxin releases upon digestion by proteases (in the insects gut) an active 68,000 Dalton fragment. So the pro-toxins of plants and Bt may differ in length, while the active toxic fragment is exactly the same in size and mode of action. Truncation of sequences before and after the 'toxic fragment' might affect, due to folding differences, (1) the crystallisation properties and (2) the susceptibility to proteases of the pro-toxin. The occurrence of (1) and/or (2) are not known to me. (Heine J. Deelstra <h.j.deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl>, on GENTECH list)

- BT: The Bt corn toxin is up to 100 times more powerful than the natural toxin. This is part of the high-dose strategy which supposedly delays the development of resistance in corn borers. However, such high doses may also be riskier to non-target species, including human beings who ingest the toxin when they eat Bt corn.

- BT: The expression of the full-length [Bt] toxin was too low to achieve pest resistance in plants other than tobacco (against the tobacco hornworm) and tomato plants. Toxin levels were so low that protection was not attained against less sensitive, but agronomically-important insect pests. Researchers then modified part of the Bt toxin coding sequence so that it was efficiently expressed (and translated) in plants. This was done by using a synthetic toxin gene for amino acids 1-453 (coding for the same amino acids as the natural Bt toxin gene but using codons preferred by plants) and fusing this with the (natural) gene fragment encoding for amino acids 454-615. The rest of the bacterial gene (amino acids 616-1178) was not used. Expression of this gene in cotton plants showed that Bt toxin levels were increased by 100 times and that Bt toxin constituted 0.02% of the protein in the plant. (See: Recombinant DNA, 2nd edition by James D. Watson et al. and Moleculaire Biologie van Schimmels en Planten (in Dutch), 1998 by Prof. J.G.H Wessels, as cited by Deelstra)

- GE may introduce new toxins into foods. The NAS said, "...there is reason to expect that organisms in US agroecosystems and humans could be exposed to new toxins when they associate with or eat these plants." (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.129)

- Existing toxins in foods may reach new levels, or may be moved into edible portions of plants. ("Overall increases in the concentrations of secondary plant chemicals in the total plant might cause toxic chemicals that are normally present only in trace amounts in edible parts to be increased to the point where they pose a toxic hazard," (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.72)

- The mechanism for creating unexpected proteins or unexpected toxins or allergens would be pleiotropy, the NAS explained. Pleiotropy is the creation of multiple effects within an organism by adding a single new gene. (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg. 134)

- While US regulatory agencies boast of having the safest food supply in the world, statistics reported last month from the Center for Disease Control show that 76 million Americans suffer food poisoning each year and about 5,000 die from it. The new CDC analysis also estimates that 325,000 people are hospitalized annually for food-related illnesses. Particularly startling is that the new CDC numbers on food poisonings are twice as high as its most recent analysis in 1994, which put the figure at 33 million. (See: Organic View, v.1 n.14, 28 Sep 1999) <http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r990917.htm>

5.3. CLAIM: GE foods do not cause cancer

- HT: Since herbicide-resistant GE-crops lead to greater herbicide use, cancer risk can also come from exposure to higher levels of herbicides like bromoxynil (Rhone-Poulenc's Buctril) and glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup). Authors Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey (Against the Grain, 1998) warn that bromoxynil bioaccumulates, because it is fat-soluble. Rat and rabbit studies have shown birth defects, other developmental disorders in fetuses, tumors, and carcinomas at levels ranging from 20 to 300 parts per million. (See: Lappe, Marc and Britt Bailey; Against the Grain, 1998)

- HT: Glyphosate exposure can triple the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, say cancer specialists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden's Orebro Hospital, in a study published in the American Cancer Society journal (See: Cancer, 15 Mar 1999)

- In 1989, Monsanto was aware that cows in test herds treated with the GE bovine growth hormone developed sores and lesions on their udders that were collectively called mastitis. Milk from rbST-treated cows contained increased levels of pus, blood, and virulent bacteria. In order to deal with the problem, Monsanto's top dairy scientist, Margaret Miller, left the firm and became FDA's Monsanto "plant." Once at FDA, Dr. Miller arbitrarily changed the existing antibiotic standard. She increased by 100 times the allowable level of antibiotics that farmers could put into milk. (See: Robert Cohen) <http://www.hungerstrike.com)

- RBGH: U.S. food campaigner Robert Cohen warns about the hormone Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), identical versions of which occur in cows and humans. In 1994, Cohen says, the U.S. FDA approved the use of a GE-hormone (rBGH) in cows to stimulate milk production. Using rBGH raises IGF-1 levels in cows' milk by 80%. IGF-1, Cohen warns, is a key factor in prostrate cancer (Science, 1/98), breast cancer (The Lancet, 5/98), and lung cancer (Journal of the NCI, 1/99). Most recently, Cohen cites a report in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (10/99, p.1231), which found IGF-1 levels in the blood of milk drinkers 10% higher than in non-drinkers. The implication: GE-milk exposes its drinkers to higher cancer risks.

- RBGH: On December 15, 1998, the Center for Food Safety, on behalf of a broad coalition, filed a legal petition in Washington, D.C. against the FDA to have rBGH taken off the market. The CFS petition cites mounting evidence that the original testing of rBGH was flawed. In 1990 the FDA said BGH was "safe for human consumption." Part of its findings were based on 90-day rat feeding studies in which they reported "no toxicologically significant changes..." Based largely on this conclusion, FDA did not require human toxicological tests usually required for a veterinary drug. However in April 1998, researchers from Health Canada, the Canadian equivalent to FDA, issued a report contradicting FDA's findings. Canadian researchers found studies showing that rats were absorbing rBGH after all. In fact, between 20 and 30 percent of the rats were developing distinct immunological reactions. Additionally, cysts formed in the thyroid of some male rats and infiltrated the prostate - both warning signs for potential cancer hazards.

- RBGH: Milk from cows injected with rBGH, which is not analogous to normal BGH (7), has elevated insulin-like growth factor that is implicated as a risk factor in human breast cancer (8,9). (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)

- RBGH: The EU Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on Animal Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin, rBST, (adopted March 10th 1999) has recommended that, due to foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions in dairy cows, rBST from an animal welfare and health point of view, should not be used. This is an important recommendation given the upcoming vote on rBST in International Trade.

- RBGH: At the previous 22nd Codex session, the Codex Alimentarius Commission decided to suspend the consideration of Maximum Reside Limits for rBGH. The reason for the suspension was so that scientific data could be re-evaluated. Since then, there has been more evidence that rBGH is not safe. The 23rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was held in Rome, June 28 - July 3, 1999. Since the U.S. realized that they were not going to win on this issue, they essentially dropped it.

+ These examples are not due to the effect of GE but rather the use of the chemicals or hormones.

- HT:/RBGH: But the higher cancer risks are the consequence of GE products (more herbicide residues in food, higher IGF-1 levels in milk, etc.). People would not have been exposed to these risks if HT crops or rBGH had not been developed.

5.4. CLAIM: GE foods do not give rise to pathogens

- "The evidence is now overwhelming that horizontal gene transfer has been responsible for both the rapid spread of antibiotic resistance and for the emergence of virulent strains of pathogens in recent years... one main contributing factor to the recent increase in the scope and frequency of horizontal gene transfers may be the deliberate acts of genetic engineers to break down species barriers. they do so by constructing a range of chimaeric vectors for cloning, and transferring genes... Thus, genetic engineering biotechnology has opened effectively opened up highways for horizontal gene transfer and recombination, where previously, there was only restricted access through narrow, tortuous footpaths." (see: Mae Wan-Ho, Terje Traavik, Orjan Olsvik, Tore Midtvedt, Beatrix Tappeser, C. Vyvyan Howard, Christine von Weizsaecker, and George C. McGavin; Gene Technology in the Etiology of Drug-Resistant Diseases, 1998.

+ Their conclusion is unsupported by their data; no recent increase of transfer has been observed.

- In May 1999, the British Medical Association, which counts some 80% or nearly 115,000 of Britain's medical doctors, issued an official statement in May 1999 expressing concern over the safety of ge-foods. the bma recommended a moratorium on planting commercial ge-crops in the uk "until there is scientific consensus (or as close agreement as reasonably achievable) about the potential long-term environmental effects." the BMA also called for 1) segregation at source, "to enable identification and traceability" of GE-foods; 2) labelling GE-imports and banning unlabelled ones, if the industry refuses to segregate; and 3) more robust systems of disease surveillance, to deal with "potential emergence of new diseases associated with GM material which will be obscure and difficult to diagnose". (see: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999)

- Mae Wan-ho and Angela Ryan of the UK Open University warned last July 1999 that "no transgenic plant containing the CaMV promoter should be released," because the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter is "very likely to recombine with other DNA in the host genome, including dormant viral DNA, as well as with other viruses in the host cell." The problem covers practically all GE-plants released so far. These GE-plants, according to Ryan, "have the potential to create new viruses or other invasive genetic elements."

- There is potential for vector recombination to generate new virulent strains of viruses, especially in transgenic plants engineered for viral resistance with viral genes. in plants containing coat protein genes, there is a possibility that such genes will be taken up by unrelated viruses infecting the plant. In such situations, the foreign gene changes the coat structure of the viruses and may confer properties such as changed method of transmission between plants. The second potential risk is that recombination between rna virus and a viral RNA inside the transgenic crop could produce a new pathogen leading to more severe disease problems. some researchers have shown that recombination occurs in transgenic plants and that under certain conditions it produces a new viral strain with altered host range. (Steinbrecher, r.a. (1996) From Green to Gene Revolution: the Environmental Risks of Genetically Engineered Crops. The Ecologist 26, 273-282. as cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) and HIV have interchangeable components, according to five researchers of the John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory (uk). (see John Innes Centre Annual Report, 1998/1999) If they meet in nature, they could recombine to form chimeric viruses with potentially devastating properties. (jcummins@julian.uwo.ca, 6 Nov 1999) This can happen, for instance, if pollen from a GE plant is inhaled by an HIV-positive or AIDS-stricken person.

- The 1999 UK John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory Annual report specifically acknowledges that this particular viral promoter is prone to 'recombination' events. <http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/documents/camv.htm>

- One must consider not only the "fate" of gmos but also the genes and viruses or parts thereof, that have been inserted into them. Such "naked dna", in the form of recombinant and modified nucleic acids, has been found capable of surviving and remaining functional longer after organisms' death than was assumed previously.(6,30) furthermore, xenobiotics, especially dioxins and various agrichemicals, can act as mutagens (31), altering the structure and sequence of dna and also increasing the permeability of cells and the incorporation of foreign DNA into living organisms. (see: "will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)

- The use of the cauliflower mosaic viral promoter (CaMV) has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or create new viruses in all species to which it is transferred. CaMV is known to be found in practically all current transgenic crops released commercially or undergoing field trials. This transgenic instability increases the possibility of promotion of an inappropriate over-expression of genes to the transferred species. The development of cancer may be one consequence of such inappropriate over-expression of genes. the scientists behind the research "strongly recommend that all transgenic crops containing CaMV 35S or similar promoters which are recombinogenic should be immediately withdrawn from commercial production or open field trials. All products derived from such crops containing transgenic DNA should also be immediately withdrawn from sale and from use for human consumption or animal feed". (See: Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan, and Joseph Cummins, "Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promotor - A recipe for Disaster?", Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (Dec 1999).

- Another difference between GE and conventional plants is that GE plants on the market contain a promoter from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus that is inserted along with the desired transgene, Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumer Union says. This promoter responds to signals-from other genes and from the environment - that tell it when to switch on, and it enables the plant to express the gene product. "But it may also change the gene expression patterns in the recipient organism over long distances upstream and downstream from the insertion site," he notes. (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

5.5. CLAIM: GE foods do not spread antibiotic-resistance

- Many ge-foods contain antibiotic-resistance marker (ARM) genes. These genes can be acquired by harmful bacteria through horizontal gene transfer, making it more difficult to cure diseases.

+ There is very low probability that arm genes in GE-plants can transfer to pathogenic bacteria.

- In May 1999, the British Medical Association called for a "ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food, as the risk to human health from antibiotic resistance developing in micro-organisms is one of the major public health threats that will be faced in the 21st century." (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999)

- Safer new screen for GM crops: Rockefeller University and University of Singapore researchers can now screen for GM crops without having to insert an ARM gene. The new method, described in Nature, uses a gene that enhances a plant's use of its own growth hormones. (Irish Times, 13 Sep 1999) If ARM genes are safe, why are so much research funds being spent looking for alternatives to these genes?

+ Because plants with ARM genes won't sell, that's why.

- They won't sell because medical doctors, like members of the British Medical Association, have warned against their dangers.

- Countries which have banned the use of ARM genes: Norway

- Countries where a ban on the use of ARM genes has been proposed: Europe

+ Antibiotic resistance in GMOs is not a health concern.

- Germany's minister for health announced today the suspension of approval for Novartis' Bt 176 corn on the grounds that the action was necessary to protect consumers and defend precautionary health protection. according to minister Andrea Fischer, who holds full responsibility for approving GMOs, the key factor in the decision is that Novartis' insect-killing Bt corn contains an antibiotic resistance gene. She also hinted at unresolved questions about detrimental effects on non-target species and dispersal of the Bt toxin in soil. Fischer confirmed that any planting of Novartis Bt corn is banned in Germany immediately. Germany joins France, Luxemburg, Portugal and Austria in formally banning the planting of Novartis Bt corn. (See: 16 Feb 2000, greenpeace release) <http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/press_releases/00_02_16.htm>

- GE crops contain antibiotic resistance marker genes, bacteria genes, and virus genes. None of these have ever before been part of the ecosystem or the human diet.

- Furthermore, biotech crops developed thus far contain antibiotic resistance marker genes that are not found in conventional crops. Because these marker genes could conceivably move into bacteria and make them resistant to antibiotics and because they are not necessary for plant function, they should be removed before the crop is grown commercially, Dr. Michael Hansen says. (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

5.6. CLAIM: GE foods do not affect the immune system

- Twenty two leading scientists recently declared that animal test results linking GE foods to immuno-suppression are valid. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)

- Dr. Arpad Pusztai found that a diet of potatoes engineered to express the snowdrop lectin weakened rats' immune systems aside from adversely affecting the kidney, thymus, spleen, gut and brain of the animals. (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999)

5.7. CLAIM: GE foods do not mimic natural hormones

- HT: Lappe and Bailey also noted the "remarkably high estrogenic activity of soy isoflavones," elevated levels of which have been found in herbicide-treated GE-soya. "If ingested by nursing infants, these isoflavones can produce circulating levels equivalent to 13,000 to 22,000 times the normal plasma estradiol concentrations found in babies, with unknown and potentially dangerous secondary effects," they warned. Early exposure to estrogens, they wrote, is associated with sex organ dysfunctions and higher risks of vaginal adenocarcinoma and other tumors. (See: Lappe, Marc and Britt Bailey; Against the Grain, 1998)

+ HT: On the isoflavone statement reread the ff posting. <http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1999/Jul-Aug/msg00200.html> (From: "H J Deelstra" <H.J.Deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl>)

- The Scottish Crop Research Institute and the University of Dundee, reported that the snowdrop lectin (the same lectin Pusztai used in his GE-potato study) can bind with human white blood cells, raising questions about safety of the lectin itself. (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999)

6. CLAIM: Animal feeding tests showed no harmful effects.

+ In 1996, only one GE-food feeding test had been published - done by Monsanto (no harmful effects observed)

+ BT: A feeding study on broiler chickens by a Novartis researcher was published 1998 (no harmful effects observed) Abstract: "A 38-d feeding study evaluated whether standard broiler diets prepared with transgenic Event 176-derived "Bt" corn (maize) grain had any adverse effects on male or female broiler chickens as compared to diets prepared with nontransgenic (isogenic) control corn grain. No statistically significant differences in survival or BW were observed between birds reared on mash or pelleted diets prepared with transgenic corn and similar diets prepared using control corn. Broilers raised on diets prepared from the transgenic corn exhibited significantly better feed conversion rations and improved yield of the Pectoralis minor breast muscle. Although it is not clear whether this enhanced performance was attributable to the transgenic corn per se, or due to possible slight differences in overall composition of the formulated diets, it was clear that the transgenic corn had no deleterious effects in this study." The authors also wrote that "to our knowledge, this is the first published large-scale feeding study of transgenic corn." (See: J.Brake (NCSU) and D.Vlachos (Novartis), "Evaluation of Transgenic Event 176 Bt corn in Broiler Chickens," 1998, Poultry Science 77:648-6??)

+ BT: The Bt toxin is safe to mammals, as confirmed by rat feeding experiments. Unlike the gut of target insects, the mammallian gut has no receptors which the toxin can bind to.

- Scientists do not know all the receptors in rats and other mammals. They have incomplete knowledge about those receptors they know. And different species of mammals may have different receptors. They cannot use their incomplete knowledge of receptors to assert that the Bt toxin cannot find any receptor in mammals.

- There are other mechanisms that disturb normal biological processes aside from binding to receptors.

- Pusztai's rat study on GE potatoes with the GNA lectin published October 1999 - the only independent study so far - observed some harmful effects (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999)

7. CLAIM: Genetic contamination (escape and spread) can be avoided.

7.1. CLAIM: Pollen and seeds do not travel very far. Isolation distances of 50-100 meters will prevent any genetic contamination.

- Pollen can be carried by wind, bees and other insects, birds, and other pollinators. Animals can eat seeds and then travel long distances. Their droppings can contain viable seeds. People can inadvertently transport seeds hundreds or even thousands of kilometers from the source.

- Genetic pollution is one unanticipated consequence of GE technology, especially for wind and insect pollinated crops such as corn, canola, potatoes, and squash. Genetic drift is a huge issue for organic growers, since GE is prohibited by all organic standards in the world, and consumers expect organic foods to be GE-free.

- A.THALIANA: Arabidopsis thaliana, weed species often used for GE studies, was found to be more prolific and promiscuous when genetically modified. This implies that GE can substantially increase the probability of transgene escape, heightening the risk of producing weedy or pest populations of wild relatives. In field studies, HT A.thaliana produced by gene transfer of a resistance allele outcrossed to wild relatives roughly 20 times more often than ordinary mutants expressing the same mutant allele as the transgenic plants. (Bergelson, J., Purrington, C.B. and G. Wichmann. 1998. Promiscuity in transgenic plants. Nature 395: 25)

- BEET: Dr. Norman Ellstrand (Professor of Genetics, University of California, one of the world's leading GE authorities) on the economic implications for farmers of gene exchange between crops and weedy relatives: "We see this as a multi-million dollar problem. In Europe, there is already a big problem with gene flow between wild beet and cultivated beet. Oil-seed rape also has close relatives and is going to cause problems in the future. One would expect that the kind of genes that are now being engineered are going to be the ones that have a higher potentiality for causing trouble." (From: Protect Organic! Campaign jasonab@mediaone.net (617) 661-5609)

-- CORN: In May, the Swiss Dept of Agriculture (Budesamt fur Landwirtschaft; Bern) and the district president of Baden-Wurtlemberg (Tubingen, Germany) discovered that Pioneer Hi-Bred's non-GM corn seed varieties, Ulla and Benicia, actually contained novel genes from a variety of Bt corn. Contamination of the seeds, which were harvested in the U.S., was "probably caused by stray pollen during the growing season," says Ulrich Schmidt, managing director of Pioneer in Buxtehude, Germany, which represents the grain manufacturer in Switzerland. The GE contamination by into Ulla and Benicia probably occurred this way because "Pioneer does not offer a commercial GM variety of Ulla or Benicia." Before the contamination was discovered, Pioneer had sold enough Ulla and Benicia seeds to sow 400 hectares (roughly 0.5% of total corn cultivation in Switzerland), about 200 hectares of which had already been planted. (See: Furst, Ingeborg. Jul 1999. Swiss soiled seed prompts tolerance question. Nature Biotechnology 17: 629) <http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/NewsJuly-Aug99/GEN8-3ContamSeeds.html>

-- CORN: Pioneer and the entire grain industry are not able to guarantee the genetic purity of their conventional non-GM varieties, says Ulrich Schmidt, managing director of Pioneer in Buxtehude, Germany. "Genetic inserts are in the nature of things," agrees Rainer Linneweber, spokesperson for Novartis Seed (Bad Salzuflen, Germany). "Despite our high-level quality management and our ISO certification, even a 100% [technical] purity for conventional seed is utopian," he adds. (See: Furst, Ingeborg. Jul 1999. Swiss soiled seed prompts tolerance question. Nature Biotechnology 17: 629) <http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/NewsJuly-Aug99/GEN8-3ContamSeeds.html>

- CORN: The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) on Tuesday called on US farmers who plant non-GM crops to test their seeds following the discovery of evidence of contamination by GM seeds. Genetic ID, a pioneer in GMO testing, said its lab detected the presence of GE seeds in 45 percent of the 20 traditional seed corn varieties it tested, largely due to contamination of fields. "Farmers who are seeking to sell to the non-GMO markets must protect themselves by getting their seeds tested," said Gary Goldberg, ACGA chief executive officer. "If we are to maintain our export markets and possibly gain non-GMO premiums, we have to take steps to guarantee the purity of our crops," he added. (See: Agence France Presse, 7 Dec 1999, "US Corn Growers Urged to Test Non Genetically Modified Seeds")

- CORN: According to information passed to Greenpeace, on Monday 22 May 2000 and Tuesday 23 May 2000, the European Seed Association (ESA) sent faxed copies of a letter about GM contamination to a variety of public bodies including the European Commission, EU Governments and MEPs on the Agriculture and Environment Committees of the European Parliament. This letter was received by Baroness Hayman at MAFF on Monday 22 May. In this letter there is a two-line reference to a problem with the European maize crop. Greenpeace understands that for the maize seed planted this year, between 5% and 15% of the European crop is contaminated with GMOs affecting a total crop area of up to 975,000 hectares across the EU. There was also a lesser degree of contamination of the 1999 planting of maize in Europe and illegal GMO's entered the food chain as a result. (See: "Greenpeace reveals new outbreak of GM contamination - up to 975,000 hectares of maize crop affected across Europe", 14 May 2000, Greenpeace Press Release)

- FISH: A single GM fish released into the wild could wipe out local populations of the original species, biologists warn in the New Scientist (4 Dec 1999). William Muir and Richard Howard of Purdue University, Indiana, studied fish carrying the human growth hormone gene (hGH), which increases growth rate and final size. US and British biologists are doing similar experiments with GE salmon. Muir and Howard put hGH in embryos of Japanese medaka, a common aquarium fish, which then matured faster and produced more eggs than normal fish, rapidly spreading the new gene. But only 2/3 of the GE medaka survived to reproductive age, which led the population to dwindle. In a computer model, 60 GE fish in a wild population of 60,000 fish, caused extinction within 40 generations. Even a single GE animal could lead to extinction, they found, but it would take longer. "You have the very strange situation where the least fit individual in the population is getting all the matings - this is the reverse of Darwin's model," says Muir. The researchers say this is the first evidence that GMOs could have catastrophic consequences on their own species. (See: Environmental News Service, 2 Dec 1999)

- HONEY: Traces of special GM genes for herbicide-tolerance developed for oilseed rape crops were found in honey by the German agrochemical company Aventis. The test area is understood to be in Oxfordshire. Brian Stenhouse, general secretary of the Bee Farmers Association of the UK, advised members to move hives at least six miles from any GM crop site. (See: The Independent/London, 17 May 2000, "Honey Has Been Contaminated by GM Crops, Claims Friends of the Earth" by Michael Mccarthy)

- HONEY: Bees are making honey containing traces of genetically modified crops, it was claimed yesterday as the ?210m-a-year bee industry demanded a temporary halt on further trials of the new technology. they caused consternation at the Bee Farmers Association which has already advised members to move their hives at least six miles from the nearest GM site - the distance organic farmers have been advised by the Soil Association to consider "safe" from contamination. (See: "Beekeepers seek GM halt after honey contamination" by James Meikle, 17 May 2000, The Guardian)

+ HT: Gary Barton (Monsanto's director of biotechnology communications): "Resistance can develop" but superweeds - hybrid plants resistant to herbicide - were not an issue since they could always be sprayed with other weedkillers to which they were not resistant. (See: Independent, London, 25 Apr 1999)

- HT: The potential transfer through gene flow of genes from herbicide resistant crops to wild or semidomesticated relatives can lead to the creation of superweeds. (Lutman, P.J.W. (ed.) (1999) Gene flow and agriculture: relevance for transgenic crops. British Crop Protection Council Symposium Proceedings No. 72. Stafordshire, England. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- HT: There is potential for HT varieties to become serious weeds in other crops (See: Duke l996, Holt and Le baron l990). (Duke, S.O. (1996) Herbicide resistant crops: agricultural, environmental, economic, regulatory, and technical aspects, p. 420. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton; See also: Holt, J.S. and H.M. Le Baron (1990) Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 4, 141-149)

- HT: Transgenic, herbicide-tolerant weed-like plants, exhibiting high fertility and the same morphology and chromosome numbers as in the weedy relative, were produced in field experiments where GE herbicide-tolerant interspecific hybrids were grown together with the weedy relative. (Mikkelsen, T.R., Andersen, B. and R.B.Jorgensen. 1996. The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 380:31, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999)

- MEDAKA FISH: An aquarium fish, Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes), modified with a growth gene hGH were more succesful in attracting mates. Thus the hGH gene spread rapidly through the population. However only 2/3 of the GE medaka survived to reproductive age compared with wild medakas. Thus the spread of the hGH gene could make populations dwindle and eventually become extinct. A computer model showed that releasing 60 GE fish into a wild population of 60,000 resulted in extinction in just 40 generations. Even a single modified fish could also result in extinction, though over a longer period. The work may also apply to salmon who have similar mating preferences. (See: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 96, p 13 853)

- Oilseed Rape (OSR): Spontaneous hybrids and backcrosses occured between GE oilseed rape and its weedy relative, Brassica campestris, under field conditions. (See: Jorgensen, R.B. and B. Andersen. 1994. Spontaneous hybridization between oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and weedy B. campestris (Brassicaceae): a risk of growing genetically modified oilseed rape. American Journal of Botany 81:1620-1626)

- OSR: Studies in Denmark, Scotland and Lower Saxony in Germany have shown that GMO rapeseed can pass on its traits to, not only non-GMO rapeseed, but also weedy relatives up to 2.5 km away. This can lead to superweeds.

- OSR: Research by the Scottish Crop Research Institute reported at the Gene Flow in Agriculture: Relevance for Transgenic Crops Conference, Keele University April 1999 reported oilseed rape pollen at 4km from a field of oilseed rape. (See: British Crop Protection Council Symposium Proceedings No 72)

- OSR: Scientists from the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Dundee have shown that as high as 7% of the natural rape plants in a field 400 meters away were pollinated by GM pollen. They said that oilseed rape pollen had been found 4 km away from the nearest source - further than it had been previously discovered. They said "bees may be important pollen vectors over a range of distances" and concluded that "the results suggest that farm-to-farm spread of OSR [oilseed rape] transgenes will be widespread." (See: New Scientist, April 1999)

- OSR: In 1997, a Swedish field test of GE rapeseed contained two unauthorized lines in addition to the one line authorized for testing by the govt Board of Agriculture. The mixup was unintentional and was uncovered during analysis of test data by the testing company, Sweden's Svalöf Weibull. The lines, however, were produced by German transnational AgrEvo at their Canadian subsidiary, and this was where the mixup took place. Seed source: Canada. (Contact: Peder Weibull, Svalöf Weibull, +46-418 66 70 00 Robert Andrén, Board of Agriculture, +46-36 15 50 00)

- OSR: In 1997, an experimental GM OSR crop south of England was harvested and mistakenly mixed in-store on the farm with its non-GM commercial crop equivalent. Crop source: UK. <http://www.rics.org.uk/csm/archives/nov98/531298.html>

- OSR: Scientists have found GM OSR pollen 4.5 km from a trial site. Friends of the Earth had contracted the National Pollen Research Unit at University College, Worcester to monitor airborne pollen on roads and public rights of way around the farm scale trial for spring OSR at Model Farm, Pirton, Near Watlington, Oxfordshire in June and July 1999. Pollen traps were placed on six bee hives sited in the area. Two were 500 metres from the crop, two were 2.75 kilometres from the crop and two were 4.5 km. The pollen was collected and analysed by a bee and honey consultant, Sarah Brookes, of Evesham, Worcestershire. Six samples of airborne pollen and 6 of beehive pollen were sent to the laboratory of the Federal Environment Agency in Austria for DNA analysis. All six beehive samples were found to contain GM oilseed rape pollen from an AgrEvo variety and 2 out of 6 airborne samples. The Government's rules for the farm scale trials require only a 50 metre separation distance between GM crops and other fields. For seed crops and organic crops the recommended distance is 200m. The trial shows GM pollen at distances further than ever previously detected and shows the scale of the threat the trials pose to non-GM crops, beekeepers and the wider environment (Amanda Brown, AAP, London, 30 Sep 1999)

- OSR: And scientists are finding that some GE crops, such as herbicide-resistant canola in Canada, are cross-pollinating with wild relatives more widely than had been predicted, creating hardy weeds that can survive herbicidal sprays. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>

- OSR: GE DNA Found in Honey: Traces of oilseed rape DNA have already been detected in several brands of Canadian honey. (See: "GM Foods and How to Avoid Them") <http://wkweb4.cableinet.co.uk/pbrown/index.htm.)

- OSR: A scientific report, carried out for the British government in 1997 but not published until now, concluded that GE OSR could breed with ordinary farmers' crops and make them inedible. The study, conducted by the prestigious Scottish Crops Institute for the Ministry of Environment, says that contamination of farmers' ordinary fields is "inevitable" under current farming practices. (UK Sunday Independent, 21 Feb 1999)

- OSR: In May 2000, GM-contaminated OSR was found to have been distributed in Europe for some two years. Seed source: Canada. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_753000/753401.stm>

- OSR: Agriculture Minister Nick Brown insisted today that the accidental sowing of thousands of acres of farmland with GM seeds posed "no threat to public health or the environment". In a Commons statement, Mr Brown said about 13,700 hectares were sown, with the affected stocks of seeds last year and this spring. Advanta Seeds UK advised ministers that some of its supplies of conventional rapeseed sold and sown in 1999 and 2000 in several EU countries, possibly including the UK, contained about 1% of GM rapeseed. It appeared the non-GM seed crop produced in Canada in 1998 had "come into contact with a GM crop being commercially produced in the area, resulting in a small amount of GM seed in the conventional seed". In the UK about 9,000 hectares were sown with affected stocks last year and about 4,700 were sown this spring. (See: "GM SEEDS `NO THREAT TO HEALTH'" By Trevor Mason and Dominic Hayes, Political Staff, PA News, 18 May 2000)

- OSR: The UK Government was today due to make a Commons statement explaining how thousands of acres of farmland were accidentally sown with GM seeds. It came after agricultural firm Advanta Seeds UK admitted that GM rapeseed had been added to conventional seed sold in the UK and Europe. The Ministry of Agriculture said that around 500 farms were affected, with GM-contaminated seeds sown at roughly 9,000 acres in 1999 and 4,500 this year. (See: "COMMONS STATEMENT OVER GM SEED ROW" By Martin Hickman and Bob Roberts, PA News, 18 May 2000)

- OSR: Thousands of acres of crops tainted by GM pollen have been growing in Britain for more than a year and may have been used in food production, the government admitted last night. Its scientific advisers had previously claimed there was little risk of cross-pollination with conventional crops. Hundreds of farmers have unwittingly planted the contaminated seed over two spring seasons without the safeguards used for GM field trials, but ministers, whose officials had known about the problem for a month, insisted there was no risk to health or the environment. The seeds came from the Canadian prairies, from plants that were growing more than 800 metres away from the nearest GM varieties but still picked up traces of modified material. The tainted seed is thought to have been used on 9,000 hectares last year, nearly 2% of the rape crop. This year it has probably been used on 4,700 hectares, involving between 500 and 600 farmers. It also emerged that there had been no random testing of imports of conventional seed for rogue GM material, despite the rapid spread of GM crops through the United States, Canada and Brazil. In this country no GM seeds are to be sold to farmers until after three years of farm trials to test their impact on the environment and wildlife. The seed is also thought to have been used on 600 hectares in France, 500 in Sweden and 400 in Germany, causing international embarrassment and highlighting a lack of international regulation of seed purity. (See: "Imported seeds tainted by GM" by James Meikle, 18 May 2000, The Guardian)

* OSR: The Swedish Board of Agriculture today came to a decision on an injunction to the farmers that this year has sown seed from the lots of the oil seed rape variety Hyola 38, that has an impurity of Roundup resistant rape seed. The decision means that the crops must be destroyed by 7 July at the latest, unless a possible consent for a deliberate release has been given by the Board of Agriculture before that date. (See: Press release from the Swedish Board of Agriculture 24 May 2000, "The Swedish Board of Agriculture has decided that the crops with GM oil seed rape shall be destroyed")

- OSR: The French government has become the first in Europe to order the outright destruction of rapeseed crops that include genetically modified (GM) material. Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's office said in a statement that 600 hectares (1,480 acres) had been planted with the seed in France. Checks had shown a relatively small proportion of GM seeds - about one percent of the total quantity - and at least one strain of herbicide-resistant rapeseed. "After careful examination of the case and immediate ways of remedying the situation, the government decided to call on the groups involved to proceed with the destruction of the rapeseed plants," it said. The decision followed the news last week that seed company Advanta had sold seeds imported from Canada containing traces of GM material - still highly controversial in Europe - to farmers in France, Britain, Germany and Sweden by mistake. Advanta is part of a 50-50 venture between Anglo-Swedish group AstraZeneca Plc and Dutch cooperative Cosun. (See: Reuters, "France decides to destroy GM rapeseed crops" By Joelle Diderich, 25 May 2000)

-- OSR: UK's govt is advising farmers to plough up crops tainted by GM seeds after securing European Commission funding for affected farms. In what will be seen as a victory for green groups, Nick Brown, the Agriculture Minister, has followed the Swedish and French authorities in recommending that the GM-tainted oilseed rape be destroyed. Advanta, the company which supplied the seeds, last night demanded urgent talks with ministers. David Buckridge, Advanta's European business director, said destroying the crops was an "over-reaction". He said the company had drawn up a strategy to monitor, segregate and harvest the 11,000 affected acres. Advanta hoped to sell the produce to countries outside the European Union, such as the US, where herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape has commercial approval. The Government's decision comes only days after Greenpeace said it would take the Government to court unless it ordered destruction of the oilseed rape. A spokesman for the Ministry of Agriculture said yesterday that its legal experts had now determined that any harvest from the affected fields would be illegal within the European Union because the crop did not have commercial consents. He denied that the Government had been swayed by the Greenpeace legal threat. He said that ministers had been waiting for both legal clarification and clarification from the European Commission over whether farmers will lose arable crop payments if they destroy the rogue plants. <http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/05/29/timnwsnws02018.html> (See: London Times, 29 May 2000, Crops tainted by GM seeds to be ploughed up BY NICK NUTTALL, ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT)

- POTATO: Potato is open-pollinated and is therefore especially vulnerable to genetic contamination.

- SALMON: STRAINS of farm-bred fish developed to grow fat quickly are threatening to drive Britain's majestic wild salmon into extinction. Millions of GM fish have escaped into the Atlantic from offshore farms in Europe and America. And the new strains are mating with wild salmon, polluting their gene pool and producing hybrids that can't survive in the open ocean. (Mail, 19 Sep 1999)

- SALMON which grow 10 times faster than normal fish and could reach 12ft long and weigh 200lb are ready to be sold in US supermarkets, according to the company that has developed them. But the prospect of giant GE salmon escaping into the wild and attempting to interbreed with native populations has alarmed both environmentalists and the industry. (See: "Monster salmon scare for fish farmers" by Paul Brown, 12 Apr 2000, The Guardian)

- SOYA: In 1996, some GM-contaminated soya seed were distributed in France. Seed source: US. <http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/991215f.htm>

- SQUASH: Squash is also is open-pollinated and is therefore especially vulnerable to genetic contamination.

- SUGAR: In 1997, 10,000 tonnes of sugar were contaminated when Monsanto sent an unauthorised consignment of experimental GM sugar beet to a refinery in Holland by mistake. Crop source: Holland. <http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/NewsNov-Dec97/GENews12-4beetmistake.html>

- TROUT: Environmentalists warned on Tuesday that GE fish which can grow 10 times faster than normal could taint the gene pool and upset the delicate balance of nature. The latest alarm bells about what critics call ``Frankenstein Foods'' were sounded after a U.S firm - AF Protein - engineered fish which could cut the cost of raising trout and salmon by half. AF Protein is reported to have inserted growth hormone genes from one fish and genes from another fish, which can activate them, into Atlantic salmon. (See: Reuters, "Environmentalists alarmed over giant GM fish" By Paul Majendie, 11 Apr 2000)

- In 1997, unapproved GM seed for 600,000 acres was mistakenly released in Canada by Monsanto. Seed source: Canada. <www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/canola.htm>

- No one can control the agricultural supply chain to the degree necessary to keep GM and non-GM material separate on a durable basis. The GM seeds and plants look identical to their normal counterparts. All it takes is a strong wind - or one combine driver or seed-store manager with a hangover. And that is what the biotech companies are hoping for - creeping contamination over a period of time so that non-GM becomes gradually no longer possible.

- Genes from GE plants will escape and enter into wild species. This is called gene flow and the NAS says, "[T]otal containment of crop genes is not considered to be feasible when seeds are distributed and grown on a commercial scale." (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.92)

7.2. CLAIM: A separation distance of 200 meters will prevent GMO contamination of neighboring fields.

- An independent study commissioned by the Soil Association of the UK warns that organic plants could be contaminated by GMOs. The suggested isolation distance of 200 metres between organics and GMOs will not prevent cross-contamination, it claims. The study says: ``Pollen dispersal by insects has been recorded at up to four kilometres - some 20 times higher than the recommended isolation distance - and three kilometres by air flow.'' <http://194.200.85.10/sources/154/621/4003551/000113b.htm>

- Steve Jones (professor of genetics, University College, London): Those [transgenic] genes are going to get out into other plants. Everybody knows that. And we have no idea what is going to happen. (BBC, 12 Apr 1999)

- "This is only the latest in a long list of field trials showing that [GE] crops, once released, are totally uncontainable. They will become a nightmare for conventional farmers to control. For farmers who do not want to grow them, such as the organic sector, these crops will be almost impossible to avoid." (Dr. Michael Antoniou)

- John Innes Centre, one of Europe's leading research institute on GM crops, carried out research commissioned by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They reported: GE crops will "inevitably" contaminate organic crops. Pollen and seed pollution by GE crops could not be avoided entirely and "acceptable levels" of contamination would have to be set. They estimated that 1% of organically-grown plants in any one field could become GM hybrids because of pollen spread. They concluded that contamination by seed or pollen cannot be entirely eliminated. (BBC, 17 Jun 1999)

- But Norman C. Ellstrand, a professor of genetics at the University of California at Riverside and an expert on pollen flow, said that long-distance pollen flow is poorly understood and that the appropriate isolation distance for drug-producing plants would depend on the particular crop and drug. "It's just not clear that setting a double distance is going to solve everything," he said. (See: "New Ventures Aim to Put Farms In Vanguard of Drug Production" by ANDREW POLLACK, New York Times, pg.1, 14 May 2000)

- Tory spokesman Tim Yeo questioned why it had taken ministers a month to publish information it had been given about the sowing of GM seeds. He asked for confirmation that the crop came from Canada, where cross-contamination occurred over distances of more than 800 metres. If true, that meant the separation distances in the current UK trials were insufficient to protect conventional and organic crops nearby from contamination and must "immediately be increased", Mr Yeo told MPs. (See: "GM SEEDS `NO THREAT TO HEALTH'" By Trevor Mason and Dominic Hayes, Political Staff, PA News, 18 May 2000)

7.3. CLAIM: No emergency plan is needed is case of genetic contamination

- The European Commission has formulated 5-point emergency plan if GE plants result in widespread illness or death of wildlife. The plan includes: 1) methods and procedures for controlling the GMOs in case of unexpected spread; 2) methods for decontamination of the areas affected and eradication of the GMOs; 3) methods for disposal or sanitation of plants, animals, soils, etc. exposed during and after the spread; 4) methods for isolating area affected by spread; and 5) plants for protecting human health and environment in case undesirable effects occur. (See: Independent, London, 4 Apr 1999)

7.4. CLAIM: GE crops increase biodiversity

- HT: The use of HT crops undermine the possibilities of crop diversification thus reducing agrobiodiversity in time and space. (Altieri, M.A. (1994) Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems. Haworth Press, New York. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- Ecological theory predicts that the large-scale landscape homogenization with transgenic crops will exacerbate the ecological problems already associated with monoculture agriculture. Unquestioned expansion of this technology into developing countries may not be wise or desirable. There is strength in the agricultural diversity of many of these countries, and it should not be inhibited or reduced by extensive monoculture, especially when consequences of doing so results in serious social and environmental problems. (Altieri, M.A. (1996) Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- The trend to create broad international markets for single products, is simplifying cropping systems and creating genetic uniformity in rural landscapes. History has shown that a huge area planted to a single crop variety is very vulnerable to new matching strains of pathogens or insect pests. Furthermore, the widespread use of homogeneous GE varieties will unavoidably lead to "genetic erosion," as the local varieties used by thousands of farmers in the developing world are replaced by the new seeds. (Robinson, R.A. (1996) Return to Resistance:breeding crops to reduce pesticide resistance. AgAccess, Davis. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- A new study warns that widespread losses of plant species and varieties are directly threatening the productivity of modern agriculture. The study by Worldwatch Institute was sharply critical of GE crops arguing that "biotechnology is no solution to this loss of genetic diversity." While biotech companies have spliced in foreign genes to make crops resistant to pests or yield greater quantities, only nature can create such DNA - the basic building blocks of life, according to the report's author, John Tuxill. "If a plant bearing a unique gene trait disappears, there is no way to get it back," said Tuxill. The report, titled "Nature's Cornucopia: Our Stake in Plant Diversity," found a startling decline in the varieties of many common crops. In China, farmers were growing an estimated 10,000 wheat varieties in 1949, but this number had dropped to 1,000 by the 1970s. In Mexico, farmers today are raising only 20 percent of the corn varieties they cultivated in the 1930s. (See: Organic View, v.1 n.14, 28 Sep 1999)

8. CLAIM: GE crops are beneficial to the environment

8.1. CLAIM: GE crops reduce chemical use

+ GE crops will reduce the use of herbicides, insecticides and other chemicals.

+ BT: Prakash of Tuskegee University points out that before Bt corn was introduced, farmers controlled the corn borer with conventional insecticide sprays that are toxic not only monarch butterfly larvae but also other desirable, non-target species like lady bugs. By cutting down on using these insecticides, Bt corn is a boon to beneficial species and the environment. "Ultimately the biggest benefit of biotech will be cultivating crops that use no herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers at all - and that even have nutrients and vaccines added, possibly at lower costs to consumers down the line," says Prakash.

- BT: Bt corn or chemical pesticides is a false choice. There are other alternatives: foliar Bt sprays, deploying natural corn borer enemies like wasps, proper timing of planting to avoid the rainy season, using conventional varieties resistant to the corn borer, detasseling, etc. In fact, many corn farmers do not spray field corn for corn borers. They see it as a waste of money, because the borers are inside the corn stem, and can't be reached by sprays. In their case, using Bt corn does not reduce chemical use.

- HT: Crops engineered to tolerate specific herbicides may encourage more liberal use of those herbicides. This has been anticipated by one manufacturer, who has applied to ANZFA (Australia-New Zealand Food Authority) to have the allowable residue of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in foods sold in New Zealand increased by 200 times. In areas of the USA where GE-crops that produce their own insecticide are grown, pesticide use has not decreased. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)

- The British Medical Association urged that: the risk that GM crops may increase the use of herbicides and pesticides in the environment needs to be comprehensively assessed to determine their full environmental impact. (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999)

- BT: Patent applications by Novartis of Basle, Switzerland imply the need for more pesticides to get the best out of GM plants. The applications (WO 99/35910 and WO 99/35913) were filed after Novartis scientists realised that a wide spectrum of insect pests was attacking Bt maize, its major GM crop. So they tried on the Bt maize different combinations of their pesticides. Their patent applications identify pesticide combinations that could raise maize yields by 20 per cent. The same pesticides appear to increase the yields of other GM plants, including herbicide-tolerant ones. So Novartis extended its patent applications to cover use of the pesticides on a long list of GM crops including maize, cereals, soya beans, potatoes, rice, cotton and mustard. Novartis' patent applications belie claims that GE crops will reduce pesticide use. (See: Andy Coghlan and Barry Fox, New Scientist, 18 December 1999)

- Section 1.5: "All materials and/or the products produced from genetically engineered/modified organisms (GEO/GMO) are not compatible with the principles of organic production (either the growing, manufacturing, or processing) and therefore are not accepted under these guidelines." (See: Codex Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods) <http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/ECONOMIC/ESN/codex/default.htm>

- BT: Poor performance of Bt cotton in North Carolina has been reported due to an increase in 'stink bug' attacks compared with crops managed using conventional insecticide spray regimes <http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/btcottonnoprofit.htm>

- BT: There is now confirmation from scientists in Georgia and neighbouring states that the 'stink bug' problem arising with Bt cotton crops is not confined to North Carolina, with farmers being advised to deploy new chemical pesticide regimes to combat the problem. <http://www.farmsource.com/News_Trends/newsarticles.asp?ID=16099>

- Bt cotton gives rise to "Stink Bug" epidemic. Recent field reports posted at <www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/btcottonnoprofit.htm> indicate that Bt cotton fields in North Carolina and Georgia are becoming infested with Stink Bugs that are eating up the cotton crop. Not only does the Bt toxin not kill the Stink Bugs, but apparently they love the mutant plants. Monsanto's recommendation, posted on their Farmsource web site, is to spray the Stink Bugs with toxic pesticides including methyl parathion, one of the deadliest chemicals used in American agriculture. So much for the notion that Bt cotton will get US farmers off the toxic treadmill. As analysts have pointed out to BioDemocracy News, the pests that Bt-spliced cotton are designed to kill-cotton bollworms, pink bollworms, and budworms-were previously considered harmless "secondary pests" until the overuse of toxic pesticides (sold by the same companies now peddling so-called "environmentally friendly" Bt crops-Monsanto, Novartis, and Aventis) killed off their natural predators and parasites and turned them into major pests. (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

-- There is now confirmation from scientists in Georgia and neighbouring states that the 'stink bug' problem arising with Bt cotton crops is not confined to North Carolina, with farmers being advised to deploy new chemical pesticide regimes to combat the problem. An article posted on the Monsanto Farmsource web site advises: "Organophosphorus insecticides such as dicrotophos (Bidrin), methyl parathion, Penncap-M and acephate (Orthene 90S) provide good control.... Generally, an insecticide application is recommended at one bug per six feet of row. Because bugs occasionally are difficult to detect, most states now recommend a threshold for treatment based on a percentage - 10 or 20%- of bolls damaged by stink bugs... Pyrethroids also give us pretty good suppression, but that won't be good enough if the stink bugs are over-running you..." <http://www.farmsource.com/News_Trends/newsarticles.asp?ID=16099>

- Dr. Charles Benbrook, a consultant for the Consumers Union, published a summary of an upcoming report revealing that GE Roundup Ready soybeans, contrary to frequent claims by Monsanto, actually use 2-5 times more pounds of herbicide per acre than conventional soybeans sprayed with other "modern low-dose pesticides." For background information see a previous study by Benbrook on RR soybeans <www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf> (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

- HT: Herbicide drift - A tremendous number of off-target herbicide drift problems on corn have occurred this spring. Corn planted during the warm, dry conditions of early March emerged quickly, and unfortunately, thousands of acres were destroyed by careless burn-down herbicide applications. Corn injury from herbicide application was often documented more than one mile away from the target field. Increasing acreage of HT crops may also raise potential for corn injury from herbicide drift during May as well. (See: Mississippi State University Extension Service, 5 May 2000, Agronomy Notes, "Corn" by Dr. Erick Larson)

8.2. CLAIM: The development of resistance can be controlled

+ BT: Resistance will be controlled by using a high-dose strategy to kill all corn borers, and requiring farmers to plant 20-50% of their fields with non-Bt corn, to provide susceptible pests who will mate with resistant pests

- BT: Farmers find it ridiculous to be required to reserve 20-50% of their crops as feed for pests they want to eliminate in the first place.

- BT: In the earliest days of the debate, the suggested refugia size was 5%. Later, it rose to 10%. Now, it is 20-50%. If the trend continues, they will be suggesting a 100% non-Bt field soon, which is what we've been arguing for in the first place.

- BT: The high-dose/refugia strategy can only work resistance is recessive and: i) dose should be very toxic so that all heterozygotes for resistance are killed; ii) resistance alleles are very rare; and iii) susceptible insects are within mating distance of resistant insects. ECB have been found to exhibit resistance to Bt toxin in a dominant way, which will hasten instead of retard the spread of resistance. (See: Science 284: 965-967, 1999)

- BT: F.Huang, L.L.Buschman (both with the Dept. of Entomology, Kansas State U) and W.H.McGaughey (USDA, Agric. Research Center Service, Grain Mktg & Prod. Research Center): ECB resistance to a Bt spray formulation (Dipel) appears to be inherited as an incompletely dominant autosomal gene. This contrasts with the resistance of other insects, which has been characterized as recessive. If it is not recessive, the usefulness of the high-dose/refugia strategy may be diminished.

- BT: Dominant mutants conferring resistance to Bt toxin can be recovered from Corn Borers exposed to the toxin. Such mutants would spread like wildfire through corn fields with refuge plots because over half the off-springs of mating between mutant and wild type insects would be resistant to Bt toxin. The refuge would provide a rich breeding ground for spread of the dominant mutants. (See: "Inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Dipel ES) in the European Corn Borer"; Haung,F., Buschman,L., Higgins,R. and McGaugen,W., Science, 7 May 1999:965-967, as cited by Joseph Cummins)

- BT: Bt resistance has emerged among pink bollworms, a major cotton pest, in Arizona cotton fields. (See: California Farmer Magazine, mid-January 1999)

- As reported in Organic View v.1 n.11, University of Arizona researchers have found that Bt resistant pests reach sexual maturity faster than non-resistant pests. The findings mean that resistant pests are more likely to mate with each other, thus the dilution process may not occur. (See: Organic View, v.2 n.1, 23 Jan 2000) <http://www.purefood.org/organicview.htm>

- BT: When Monsanto and other companies took the naturally occurring insecticide bacterium Bt and spliced its operating mechanism into crops, organic farmers were concerned that insects would quickly become resistant to Bt, removing a crucial tool of environmentally sound farming only to serve corporate interests. These concerns are being borne out in last year's cropping trials. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)

- BT: At the same time, recent studies have pointed to a variety of other problems that seem to be emerging from Bt corn. One report, for example, suggests that the EPA's primary strategy for preventing the emergence of Bt-resistant insects-a plan that calls for planting "refuges" of conventional corn in nearby fields-may be doomed to fail because Bt resistance genes in insects behave differently than scientists had thought. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>

- BT: Another study showed that Bt can alter the time it takes an insect to reach adulthood. That could dash the EPA's hopes that Bt-resistant insects will mate with Bt-susceptible ones and give birth to offspring still vulnerable to the chemical. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>

- BT: GM plants which produce their own insecticides closely follow the pesticide paradigm, which is itself rapidly failing due to pest resistance to pesticides. Instead of the failed "one pest-one chemical" model, GE emphasizes a "one pest-one gene" approach, shown over and over again in laboratory trials to fail, as pest species rapidly adapt and develop resistance to the pesticide present in the plant. (Alstad, D.N. and D.A. Andow (1995) Managing the Evolution of Insect Resistance to Transgenic Plants. Science 268, 1894-1896. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- BT: Not only will the new GM varieties fail over the short-to-medium term, despite so-called voluntary resistance management schemes (Mallet, J. and P. Porter (1992) Preventing insect adaptations to insect resistant crops: are seed mixtures or refugia the best strategy? Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. Biol. Sci. 250. 165-169 As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA), but in the process may render useless the natural pesticide "Bt," which is relied upon by organic farmers and others desiring to reduce chemical dependence. Bt crops violate the basic and widely accepted principle of "integrated pest management" (IPM), which is that reliance on any single pest management technology tends to trigger shifts in pest species or the evolution of resistance through one or more mechanisms (NRC l996). (National Research Council (1996) Ecologically Based Pest Management. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- BT: When the product is engineered into the plant itself, pest exposure leaps from minimal and occasional to massive and continuous exposure, dramatically accelerating resistance. (Gould, F. (1994) Potential and Problems with High- Dose Strategies for Pesticidal Engineered Crops. Biocontrol Science and Technology 4, 451-461. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- BT: Bt will rapidly become useless, both as a feature of the new seeds and as an old standby sprayed when needed by farmers that want out of the pesticide treadmill. (Pimentel, D., M.S. Hunter, J.A. LaGro, R.A. Efroymson, J.C. Landers, F.T. Mervis, C.A. McCarthy and A.E. Boyd (1989) Benefits and Risks of genetic Engineering in Agriculture.BioScience 39, 606-614. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

+ BT: Resistance has already been observed in Hawaii where dusts containing Bt spores were repeatedly applied onto the same field (up to 15X in one year). So, resistance development is not unique to GE.

- BT: Expressing the Bt toxin in the plant is the fastest way to develop resistance, because it releases the toxin 24 hours a day, in all parts of the plant, whether there is infestation or not. This is like spraying daily whether there is a pest or not, or taking antibiotics daily, whether you are sick or not. If true, the Hawaii case stresses the need to use insect control measures sparingly, only when they are really needed.

- HT: Herbicide-tolerant cotton plants that spring up as weeds in other crop fields could provide refuge for the cotton boll weevil, warn entomologists in South Carolina. This major pest has been eradicated in some areas. But it could make a comeback if farmers ignore GM cotton "weeds" growing among their other crops. Researchers first noticed the problem last year in GM soybean fields where GM cotton had been grown the previous year. Both the cotton and the soybeans are resistant to Roundup, Monsanto's wide-ranging weedkiller. So when farmers apply Roundup to kill weeds in newly planted fields of GM soybeans, stray GM cotton plants left over from the previous year aren't destroyed, providing refuge for the cotton boll weevil. (See: New Scientist, 15 Apr 2000, p. 17, "Pockets of resistance", Andy Coghlan)

+ Weed resistance to herbicides will take a long time to develop.

- HT: Canola resistant to three HT canola systems has been found in a Canadian field. Alberta Agriculture canola specialist Phil Thomas was quoted saying, "We knew it was going to happen. It was only a matter of when." Chemical and DNA tests confirm that canola weeds found near Sexsmith are resistant to Roundup, Liberty and Pursuit chemicals. Denise Maurice, agronomy manager with Westco Fertilizers, was cited saying it's the first official case of natural gene stacking in canola since GM canola was adopted by farmers five years ago. Farmer Tony Huether seeded two fields of canola in 1997. On the west side of a county road he planted Quest, a canola tolerant of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. On the east side he planted 20 acres of Innovator, a canola tolerant of Aventis's Liberty herbicide. The rest of the 140-acre field was planted to 45A71, a canola tolerant to Cyanamid's Pursuit and Odyssey herbicides. The two fields are about 30 metres apart. The year after he planted the field, he discovered volunteer weeds resistant to Roundup where none had been planted. Double resistance was confirmed the first year. The next year, triple resistance was confirmed. The triple mixing has been blamed on a combination of bees and wind that carry pollen between plants in fields too close together. Researchers now recommend at least 200 metres between GM canola varieties and any other canola field to prevent gene crossing. (See: 10 Feb 2000, Western Producer Mary MacArthur, Camrose bureau) <http://www.producer.com/articles/20000210/news/20000210news01.html>

- HT: Fields where GM cotton plants spring up as weeds in other crops could provide refuge for the cotton boll weevil, warn entomologists in South Carolina. That could mean the return of this major pest to parts of the American cotton belt from which it has been eradicated. Now growers are afraid the pest could make a comeback if farmers ignore GM cotton "weeds" growing among their other crops. Researchers in South Carolina first noticed the problem last year in a dozen fields of GM soybeans where GM cotton had been grown the previous year. Both the cotton and the soybeans are resistant to Roundup, the wide-ranging weedkiller made by Monsanto of St Louis, Missouri. This means that when farmers apply Roundup to kill weeds in newly planted fields of GM soybeans, it doesn't destroy stray GM cotton plants left over from the previous year. (See: New Scientist, 15 Apr 2000, SECTION: This Week, P. 17, "Pockets of Resistance", by Andy Coghlan)

8.3. CLAIM: BT is safe to non-target species

+ BT: The Bt toxin will not harm non-target species.

- BIRDS: Concerns have been raised over impact on birds that feed on insects targetted by Bt crops like the skylark, linnet and corn bunting in the UK.

- BUTTERFLIES: Research at Cornell and Iowa State Universities has confirmed that Bt corn pollen kills Monarch butterflies and other lepidoptera. This impact on non-target species was not predicted prior to the release of Bt corn.

- BUTTERFLIES: Cornell University researchers, in a letter to the journal Nature, May 20 issue, reported that pollen from Bt corn harmed monarch butterfly larvae in laboratory tests. In the Cornell study, one group of monarch (Danaus plexippus) caterpillars fed on milkweed (Asclepias curassavica) leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn, another group fed on milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from non-GE corn, and a third group fed on leaves without added pollen. The researchers found that the caterpillars that ate leaves with pollen from the Bt corn ate less, grew more slowly and died sooner. Results were similar to those reported earlier by Hansen and Obrycki (see next item) who used leaves collected in corn fields. The Cornell researchers (Losey, Rayor and Carter, who can be contacted at jel27@cornell.edu) collected pollen and applied it to lab-raised milkweed leaves. (See: Losey, J.J.E., L.S. Rayor and M.E. Carter (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399: 214)

- BUTTERFLIES: Iowa researchers have found Bt corn pollen deadly to monarch butterflies. First, the Iowa study determined the amount of corn pollen deposited on A. syriaca leaves within and adjacent to a Bt corn field at 0 m, 1m, and 3m. The highest levels of pollen deposition was found on plants within the corn field, and lowest levels found at three meters from the edge of the corn field. Leaf samples taken from within and at the edge of the corn field were used to assess mortality of first instar monarch, D. plexippus exposed Bt and non-Bt corn pollen. Within 48 hours, there was 19% mortality in the Bt corn pollen treatment compared to 0% on non-Bt corn pollen exposed plants and 3% in the no pollen controls. (See: "Non-target effects of Bt corn pollen on the Monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae)" by L. Hansen, Iowa State University, Ames , IA 50011 and J. Obrycki, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011. (Contact e-mail: lrhansen@iastate.edu) <http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/d81.html>

* BUTTERFLIES: Butterfly populations are at an almost 30-year low in the Sacramento Valley, adjacent foothills and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, researchers say. Entomologists find the data particularly worrisome because the decline is so widespread and there is no clear reason for it. Some species that typically are very common - including orange sulphur butterflies - have been almost absent in the region this year. A few varieties were up in numbers, but the overall trend was way, way down. ``In all candor, I don't understand this,'' said Arthur Shapiro, an entomologist at the University of California at Davis. ``Many more species are down than up. If this were the stock market, investors would be worried.'' Monarchs, large orange-and-black migratory butterflies that are among the most easily identified of insects, also declined. At Natural Bridges State Beach in Aptos (Santa Cruz County), where Northern California monarchs winter, 14,000 butterflies were counted, down from an average of about 60,000. Shapiro said there is no evidence linking California monarch declines with GM crops. Shapiro said there is no apparent reason for the decline. ``Pesticide use patterns haven't really changed and recent habitat loss hasn't been sufficient to account for this,'' he said. ``Nothing has really changed that can explain these oddities, unless something subtle is going on that has finally reached a threshold level.'' (Glen Martin, San Francisco Chronicle, 22 December 1999) <http://www.commondreams.org/>

- BUTTERFLIES: Shapiro's response in the above case of crashing butterfly populations shows how some scientists can totally miss the obvious. Bt toxin kills lepidopterans, butterflies are lepidopterans. Since 1997, millions of acres of field have been planted with Bt corn. How can Shapiro say that "there is no evidence" linking these declines to GM crops, or that "nothing has really changed that can explain these oddities"? At least, he should point out the Bt crops are one possible cause, and this should be explored further.

- FROGS: Could there be a relationship between GE crops and frog mutations?

- GREEN LACEWINGS: Bt crops have a negative effect on Chrysoperla carnea, a beneficial insect, based on three studies by A. Hilbeck, M. Baumgartner, et. al. of the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture. The green lacewings suffered reproductive problems and reduced longevity. (See: Hilbeck, A., Baumbartner, M., Fried, P.M. and F. Bigler, 1998. Effects of transgenic Bt corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 27:480-487, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999))

- LADYBIRD BEETLES: Beneficial insects that feed on insect prey reared on transgenic insect-resistant crops exhibited increased mortality and reduced developmental time (See: Birch, A N.E., Geoghegan, I.E., Majerus, M.E.N., Hackett, C., and J. Allen. 1996/7, Interactions between plant resistance genes, pest aphid populations and beneficial aphid predators. Scottish Crop Research Institute Annual Report, 1996/7: 68-72) Researchers led by Dr. Nicholas Birch of the Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee, fed GE GNA potato to aphids, which were in turn fed to ladybird beetles. The ladybirds' lives were shortened by up to half the expected life-span, and their fertility and egg-laying was significantly reduced. Females were apparently affected more seriously than males and a change of diet to aphids not exposed to GE plants seemed to reverse the process. Potato aphids were fed to adult two-spot ladybirds for 12 days, before switching back to non-GE diet. Female ladybirds fed with GE-affected aphids died on the average after 36 days, compared with the 74 days of those in a control group fed on aphids not exposed to a GE diet. The study was published in the scientific journal Molecular Breeding. (See: Guardian, London, 4 Mar 1999)

- Receptors for the Bt toxin are present in non-target as well as target insects. (See: Saxena D., Flores, S., & Stotzky, G., 1999, Nature 402: 480)

- When a plant is genetically engineered so that the plant itself becomes pesticidal (for example, Bt-containing corn, potatoes and other crops now planted on tens of millions of acres in the U.S.), there may be effects on non-target organisms. In other words, pesticidal crops may affect creatures besides the specific pest they were intended to kill. The NAS says, "Nontarget effects are often unknown or difficult to predict." (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.136)

- New chemicals in GM plants might kill predators and parasites of insect pests, thus leading to the loss of nature's own biological controls on certain pests. (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.74)

- Plants themselves might become toxic to animals. (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.75)

- See also discussion on safety for effect on animals.

8.4. CLAIM: GE crops do not harm soil ecology

+ BT: Bt toxin from GE plants is very short-lived in soil (Eric Sachs of Monsanto, in response to a question re impacts of Bt corn on soil microbial community, 18 Jun 1999 EPA-USDA Bt corn workshop, as cited by Charles Benbrook)

- Bt toxin stays active in the soil and binds to clays. (See: Tapp, H., Calamai, I., & Stotzky, G. 1994. Soil Biol. Biochem. 26:663-679)

- The bound Bt toxin retains its insecticidal properties. (See: Tapp, H., & Stotzky, G. 1995. Applied and Environ. Microbiology 61:1786-1790)

- By binding to soil particles, the Bt toxin is not degraded by microbial action. (See: Koskella, J. & Stotzky, G. Sep 1997. Microbial Utilization of Free and Clay-Bound Insecticidal Activity after Incubation with Microbes. Applied and Environ. Microbiology 63:3561-3568)

- The Bt toxin also binds to humic acids. "Bound humic acid-toxin complexes were toxic to larvae of the tobacco hornwork (Manduca sexta). The lethal concentration necessary to kill 50% of the larvae (LC50) of the bound toxin was comparable with that of the free toxin, indicating that the binding of the toxin to humic acids did not affect insecticidal activity... The result of these studies indicate that the toxins from B. thuringiensis introduced in transgenic plants and microbes could persist, accumulate, and remain insecticidal in soil as a result of binding to humic acids, as well as on clays, as previously described. This persistence could pose a hazard to non-target organisms and enhance the selection of toxin-resistant target species." (See: Crecchio, C. & Stotzky, G. 1998. Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki bound to humic acids from soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30:463-470.)

- The bound Bt toxin persists in various soils for at least 234 days (termination of experiment). (See: Tapp, H. & Stotzky, G. 1998. Persistence of the Insecticidal Toxin from Bt subsp. Kurstaki in Soil, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Vol 30 No 4:471-476.)

- The Bt corn plant exudes Bt toxin from its roots, the insecticidal properties intact, into the soil. Larvae placed on medium containing exudates from Bt corn stopped feeding and began to die after 2 to 3 days and had a mortality of 90 to 95% after 5 days (dose lethal to 50% of larvae, LC50, was 5.2 mu.g protein). There was no immunological reaction or larval mortality obtained with the exudates from non-Bt corn. We have no indication of how soil communities might be affected by Bt toxin in root exudates in the field. Bt toxin in the rhizosphere might improve the control of insect pests, or it might promote the selection of toxin-resistant target insects. Receptors for the toxin are present in non-target as well as target insects, so there may be a risk that non-target insects and organisms in higher trophic levels could be affected by the toxin. Further investigations will be necessary to shed light on what might happen underground. (See: Saxena D., Flores, S. & Stotzky, G. Dec 1999. Transgenic Plants: Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn. Nature 402:480) <http://www.nature.com/server-java/Propub/nature/402480A0.pdf>

- ``We were surprised,'' Dr. Stotzky said. ``I'm sure it hangs around longer. We just terminated the experiment after eight months.'' (See: NYTimes, pg. 1, 3 Nov 1999, "Reassessing Ecological Risks of Genetically Altered Plants" by CAROL KAESUK YOON)

- ``There is a potential hazard that it (the toxin) builds up and could enhance the selection of resistant target organisms and could possibly effect non-target organisms,'' Stotzky said in an interview. ``Theoretically it could affect any organism that is susceptible to the toxin.'' Stotzky called for more studies to determine the impact of the toxin's build-up in the soil on insects and other organisms. ``Those studies need to be done. They should have been done a long time ago before the regulatory agencies allowed the release of these plants,'' he added. (See: Reuters, 1 Dec 1999, "Gene-Modified Corn Insecticide in Soil - Study" by Patricia Reaney) <http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991201/sc/science_corn_1.html>

- Dr. Stotzky and his colleagues found that the poison binds to clay particles and humic acids found naturally in most soils. Instead of disappearing in about 25 days, it is active for at least 234 days. The scientists note that pollen falling on the ground and corn stocks plowed back into the soil add to the toxin that roots exude. They don't know if build-up would continue or level off. Bt corn toxin is different from Bt sprays widely used as an alternative to chemical insecticides, Stotzky explains. The latter are crystals that only become active in the target insects' digestive systems. That's why they don't harm other creatures. The corn carries a gene that produces the active form of the poison, which puts pressure on soil organisms. No one knows the consequences, Stotzky says, but ``we should stop at this point and consider these things.'' (See: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR - USA, 2 DEC 1999, "New findings say genetically altered corn can poison the soil" by Robert C. Cowen)

- BT: Bt toxin present in crop foliage plowed under after harvest can adhere to soil colloids for up to 3 months, negatively affecting the soil invertebrate populations that break down organic matter and play other ecological roles. (See: Donnegan, K.K., C.J. Palm, V.J. Fieland, L.A. Porteous, L.M. Ganis, D.L. Scheller and R.J. Seidler. 1995. Changes in levels, species, and DNA fingerprints of soil micro organisms associated with cotton expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki endotoxin. Applied Soil Ecology 2:111-124. See also: Palm, C.J., D.L. Schaller, K.K. Donegan and R.J. Seidler. 1996. Persistence in Soil of Transgenic Plant Produced Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kustaki (-endotoxin. Canadian Journal of Microbiology (in press).

- BT: These Bt toxins can build up in the soil, kill Bt-sensitive soil organisms and increase selection pressure for resistance to develop. In addition, a broader range of organisms is likely to be susceptible to the active, GE toxins. (See: Seedling, Mar 1999, Vol 16 No 1)

- BT: DNA released from living and dead cells can persist in the environment and be transferred to other organisms. An organism may be dead, but its "naked" DNA released from decaying cells may remain biologically active for potentially thousands years, especially in certain soils and marine sediments. (30) Naked DNA (nucleic acids) ingested by mice can be transferred to offspring and be voided and spread in animals' feces. (2) (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)

- BT: Dr. Charles Benbrook (former member of the National Academy of Sciences and head of Benbrook Consulting Services): "What goes on underground in a field planted with today's Bt-corn varieties is largely a mystery. Enhance the toxin levels 100- to 1,000-fold and it becomes a mystery of some consequence and immediacy." (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)

- Ethanol-producing GE microbes had adverse effects on wheat plants grown on sandy soil (Holmes, M.T., Ingham, E.R. Doyle, J.D. and C.W.Hendricks. 1998. Effects of Klebsiella planticola SDF20 on soil biota and wheat growth in sandy soil. Applied Soil Ecology 326:1-12)

- Fallen leaves from GM plants might change the biological composition of the soil, leading to changes in nutrient uptake into plants or even toxicity to creatures living in the soil. (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.75)

8.5. CLAIM: Genes cannot transfer from plants to bacteria, microorganisms or animals.

+ Modified DNA quickly breaks down in the gut, so it cannot transfer antibiotic resistance

- There is evidence that foreign DNA can enter the body via the gastrointestinal tract and cross the placenta (1,2). (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)

- Using an "artificial gut", Dutch researchers showed that DNA remains intact for several minutes in the large intestine. If the GE bacteria were a type normally found in the gut, such as Enterococcus, the experiment showed each had a 1 in 10 million chance of passing DNA containing ARM genes to an native gut bacterium when they came in contact. There are normally around a thousand billion gut bacteria, suggesting that many would be transformed. If some normal gut bacteria were killed off - as in the guts of people or animals in antibiotics - the transfer rate from gut-type bacteria increased tenfold. (see: New Scientist, 30 Jan 1999)

- The German Television ZDF reported on May 21 that a German researcher found a gene transfer from GE rapeseed to bacteria and fungi in the gut of honey bees. Prof. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from the Institut für Bienenkunde (Institute for Bee Research) at the University of Jena experimented during the last three years with honey bees on an experimental field with GE rapeseed in Saxony, Germany. The field trial was performed by AgrEvo, the rapeseed was engineered to resist the herbicide glufosinate (Liberty, Basta). Prof. Kaatz fed GE rapeseed pollen to young honey bees in the laboratory. Then he took the intestine out of the young bees and spread the contents on growth medium to grow the microorganisms. He probed the microorganisms for the pat-gene, the gene that confers resistance to glufosinate. In some bacteria and also in a yeast he found the pat-gene. This indicates that the gene from the GE rapeseed was transferred in the bee's gut to the microbes. (See: "Report of Gene Transfer from G-E Rapeseed to Bacteria and Fungi in the Gut of Bees" by Beatrix Tappeser of the Institute for Applied Ecology - Freiburg, tappeser@oeko.de, as posted 23 May 2000 on the GENTECH list)

+ Horizontal gene tranfer across distant species occurs in nature. Natural broad-species vectors exist; some do replicate in Gram- bacteria, others only in Gram+. There are also vectors which replicate in Gram- and Gram+ bacteria, and some organisms transfer DNA to plants (eg Agrobacterium tumefaciens, A. rhizogenes)

- Where horizontal gene transfer occurs in nature, it is often in connection with the emergence of more virulent or new pathogens. GE is inherently risky because it uses the same mechanism to facilitate the insertion of foreign genes through bacterial or viral vectors.

+ Horizontal gene tranfer across distant species occurs in nature.

+ Natural broad-species vectors exist; some do replicate in Gram- bacteria, others only in Gram+. There are also vectors which replicate in Gram- and Gram+ bacteria, and some organisms transfer DNA to plants (eg Agrobacterium tumefaciens, A. rhizogenes)

11. CLAIM: GE crops increase yields

11.1. CLAIM: Farmers will benefit from GE crops through higher yields

- CORN: Studies at the Dept of Entomology, Ohio State Univ by Hal Wilson indicate no yield difference between Bt and non-Bt lines. At their Northwestern Station, 3 non-Bt maize hybrids averaged corn borer injury of 1.08 cavities per plant compared to 0.55 the previous week at the Western Station. In 1997 trials at the Northwestern Station, injury in non-Bt maize averaged 1.66 cavities per plant, with no significant difference in yields between the Bt and the equivalent non-Bt maize. This is their third year of comparison trials. Over this 3-year period, corn borer injury per non-Bt plant has averaged 0.54 cavities at the Western Station and 0.74 at the Northwestern Station. The results accumulated to date raise questions about the economic benefits of Bt-maize hybrids if such technology must be purchased at premium prices. (AgBiotecNet Oct 99) <http://iris.biosci.ohio-state.edu/osuent/>

- CORN: Bt, or non-Bt? Univ of Missouri researchers sought the answer this year with greatly expanded variety tests of Bt and non-Bt corn hybrids at 15 different sites across the state. Their preliminary conclusions: Bt hybrids yield comparably to non-Bt hybrids, but lack of pressure from the European corn borer made Bt hybrids less profitable in Missouri this year. "It looks like yields from Bt and non-Bt hybrids are within about one bushel of each other, averaged over 15 sites where the pest was not artificially introduced," MU Extension agronomist Harry Minor said. (See: Univ of Missouri, Forrest Rose, 11 Nov 1999) <http://agebb.missouri.edu/news/queries/showarc.idc?story_num3D245&iln3D184>

- COTTON: Dr Will McCarty, University of Mississippi Extension Service Cotton specialist: "Before you plant transgenic varieties, be sure you need the value-added trait. Also evaluate the yields of varieties with the transgenic trait you desire, and study the risk and benefit ratio, if any. In other words, if you feel you need to plant Bt and the variety does not or has not yielded well for you or in your area, consider the risk of not using it and the potential cost of additional insect control versus potential yield loss to planting it. The same can be said for a transgenic variety for herbicide tolerance. Before you pay extra for the convenience of using a particular herbicide over-the-top, be sure the variety fits your farm and will yield well. .... Also, transgenic varieties may not perform as well as did their parents. Just because you have had good experience with a particular variety does not mean you will have the same results with a transgenic version." (Agronomy Notes, 5 Oct 1999)

- SOYBEAN: Dr. Charles Benbrook presented evidence that farmers who use Monsanto's RoundUp Ready soybeans are getting lower yields than farmers using conventional soybeans. (See: Campaign on Food Safety News #20, 14 Jul 1999)

- SOYBEAN: Some researchers have shown that none of the GE seeds significantly increase the yield of crops. Indeed, in more than 8,200 field trials, the Roundup Ready seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than similar natural varieties, according to a study by Dr. Charles Benbrook, the former director of the Board on Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences. (Peter Rosset, "World Hunger: Twelve Myths")

- SOYBEAN: Dr Alan Blaine, soya bean specialist, University of Mississippi extension service: "The vast majority of the problems soybean growers have encountered over the last couple of years have been on relatively new varieties. Instead of taking 6 to 8 generations for a variety to reach the market, we are seeing varieties blown up and put on the market in probably 3 to 4 generations. It is this trend that has caused many of you to experience poor performance from many new varieties. Steer away from planting a variety just because someone tells you how good it is. Prove it to yourself and this should be done with no less than 2 years of yield test data. Variations in growing conditions cause varietal differences to be expressed, and 1999 really exposed some potential weakness in several varieties." (Agronomy Notes, 5 Nov 1999)

- SOYBEAN: GE seeds cost more, yet may yield less. 40 research plots in 1999 showed that Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 4% less than non-GE varieties.

- SOYBEAN: A two-year study by University of Nebraska researchers showed that Monsanto's HT soybeans produced lower yields than conventional soybeans. The NU Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources study showed GM soybeans yield 6 percent less than their closest non-GM relatives and 11 percent less than high-yielding soybean varieties. "This is completely contrary to the body of research done by Monsanto and independent sources," said Scarlett Foster, director of public affairs for Monsanto. The institute undertook the study - paid for by the Nebraska Soybean Board - when producers began asking yield-related questions about the genetically altered soybeans in 1997, NU agronomist and study director Roger Elmore said. (See: Associated Press, 18 May 2000, NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS) (See also: AP, 17 May 2000, "Study shows genetically altered soybeans produce lower yields")

- SOYBEAN: The University of Nebraska findings of reduced yield with GM soya are exactly in line with the pattern of findings from over 8,200 university-based varietal trials in 1998 which have shown the yield drag for GM soya averaging nearly 7%. <http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/soy.htm> <http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/empsum.htm>

- A study by the USDA Economic Research Service shows that in 1998 yields were not significantly different in GE versus non-GE crops in 12 of 18 crop/region combinations. In the six crop/region combinations were Bt crops or HRCs fared better, they exhibited increased yields between 5-30%. Glyphosphate tolerant cotton showed no significant yield increase in either region where it was surveyed. This was confirmed in another study examining more than 8,000 field trials, where it was found that Roundup Ready soybean seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than similar conventionally bred varieties (U.S. Dept of Agriculture, 1999. Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management. USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.)

- Most innovations in agricultural biotechnology have been profit-driven rather than need-driven. The real thrust of the GE industry is not to make third world agriculture more productive, but rather to generate profits (Busch, L., W.B. Lacey, J. Burkhardt and L. Lacey (1990) Plants, Power and Profit. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. This is illustrated by reviewing the principal technologies on the market today: a) herbicide resistant crops such as Monsanto's "Roundup Ready"soybeans, seeds that are tolerant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and b) Bt crops which are engineered to produce their own insecticide. In the first instance, the goal is to win a greater herbicide market-share for a proprietary product and in the second to boost seed sales at the cost of damaging the usefulness of a key pest management product (the Bt based microbial insecticide) relied upon by many farmers, including most organic farmers, as a powerful alternative to insecticides.

11.2. CLAIM: Without GE-crops, we cannot feed the world and people will soon go hungry.

- The above data show that GE crops will not increase crop yields and will therefore not help feed the world.

- There is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given country and its population. For every densely populated and hungry nation like Bangladesh or Haiti, there is a sparsely populated and hungry nation like Brazil and Indonesia. The world today produces more food per inhabitant than ever before. Enough is available to provide 4.3 pounds every person everyday: 2.5 pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits and vegetables. The real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access. Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available (but often poorly distributed) or lack the land and resources to grow it themselves (Lappe, Collins and Rosset l998). (Lappe, F.M., J. Collins and P. Rosset (1998). World Hunger: twelve myths, p. 270. Grove Press, NY. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- A major cause of famine is the unequal global distribution of food. Food mountains exist in much of the western world and food is regularly dumped. Poor people have limited ability to buy either GE or non-GE food. There is no evidence that GE crops produce higher yields than conventional crops or that GE products will be cheaper. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)

- Dr. Geoffrey Clements (physicist and leader of the Natural Law Party, UK): "Perfectly safe natural alternatives are readily available, and no one believes the propaganda that GE crops are essential to help feed the hungry or to secure food stocks for the future. In fact, if the GE revolution is not halted and if the balance of Nature continues to be disrupted, we would well see the worst famines and disease of all time."

- Far from being a solution to the world's hunger problem, the rapid introduction of GE crops may actually threaten agriculture and food security. First, widespread adoption of HT seeds may lead to greater use of chemicals that kill weeds. Yet, many noncrop plants are used by small farmers in the third world as supplemental food sources and as animal feed. In the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service has found that Roundup already threatens 74 endangered plant species. Biological pollution from GE organisms may be another problem. Monsanto is poised to acquire the rights to a genetic engineering technique that renders a crop's seeds sterile, insuring that farmers are dependent on Monsanto for new seed every year. Farming in the 3rd world could be crippled if these genes contaminate other local crops that the poor depend on. And such genes could unintentionally sterilize other plants, according to a study by Martha Crouch, an associate professor of biology at Indiana University. Half the world's farmers rely on their own saved seed for each year's harvest. (Peter Rosset, "World Hunger: Twelve Myths")

12. GE crops are good for the farmer

21.1. CLAIM: GE crops will reduce costs and raise farmers' incomes

- Many of the farmers' expenses will go up; the yields will stay the same or go down slightly; because GE crops are considered contaminants, their harvest will sell at a lower price, if they can sell it at all. Consider the following factors:

- SEEDS: GE seeds cost 20-30% higher than conventional seeds.

- PESTICIDES: See discussion whether GE crops will reduce pesticide use.

- BT REFUGIA: Bt crop farmers incomes are reduced by higher seed costs, by the need to maintain 20-50% of the field as sacrificial refugia for non-resistant corn borers, and by the lower market price of GE corn.

- SEGREGATION: Farmers incur higher costs to segregate GE from conventional crops.

- INSURANCE: Because of risks associated with GE crops insurance companies in the USA and UK are now reluctant to insure them. This can raise insurance costs. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech)

- LAND VALUES: Surveyors warned yesterday that farmers who plant GM crops could see their land values fall, and that tenants of such land might face bills to make up the shortfall. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) called for the creation of a land register through which potential buyers, and banks, could find out if and when GM crops had been planted or grown on a particular holding. However, the RICS report, sent to the Government's Office of Science and Technology and other departments, warned that growing such crops might lower the value of the land. In the case of tenant farmers, a landlord could, in effect, sue for any shortfall in land value caused by the tenant growing GM crops. (INDEPENDENT, London, 12 Mar 1999)

- INPUTS: The integration of the seed and chemical industries appears destined to accelerate increases in per acre expenditures for seeds plus chemicals, delivering significantly lower returns to growers. Companies developing HT crops are trying to shift as much per acre cost as possible from the herbicide onto the seed via seed costs and/or technology charges. Increasingly price reductions for herbicides will be limited to growers purchasing technology packages. In Illinois, the adoption of HT crops makes for the most expensive soybean seed-plus-weed management system in modern history - between $40.00 and $60.00 per acre depending on rates, weed pressure, etc. Three years ago, the average seed-plus-weed control costs on Illinois farms was $26 per acre, and represented 23% of variable costs; today they represent 35-40% (Benbrook l999). (Benbrook, C. l999 World food system challenges and opportunities: GMOs, biodiversity and lessons from America's heartland (unpub. manuscript). As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) Many farmers are willing to pay for the simplicity and robustness of the new weed management system, but such advantages may be short-lived as ecological problems arise.

- YIELDS: On the average, yields will stay the same or be slightly lower. See discussion on GE crop yields.

- MARKET: Because consumers don't want GE-food, GE crops fetch a lower price in the market; some markets will even reject them. Non-GE crops now receive a premium and as more countries reject GE foods, the opportunities to sell GE produce overseas are diminishing.

- A study by Iowa State University economist Mike Duffy says GMOs weren't any more profitable than non-GMOs in 1998. Duffy recently analyzed a survey of 800 Iowa farmers by the National Agricultural Statistics Service and found return to land and labor nearly identical for GMOs and non-GMOs in 1998. GMO beans, for example, had lower herbicide costs but lower yields. Net return was $144.50/A for GMO beans versus $145.75 for non-GMO varieties. (See: 'Does planting GMO seed boost farmers' profits?' by Mike Duffy) <http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/99-3gmoduffy.html>

- For corn farmers, the share of a farmer's gross income spent on seed and chemicals has risen from 9.5% in 1975 to 16.9% in 1997. For soybean farmers, the share spent on seed and chemicals has risen from 10.8% to 16.3%.

- In summary, GE crops may in some cases increase yields slightly. However, in the case of Bt crops, 20-50% of the fields have to be sacrificed as refugia. Furthermore, the seeds will cost some 20-30% higher, and the harvest may have to be sold at a lower price as more and more companies try to keep their products GE-free in response to consumer demand. As Deutsche Bank said, GE crops are bound to be losers, economics-wise.

12.2. CLAIM: Farmers are shifting to GE crops.

- Many farmers initially believed industry ads and adopted GE crops. Today, an increasing number of the early adopters are refusing GE crops. The total area planted to GE crops worldwide is expected to go down starting the year 2000.

- AUSTRALIA: Australian farmers reject GE: "That the Federation oppose the release of 'Genetic Modification' of both livestock and other farm produce and that we continue to promote R&D of those products by natural means." (Western Australian Farmers Federation, Rural Press Report, 15 Sep 1999)

- CANADA: The Canada press have noted continuing indecision among rapeseed (canola oil) farmers whether to plant GE rapeseed in the next growing season. Over one-half of Canada's canola crop this year is GE. Canada has lost almost a billion dollars in canola sales to Europe since the GE controversy erupted in 1997. If Japan (which is likely) and China cut back on canola purchases, Canada's rapeseed farmers will be facing economic disaster. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)

- CANADA: Canadian rape growers, tired of consumers' dislike for gm foods, are reported this year to have planted more acres with conventional seeds, although they have not completely abandoned the new technology. A manager of Wheat City Seeds announced that they are expecting a 10% reduction in sales of GM rape seeds. (See: 2000 Winnipeg Free Press, Canada, 5 May 2000, Helen Fallding)

- CANADA: The Winnipeg Free Press reported on April 24 that farmers in Canada are reducing the amount of acreage devoted to GE canola, perhaps by as much as 10%.

- CANADA: The following have pledged not to sell GE seeds: Richters Herbs; Alberta Nurseries & Seeds; Prairie Garden Seeds; Terra Edibles; Mapple Farm; Salt Spring Seeds; (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

-- EUROPE: The small farmers' lobby group, European Farmers Co-ordination (CPE) has issued a statement urging national governments to maintain the moratorium on GMO's imposed by the EU last June. The CPE concern stems from the European Parliament's decision on 12 April not to adopt a strong stance against GMOs with the exception of the setting up of a public register of GM crops, a long standing policy proposal of the RICS and ESCS. (See: ESCS BRUSSELS BRIEFING, 8 - 12 May 2000)

- US: A USDA survey last April showed that use of GE seeds is expected to drop in 2000. The survey projects GE corn production to drop by 24% from 25% in 1999 to 19% in 2000); GE cotton by 13% from 55% to 48%; and GE soybeans by 9% from 57 percent to 52% (63,400 soybean farmers surveyed). (See: "Backlash Casts Pall on Biotech Spuds" By BOB FICK, The Associated Press, ?? May 2000) (See also: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

- US/AMER CORN GROWERS ASSN: More than 30 farm groups in the U.S., representing tens of thousands of farmers, have warned their members they are risking their livelihoods if they plant GE crops, because these had become so unpopular with consumers. "Export markets in Europe and Asia are saying 'no' to foods produced from GM crops and farmers know they have to respond to consumer demand if they are to survive," Gary Goldberg, head of the American Corn Growers Assoc., said. He predicted that 25% fewer GM crops would be planted next year in US fields, based on talks with farmers and local seed company salesmen. "We believe that farmers in mass exodus are moving away from planting GM crops next year," he said. The farmers' main concern is that growing consumer demand for traditional seed varieties will create a two-tier market in which GM products will fall in price. Farmers have said they are concerned about paying premium prices for GM seeds and then finding they can't sell their crops. Grain dealer Jerry Bertrand said: "I can't tell them with certainty that I'll take their GM corn and soya next year because I don't know if there'll be a market for it." The farm groups also warned that inadequate testing of GM seeds could make farmers vulnerable to massive lawsuits if the seeds were later found to have negative environmental effects. Some European countries have banned American maize and soya shipments because US authorities cannot guarantee they only contain EU-approved varieties. The US says this has cost it approximately $200m in maize sales alone over the past two years, and will raise the issue with the WTO. (24 Nov 1999)

- US/AMER CORN GROWERS ASSN: Gary Goldberg, president of the ACGA believes that GM corn plantings will be down about 16% this year, compared to 1999. He indicated that the ag biotech firms are resorting to deception to maintain sales: "The [ag biotech] companies are deceiving farmers into thinking their neighbors are planting GM," he told the NEW YORK TIMES. (See: David Barboza, "In the Heartland, Genetic Promises," NEW YORK TIMES March 17, 2000, pg. C1 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695)

- US/AMER FARM BUREAU FED: A Reuters poll of 400 farmers at the annual meeting of the nation's largest farm organization, the American Farm Bureau Federation, predicted a 24% decline in the planting of Bt corn and a 26% decline in the planting of Bt cotton this year. Currently, Bt corn is grown on some 20 M acres in the U.S., and Bt cotton on about 7 M acres. (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

- US/NATL CORN GROWERS' ASSN: More than half of Mr Jensen's farm is planted with GE crops. As NCGA president, he is one of the strongest GE crop advocates. Yet should the tide of public opinion turn, he admits he is ready to go back. His biggest concern is a swift change of sentiment. "If something happened during this growing season that made my crop unacceptable, that would be devastating." (See: London Times, 22 May 2000, "US farmer fears discontent will spread" by GRACE BRADBERRY in South Dakota) <http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/timfgnusa01001.html>

- US/NATL FAMILY FARM COALITION: The NFFC, consisting of farm, conservation and rural advocacy groups from 33 U.S. states, has launched a 9-point petition titled "Farmers' Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture", calling for an immediate moratorium on GE crops. It identified the ff impacts of GE: increased economic uncertainty among farmers; loss of critical markets; loss of farmer independence due to corporate control of the seed supply; impure products due to genetic drift; social and economic disruption. In their 9-point petition, U.S. farmers demanded: a suspension of approval and releases of GE seeds and agriculture products until their comprehensive impacts are independently assessed; liability by corporate agribusiness for damages from GE crops and livestock; that GE firms bear the burden of proof of safety as well as bear the cost of an independent review. (Email: nffc@nffc.net) (See: Organic View, v.1 n.16, 29 Oct 1999)

- US/SAFE SEED INITIATIVE: SSI has received written assurance from 50 seed companies around the country that they will "not knowingly buy or sell GE seeds or plants." Companies who support the Safe Seed Initiative sign a pledge which states in part, "We feel that [GE] varieties have been insufficiently tested prior to public release. More research and testing is necessary to further assess the potential risks of [GE] seeds. Further, we wish to support agricultural progress that leads to healthier soils, genetically diverse agricultural ecosystems and ultimately people and communities." (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

- Seed companies who have signed the SSI pledge include the following: Abundant Life Seed Foundation; Bountiful Gardens; Environmental Seed Producers; Horse Creek Seed Sanctuary; KUSA Seed Research Foundation; Santa Barbara Heirloom Nursery; Beauty Beyond Belief Wildflower Seeds; Sunnyland Seeds; New England Seed Co.; Butterbrooke Farm; The Pepper Gal; Glendale Enterprises; Florida Mycology Research Center; Seeds Trust & High Altitude Gardens; Underwood Gardens; Borries Open Pollinated Seed Corn Farm; Seed Savers Exchange; Sand Hill Preservation Center; FedCo Seeds; Johnny's Selected Seeds; Maine Seed Saving Network; Wood Prairie Farm; Pioneer Valley Seed Savers; Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds; Barney's Ginseng Patch; Morgan County Wholesale; Garden City Seeds; Seeds of Change; Deep Diversity; Boone's Native Seed Company; Christopher Weeks Peppers; Mellinger's Inc.; Nichol's Garden Nursery; Peters Seed & Research; Territorial Seed Company; Horizon Herbs; Wild Garden Seed; Heirloom Seeds; Pepper Joe's; Bethlehem Seed Company; Heirloom Seed Project; Seeds for the South; Arethusa Seed Farm; High Mowing Organic Seed Farm; The Cook's Garden; Zwaan Seeds; Ladybug Herbs of Vermont; Garden Medicinals & Culinaries; Thomas Jefferson Center for Historic

-- US/CANADA: In a ten-point Farmers' Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture, family farm groups caution that farmers who plant GE seed are risking their livelihoods on a product that consumers around the world are overwhelmingly rejecting. The declaration was crafted during a first-ever Farmers' Summit on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture convened by Farm Aid on 23 Nov 1999. More than 30 farm groups, representing tens of thousands of farmers, signed the declaration, including the National Family Farm Coalition, American Corn Growers Association and Missouri Rural Crisis Center. Farm groups expressed concern over GE crops in a number of areas including increased corporate concentration and lack of seed diversity, farmer liability, and loss of markets. The declaration also says that inadequate testing of GE crops could open the door to farmer liability from damage caused by genetic drift, increased weed and pest resistance and the destruction of beneficial insects. Farm Aid Executive Director Carolyn Mugar said the summit conference and declaration mark a historic moment in the rising debate over ag GE. The declaration said: "[GE] in agriculture has significantly increased the economic uncertainty of family farmers throughout the U.S. and the world. American farmers have lost critical markets which are closed to [GE] products. Corporate control of the seed supply threatens farmers' independence. The risk of genetic drift has made it difficult and expensive for farmers to market a pure product. [GE] has created social and economic disruption that threatens traditional agricultural practices for farmers around the world. Farmers, who have maintained the consumer's trust by producing safe, reasonably priced and nutritious food, now fear losing that trust as a result of consumer rejection of [GE] foods. Many scientists believe [GMOs] have been released into the environment and the food supply without adequate testing. Farmers who have used this new technology may be facing massive liability from damage caused by genetic drift, increased weed and pest resistance, and the destruction of wildlife and beneficial insects." The farmers raised the following demands regarding GE seeds and ag products 1. suspension of environmental releases and government approvals; 2. immediate, independent and comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, health and economic impacts; 3. ban on the ownership of all forms of life including a ban on the patenting of seeds, plants, animals, genes and cell lines; 4. agrarian people who have cultivated and nurtured crops for thousands of years retain control of natural resources and maintain the right to use or reuse any genetic resource; 5. corporate agribusiness be held liable for any and all damages that result from the use of GE crops and livestock that were approved for use without an adequate assessment of the risks posed to farmers, human health and the environment; 6. the corporations and institutions that have intervened in the genetic integrity of life bear the burden of proof that their actions will not harm human health, the environment or damage the social and economic health of rural communities. Those corporations must bear the cost of an independent review guided by the precautionary principle and conducted prior to the introduction of any new intervention; 7. consumers in the U.S. and around the globe have the right to know whether their food is GE and have a right to access naturally produced food; 8. farmers who reject GE should not bear the cost of establishing that their product is GE-free; 9. the protection of family farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and the environment by ending monopoly practices of corporate agribusiness through enforcement of all state and federal anti-trust, market concentration and corporate farming laws; by a renewed commitment to public interest agricultural research led by the land grant colleges; by an immediate shift of funding from GE to sustainable agriculture; and by expanding the availability of traditional varieties of crops and livestock; 10. an end to mandatory check off programs that use farmers' money to support and promote GE research and corporate control of agriculture. (See: Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Rhonda Perry, Bryce Oates: 573-449-1336, 23 Nov 1999)

-- ENDORSERS OF THE FARMERS' DECLARATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE; American Corn Growers Association * California Sustainable Agriculture Working Group * Dakota Resource Council (ND) * Empire State Family Farm Alliance * Family Farm Defenders (WI) * Federation of Southern Cooperatives * Illinois Stewardship Alliance * Indiana Citizen Action Coalition * Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy * Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement * Land Loss Prevention Project (NC) * Land Stewardship Project (MN) * Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association * Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance * Minnesota COACT * The Minnesota Project * Missouri Rural Crisis Center * National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture * National Catholic Rural Life Conference * National Family Farm Coalition * Northeast Organic Farming Association (VT) * North American Farm Alliance (OH) * Northern Plains Resource Council (MT) * Organic Growers of Michigan * Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) * Rural Coalition * Rural Vermont * Sustainable Cotton Project * Western Colorado Congress * Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group * Women, Food and Agriculture (See: Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Rhonda Perry, Bryce Oates: 573-449-1336, 23 Nov 1999)

- US: U.S. farmers plan to reduce the areas to be planted with GM cotton and maize in the main producer states from 33% to 25% for maize and from 55% to 48% for cotton. See: Agricultural Outlook, May 2000, ERS-AO-271 8 May 2000, "Reduction in biotech maize and cotton planting") <http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/economics/>

13. CLAIM: Consumers want GE foods

- Almost all surveys show that consumers are overwhelmingly in favor of GE food labelling, and that most will avoid GE food:

- CANADA: A group of Canadian health food stores has asked the government to require labels identifying foods that contain genetically altered components. Herringer's group of stores presented the federal agriculture minister a petition signed by more than 30,000 of their clients, asking for the labeling. (See: Agence France Presse, 26 Jan 2000, "Canadian health stores ask government to label genetically altered foods")

- CANADA: According to a poll conducted for The Council of Canadians by Environics Research Group, 75% of Canadians familiar with GE foods are worried about their safety and 95% want GE foods labeled as such. Another 95% want consumers to be able to buy non-GE foods, and 71% would even be willing to pay more to get them. Moreover, majority (56%) are not confident in the federal government's ability to protect their health and safety when it comes to GE foods. The telephone poll, which surveyed 902 Canadians earlier this year, is accurate within 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. (See: The Council of Canadians Release, 31 Mar 2000) <http://www.canadians.org>

- JAPAN: In a 1999 poll in Tokyo, "90% of those surveyed expressed deep concern over the growing trend toward biotechnology." (Interpress, 14 Oct 1999);

- NEW ZEALAND: GM foods that claim to be good for people will not win New Zealanders over, according to a Massey University study. The study of 417 shoppers found that only 1 per cent would choose "GM only" foods when given the choice. Researchers said that when presented with a label that read "GM with consumer benefit", the demand was still lower than for "GM free" goods. (See: The Dominion/New Zealand, "GM Food Rejected", 22 Feb 2000)

- PHILIPPINES: Consumer groups asked have the government to require food firms to label products containing GE ingredients. Francis de la Cruz, executive director of the Citizens Alliance for Consumer Protection said at a forum on GMOs that, "If we cannot prevent the entry of GMOs...let us be given information to exercise our choice. What we are proposing is labelling of [GM] foods." (See: "Philippine consumer groups lobby for gmo labelling", 22 Oct 1999, Reuters)

- SOUTH KOREA's Consumer Protection Board said last Thursday its survey had found that 94.7 percent of the total 526 survey respondents said labelling for GM foods was necessary - 71.5 percent said all the time and 23.2 percent in some cases. (Reuters, Seoul, 9 Sep 1999)

- UK: A MORI poll published in June showed that 61% of people in the UK do not want to eat GM food ingredients. This figure is up by 8% from January 1998, and could rise still further on a crescendo of public debate. (See: Chartered Surveyor Monthly, Nov/Dec 1998, "GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS SPELL TROUBLE ON THE FARM" by Mark Griffiths) <http://www.rics.org.uk/csm/archives/nov98/531298.html>

- UK: In Britain, where GE food labeling is required, poll results last March [1999] showed that nine out of 10 shoppers would switch supermarkets and travel considerable distances to avoid such food. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)

- UK: Some 86% of consumers questioned in a poll for Here's Health magazine said they would switch to a different supermarket if it banned all GE products. On top of this, 84% of the same sample of 1,030 shoppers said they would be willing to travel double the distance it normally takes to visit their supermarket if they could be sure of shopping in a GM-free environment. (The Press Association, 10 Mar 1999)

- UK: More than 100 chefs and food writers launched a campaign to oppose GM food yesterday. Antonio Carluccio, Antony Worrall Thompson, Fay Maschler and Annie Bell, food writer for The Independent, were among those who pledged to secure a ban on the release of all GM organisms into the food chain. In a joint statement, they said: "As food professionals we object to the introduction of [GM] foods into the food chain. This is imposing a genetic experiment on the public, which could have unpredictable and irreversible adverse consequences." In a recent Mori poll, 61 per cent of respondents said they would not be happy to eat GM food. (INDEPENDENT, London, 27 Jan 1999)

- US: In Dec 1998, a poll of U.S. consumers by the Swiss firm Novartis found that more than 90% of the public wants labeling. (See: Marian Burros, "Eating Well; Chefs Join Effort to Label Engineered Food," NEW YORK TIMES December 9, 1998, p. F14 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695.)

- US: More than 500,000 people signed a petition to the FDA demanding mandatory labeling of GE foods. The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit against the FDA to reclassify genetic modification as an additive that would require labeling. When the Agriculture Department proposed organic food regulations, more than 280,000 people filed comments protesting the inclusion of GM foods as organic. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)

- US: Citing major deficiencies in the regulatory system, a coalition of environmentalists and scientists issued a document today calling for the suspension of all further releases of GMOs. The Pacific Declaration was drafted at a national meeting on July 26-28, 1999 at the Commonweal Conference Center in Bolinas, California. It cites the failure of govt agencies to review the long-term prospects for environmental and human harm stemming from GMOs. Among the endorsers are the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the American Corn Growers Assn, Rural Advancement Foundation Intl (RAFI), the Inst for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Council for Responsible Genetics, the Edmonds Inst, and the Center for Ethics and Toxics (CETOS). (CETOS press statement, 12 Oct 1999)

- US: California Labeling Initiative: California volunteers are gathering signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would require GE foods labeling. The initiative would require labeling of "crops and livestock containing genetic material transferred from one species to another or other DNA modifications not commonly possible under natural conditions, such as cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, and induced sequence or encapsulation variations." To qualify for the Nov 2000 ballot, 413,000 valid California voter signatures are needed by February 20. If such initiative passes, implications for the rest of the country are huge. Food firms which are not GE-free would need to add labels if they wanted to do business in our most populated state. Legislation on GE foods is also being considered in New York, Vermont and Minnesota in the next year. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)

- US: Opinion polls consistently show that more than 90% of Americans support the labeling of GE foods. A 1999 Time poll revealed that close to 60% would avoid such foods if they were labelled. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)

- US: Polls show that U.S. consumers overwhelmingly want GE foods labeled. In a TIME magazine poll in Jan 1999, 81 percent of respondents said GE foods should be labeled. (See: Marian Burros, "Eating Well; Different Genes, Same Old Label," NEW YORK TIMES September 8, 1999, p. F5 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695.) A January 2000 MSNBC poll showed identical results.

- US: Nonprofit Mothers for Natural Law of Iowa submitted nearly 500,000 signatures to federal officials calling for mandatory labeling of GE foods at a June 17 event in Washington, D.C. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, 1999)

- US: The NEW YORK TIMES reported late 1999 that a "biotech industry poll" showed that 93% of Americans want GE foods labeled. (See: Marian Burros, "U.S. Plans Long-term Studies on Safety of Genetically Altered Foods," NEW YORK TIMES July 14, 1999, pg. A18 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695.)

- US: Poll after poll has found that between 80 and 95 percent of US consumers want labeling. A Gallup poll released earlier this month found that 68 percent of consumers would actually pay more to cover labeling costs for genetically engineered foods. That same poll found that only 10 percent of consumers have heard much about genetically engineered foods. (See: Organic View, v.1 n.15, 14 Oct 1999)

14. CLAIM: The food industry is shifting to GE foods

14.1. CLAIM: Companies are shifting to GE foods.

- Just the opposite: companies are shifting away from GE foods. The following companies are part of the growing list of firms which have declared that they will not use GE-ingredients or sell GE-foods:

- Carlsberg to Avoid GM corn: Carlsberg AS said it will henceforth brew its beer only from malt and no longer use corn to reassure consumers of a GM-free product. (AFP, 12 Nov 1999)

- AUSTRALIA: Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd., Australia (AFX Asia, 2 Nov 1999); Sanitarium Health Food Company, Australia; Cadbury-Schweppes, Australia; Master Foods, Australia; Mars Confectionery, Australia; Wyeth, Australia; Heinz Watties Australasia

- BRAZIL: Perdigao, one of Brazil's largest poultry and pork producers, said it had turned back from port a cargo ship carrying U.S. corn suspected of being transgenic. Perdigao said it had bought 27,500 ton of corn in the U.S. but the supplier could not provide a certificate that the cargo was guaranteed GM-free. (See: Reuters, 11 Feb 2000)

- CANADA: McCain Foods, the largest potato and frozen french fry processor in the world, will not use Monsanto's Bt potatoes anymore (Ottawa Citizen, 29 Nov 1999)

- EUROPE: With more and more major food retailers, restaurants, and processors in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Scandinavia, the UK, and others going "GE-free" a huge market now exists for certified "non-GE" and organic products; Foodcompany Unilever switches to non-GE ingredients for its European factories. The new suppliers are being selected between now and 2002. Reason: declining sales of GE products. (See: Volkskrant, 24 May 2000, pg.2, "UNILEVER STOPS GENETECH IN EU")

- FRANCE: Carrefour (France's largest supermarket chain), will buy 180,000 tons of non-GE soybeans from Brazil in 2000 (See: Reuters, "Carrefour Leads Purchase of Non-GMO Brazil Soy", 22 Feb 2000)

-- GERMANY: Kampfmeyer, the largest German milling company for grain and corn, tests *every* incoming batch by PCR in double-blind analysis in two labs for GMOs. The Kampfmeyer CEO said that they would *by no means* be able to mill a GM variety, as the public would plainly avoid their products after a scandal for at least the usual span a consumer would remember (about 3 months) and that would mean their end. And no matter how WTO would decide, Kampfmeyer simply would not be able to use such batches because they would upset their clients. (Taken from SANET posting, May 2000)

- HK: Nestle Hong Kong; Vitasoy; ParknShop (See: South China Morning Post, 11 Feb 2000, "Nestle to Phase Out GM Ingredients in All Products", Alex Lo)

- ITALY: Esselunga;

- JAPAN: Nissin Food Products; Kirin Brewery; Itochu Corp., Japanese trading house; Itochu Feed Mills; Sapporo Breweries; Nippon Flour Mills; Fuji Oil Co.; Japan Tofu Association (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999); a division of Honda Motor Company is building a soy-handling plant in Ohio to supply non-GE soybeans to Japan; Pioneer-Hybrid Japan will import non-GE soybeans from the US; (See: Campaign for Food Safety News #22 Oct-Nov 1999, "News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory Farming, & Organics" by Ronnie Cummins & Ben Lilliston); Kibun Food Chemifa Co Ltd, Japan's largest soybean milk maker (50% of Japan soymilk market, worth 17 B yen in 1999), will use rice bran oil instead of corn oil and sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) (Reuters, 21 Dec 1999); Nisshin Flour Milling Co Ltd, Japan's largest flour miller, will use wheat instead of soybean protein (Reuters, 21 Dec 1999); corn snack maker Tohato Inc, will switch from US to French corn (Aya Takada, Reuters, 24 Aug 1999); Jusco Co Ltd, major Japanese supermarket operator with 300 stores nationwide, will label GE food products (Reuters, Tokyo, 8 Sep 1999);

- JAPAN: Hironori Kijima, director-general of the Japan Tofu Association, expects GM labelling will create annual demand for 300,000 tonnes of non-GM soybeans from Japanese soybean curd makers. Japan imported 2.45 million tonnes of soybeans in the first half of 1999, of which imports from the U.S. accounted for 2.11 tonnes or 86.2 percent. In the same period Japan imported 9.13 million tonnes of corn, of which imports from the U.S. accounted for 8.82 million tonnes or 96.5 percent. "We want to avoid the GM label as it could hurt the image of our products. We plan to switch to non-GM soybeans," Kijima said. (Aya Takada, Reuters, 24 Aug 1999)

- MEXICO: Responding to growing controversy Mexico's largest corn flour company, Maseca, recently announced a ban on GE ingredients in their products, according to the New York Times. Mexico, with a population of over 90 million, is the second largest buyer of US corn in the world, purchasing $500 million in US corn exports annually. (See: Campaign for Food Safety News #22 Oct-Nov 1999, "News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory Farming, & Organics" by Ronnie Cummins & Ben Lilliston) <http://www.purefood.org>

- SOUTH AFRICA: Retail chain Woolworths will remove all known GM foods from its shelves (Reuters, 21 Dec 1999);

- SOUTH KOREA: The Korean Bean Processing Association and the Korea Soybean Food Association want to cultivate non-GM beans through contracts with farmers in the U.S., Canada and Australia... Meanwhile the Korea Consumer Protection Board said Wednesday that a GM bean ingredient has been found in 18 tofu (bean curd) products out of 22 examined, or 81.8 percent, and many famous tofu makers were also found to have used GM beans imported from the U.S. (Asia Pulse, 4 Nov 1999)

- SPAIN: Spain's association of corn food starch producers, HUMAIZ, has told govt officials that Bt corn is costing it money. HUMAIZ chief Felipe Albert said "we have made clear to the agriculture ministry that the current situation is unsustainable" and "we hope the new minister will move quickly to solve our problems." HUMAIZ says GMO corn is causing two major problems. European food processors are wary of Spanish corn starch for fear of GMO content. HUMAIZ also says that testing and segregation costs are hurting their competitiveness. (See: Cropchoice News, 10 May 2000, "Spanish Corn Starch Industry says Bt Corn is a Problem") <http://www.cropchoice.com>

- SWITZERLAND: Migros;

- UK: Unilever, the world's largest food manufacturer (See: Independent, 28 Apr 1999); Tesco (Britains biggest supermarket chain, sales: #18.5bn) (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999); Asda, a major British supermarket chain (See: Independent, 27 Jan 1999); Kentucky Fried Chicken UK (See: Daily Mail, 23 Feb 1999); Iceland, a British frozen food specialist; Marks and Spencer, another British retail chain; Waitrose, UK; McDonald's, UK (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999); Burger King, UK (See: Daily Mail, 23 Feb 1999); United Biscuits, UK (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999); Sainsbury, UK; UK Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association (BLRA) (See: "UK BREWERS SAY NO GM MAIZE IN BRITISH BEER", 24 Sep 1999, Reuters); Sun Valley, Britain's largest chicken producer, has banned GM Soya in its chickenfeed. (31 Jan 2000, " Greenpeace Claims 'Victory For Consumers' As British Chickens Go GM Free!") <http://www.greenpeace.org.uk>

- UK PARLIAMENT: Food caterers at the House of Commons avoid GM ingredients "in response to the general unease about such foods expressed by significant numbers of our customers". At the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, caterers also have a policy of avoiding GM ingredients. The European Parliament has banned them too. (Alex Kirby, BBC Online, 22 Dec 1999) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_574000/574245.stm>

- UK (Monsanto): GM food has been banned from the staff cafeteria at Monsanto Co.'s UK headquarters by the company's own caterer, Monsanto confirmed Tuesday. Granada Food Services, whose customers include Monsanto's High Wycombe office near London, recently told clients it would not supply food containing GM soya or maize due to customer concerns. Granada said the move was designed "to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve." <http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2562764499-062>

- US: Twenty-one resolutions calling for restraints on the use of GE ingredients are on the annual meeting agendas at some of America's leading food and seed manufacturers this year, up from zero a year ago. Many resolutions call for more long-term research before GE materials are used in food. Others propose mandatory labeling of products with GE ingredients. (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

- US: A concerted shareholder campaign against GM foods is about to hit corporate America with a flood of resolutions at company meetings demanding a moratorium until proper testing has been done. Initially targeted are 24 firms including household names such as Coca-Cola, Heinz, the US Safeway chain and McDonald's, as well as Monsanto, the firm at the centre of the GM controversy. The campaign is coordinated by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), an umbrella body for 275 religious and other groups which claims to control $100bn of shares in US companies. The ICCR has led a number of successful shareholder campaigns, including withdrawal from South Africa, action against tobacco products and pressure for companies to adopt environmental policies. Targets include biotech firms American Home Products, Dow Chemical and Du Pont, the food ingredients company Archer Daniels Midland, consumer products groups General Mills, PepsiCo, Philip Morris, Quaker Oats, and Sara Lee. Aside from Diageo, European targets include Hoechst, Novartis, Rhone Poulenc and Schering. (See: The Guardian/Finance, 20 Dec 1999, "Corporate America faces GM onslaught Shareholders demand a ban", Roger Cowe)

- US: William C. Wardlaw III, great-grandson of one of the first shareholders in Coca Cola, sponsored a resolution at the shareholders' meeting, asking the company to avoid GM ingredients at least until the environmental impact of GE becomes clear. Wardlaw (who said it is the first time he had interfered in such matters) controls 2,020,682 shares valued at $98 million. His move similar to that of the New York-based Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, against McDonalds, General Mills, PepsiCo, Quaker Oats, Sara Lee and Procter & Gamble. (See: San Francisco Chronicle, Tom Abate, "Major shareholder in Coca Cola adds his voice to the chorus of protests against GM ingredients", 2 May 2000) (See also: www.cocacola.com (click on "Investor Relations", then "Proxy Statements") <http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2000/04/03/BU91580.DTL>

- US: Wendy's (See: NLP Release, "Setback for GM potatoes in USA", 4 Feb 2000); Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), buyer and exporter of farm commodities, asked farmers to segregate their GE and non-GE crops at harvest, because " in Europe and Japan some people are willing to pay a premium for segregated crops," said senior VP for corp affairs Larry Cunningham (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) (See also: "Food War Claims Its Casualties", by Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 12 Sep 1999; Page A01) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

- US: Seagrams; the entire sugar industry; R.D. Offutt Co., one of largest US producers of potatoes (See: "McDonald's, Other Fast-Food Chains Pull Monsanto's Bio-Engineered Potato" By Scott Kilman, Wall Street Journal, 28 Apr 2000); Texas-based PepsiCo unit Frito-Lay Co., which makes potato-chip brands Lay's and Ruffles. (See: "McDonald's, Other Fast-Food Chains Pull Monsanto's Bio-Engineered Potato" By Scott Kilman, Wall Street Journal, 28 Apr 2000); fast-food chain McDonald's Corp; Idaho-based J.M. Simplot Company, a major potato supplier. (See: Scott Kilman, "McDonald's, Other fast-Food Chains Pull Monsanto's Bio-Engineered Potato," WALL STREET JOURNAL April 28, 2000, pg. B4); Colorado-based Wild Oats, 110 stores in 22 states, over 700 brands; Austin-based Whole Foods Market Inc., 103 stores in 22 states, including such stores as Fresh Fields, Bread & Circus, Nature's Heartland, Bread of Life, Merchant of Vino and Wellspring Grocery, and 600 private-label products (See: Organic View, v.2 n.1, 23 Jan 2000); Procter & Gamble, maker of Pringles potato chips; Frito-Lay, which markets Lay's and Ruffles potato chips as well as Doritos, Tostitos, and Fritos; Frito-Lay bought 1.2 billion pounds of U.S. corn in 1999 (See: Bloomberg News, 28 Jan 2000, "Frito-Lay Doesn't Want Bioengineered Corn") (See also: "Eating Well; What Labels Don't Tell You (Yet)," NEW YORK TIMES February 9, 2000, pg. F5); Burger King Burger King (Farmers Weekly, 3 Dec 1999); Hardees, restaurant chain; Hain Food Group, which sells the Little Bear line of natural snacks as GE-free (See: Organic View, v.1 n.15, 14 Oct 1999); H.J. Heinz Co. of Pittsburgh; Calif.-based Healthy Time Natural Foods; (See: Organic View, v.1 n.15, 14 Oct 1999) Worthington Foods, maker of Morningstar Farms veggie burgers (See: Organic View, v.1 n.15, 14 Oct 1999); baby food giants Mead-Johnson (infant formula) and Gerber (owned by GE giant Novartis and the nation's largest maker of baby food, producing 5.5 million jars per day and annual worldwide sales of $1 billion (AP Online, 30 Jul 1999); Ohio-based pet food maker Iam's Co. (See: "Food War Claims Its Casualties", by Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 12 Sep 1999; Page A01); supermarket chain Genuardi's (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000); a number of leading supermarket chains admit privately that mandatory labeling of GE foods is probably inevitable (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

15. CLAIM: GE crops will increase sales, expand markets

- GE crops are not a competitive advantage but a disadvantage, resulting in lower sales and lost markets. If you want competitive advantage go GE-free. Better, go organic. Here are examples of lower sales and lost markets due to GE contamination:

- AUSTRALIA: Australian trade authorities announced Jan. 8, 1999, the largest shipment of canola (rapeseed) ever exported from Australia. The $16.5 million dollar shipment is bound for oilseed crushing plants in Europe. According to Graham Lawrence, managing director of the New South Wales Grains Board, "Europe has moved to become a major buyer this year because Australia is the only country to guarantee non-GM canola."

- BRAZIL: Almost no US corn (nor Canadian canola oil) has been exported to the EU for the past two years because of consumer resistance. Meanwhile Brazil, where a GE ban is in effect, is exporting record-breaking amounts of soya to the EU; while Australia is exporting increasing amounts of non-GE canola to Japan. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) <http://www.purefood.org> <http://www.organicconsumers.org>

- CANADA: Canada has lost $300-400 million in canola sales to Europe IN 1998 because authorities have followed the US model of co-mingling GE and non-GE grains. This year over 50% of Canada's 13.4 million acres of canola are GE.

- CANADA: This fall [1999], the Barley Grower's Assn refused to buy barley sprayed with Roundup. Over 1/2 the countries worldwide won't buy GE canola. (See: "Percy Schmeiser - The Gutsy Canadian Farmer Who Dares Take on Monsanto", by Joanne Stephenson, free-lance writer, joanne@inetex.com) <http://www.inetex.com/joanne>

-- CANADA: Since 1997 nearly every soya bean grown by Mike Snobelen, his two sons, and now 400 neighbouring farmers in central Ontario has been loaded into ocean-going freighters destined for Antwerp or Tilbury in Europe. The beans are guaranteed non-GM. The desire among some Europeans to avoid GM soya has made Canadian farmers like Mr Snobelen rich. The Snobelens farm 850ha (2100 acres) of soy, grain maize, wheat and alfalfa, using no-tillage techniques. Several years ago, they bought a small grain elevator and seed-cleaning operation in Lucknow to process seed for local growers. That attracted an export broker who asked about growing and cleaning non-GM soy under a strict segregation regime for export. With guaranteed premium prices, the Snobelens jumped at the opportunity. "We were big enough to provide some volume, but small enough to guarantee control over the varieties grown," Mr Snobelen recalls. The family expanded the existing elevator, bought two more small ones and today employ 25 people, including drivers in a haulage firm. Furthermore, 400 local farmers are now growing 24,280ha (60,000 acres) of GM-free soya under contract. The segregation system is vitally important. Contract growers must buy seed from the Snobelens to ensure there is no GM germplasm, and sign contracts guaranteeing they won't grow any GM crops. They must also follow rules about cleaning harvest equipment. There is additional paperwork and costs for everyone, he admits. But the 40cents/bushel (£6.49/t) premium eases the pain. Mr Snobelen sees segregation and identity preservation as the way of the future for many crops. "If you are involved in the food system today you have to have quality-control systems in place and document everything." The Snobelen elevators refuse to take any GM crops. Beans are tested at several stages with new portable test equipment and by accredited testing laboratories in the US. The lab tests can detect one bean in 10,000 with the Roundup Ready gene. More samples are taken as beans are loaded into freighters for testing locally and at the US lab. They are then tested again on arrival by the customer. The beans are used primarily by Belgian processor Provamet for non-GM soy milk products and by bakers in England. Shipments last year were over 40,000t. (See: FARMERS WEEKLY 19 May 2000, "GM-free soya beans from North America" by Stephen Leahy)

- JAPAN: Traders estimate purchasing costs for U.S. corn by Japanese end-users could rise as much as 50 percent if they seek non-GM crops. As for U.S. soybeans, purchasing costs by Japanese users are expected to rise by about 30 percent. (Aya Takada, Reuters, 24 Aug 1999)

- JAPAN: Dow Jones reported on October 5 that the Japanese futures market (where buyers pay in advance for future deliveries) for US soybeans which were harvested last year are "declining rapidly" because last year's soybeans "are mixed with large amounts of GM products." According to Dow Jones, "Japanese [grain] traders are rapidly switching to imports of GM-free soybeans." With giant importers in the EU, Japan, and other nations now demanding GE-free foods, more large transnational grain traders are expected to follow the example of Archer Daniels Midland, who announced in September they expect US farmers and grain elevators to start separating out and segregating GE from non-GE grains. Archer Daniels Midland purchases fully 1/3 of all corn, soybeans, and wheat produced in the US. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) <http://www.purefood.org> <http://www.organicconsumers.org>

- JAPAN: Japan is introducing the world's first futures contract designed to trade GM-free agricultural produce. The "GM-free" contract, to cover soyabeans, will be launched in May. It has been prompted by rising alarm among Japanese consumers about imported soyabeans in traditional foods such as tofu, soy sauce and miso soup. Japan is believed to be the world's largest importer of GM foods, almost all of which come from the US and which primarily consist of soyabeans and grain. (See: Financial Times/London, 22 Mar 2000, "Japan Starts First GM-free Soyabean Futures Contract", NOBUKO JUJI and GILLIAN TETT)

- JAPAN: Shoppers are paying as much as 10 times the normal price for soybeans grown on their own soil, where farmers don't plant GM seeds. (See: Journal of Commerce, 11 May 2000, "Food-Biotech Backlash Spreads Through Japan" by Sharon Schmickle)

- JAPAN imports more Midwestern corn and soybeans than any other nation, at least $3 billion worth a year. Over the years, Japan typically has bought more than twice as much U.S. corn as all of the European countries combined. Now, after losing $300 million a year in corn sales to Europe since 1996 because of anti-GM furor, U .S. farmers are fighting to save Japanese markets they've cultivated for 50 years. (See: Journal of Commerce, 11 May 2000, "Food-Biotech Backlash Spreads Through Japan" by Sharon Schmickle)

- JAPAN: Food safet concerns prompted explosive turnover when the world's first non-GM U.S. soybean futures contract began trading on the Tokyo Grain Exchange. Turnover for the new non-GM soybean futures was estimated at 91,410 lots (914,000 tonnes), compared with 12,136 lots (364,000 tonnes) in existing unsegregated U.S. soybean futures. Estimated volume for soybean futures on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), the world's largest agriculture product futures market, was 59,000 lots (about 8.0 million tonnes) on Wednesday. "The high turnover on the contract's first trading day reflects domestic concerns about the safety of [GM] food," said Nobufumi Iimori, Nihon Unicom Corp's structured products department manager. Out of the total food soybean imports by Japan expected this year, unsegregated U.S. soybeans are likely to account for 60,000 tonnes, while non-GM U.S. soybeans are seen at more than 550,000 tonnes and non-GM soybeans from other countries such as Canada and China will account for the rest. (See: Reuters, Tokyo, 18 May 2000, "Safety worry boosts new Tokyo non-GM soy futures" By Jae Hur)

- THAILAND: Doi Kham, a food processing company, conceded yesterday its shipment of flour was rejected by a German importer who charged that the soybean was genetically-modified, but the company denied the charge. (See: Bangkok Post, 29 Sep 1999, "Shipment of local soybean sent back; Firm denies charge of GMOs in flour", by Ploenpote Atthakor)

- UK: GM-free feed cannot meet rising demand: Not enough non-GM soya or derived products are available on the international market to met growing demand for GM-free animal feed, according to National Farmers Union's Dr Vernon Barber. (See The Farmer's Guardian, 15 Oct 1999, UK)

- US: In 1996, the U.S. sold $3 billion worth of corn and soybeans to Europe. Last year, those exports had shrunk to $1 billion - a $2 billion loss. The seed sellers like Monsanto and DuPont got their money from the farmers, so it is the farmers who have taken the hit, not the ag biotech firms. (See: David Barboza, "In the Heartland, Genetic Promises," NEW YORK TIMES March 17, 2000, pg. C1 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695.)

- US: The National Corn Growers Association acknowledges that U.S. corn sales to Europe plunged from nearly 70 million bushels in 1997 to less than 3 million last year because the U.S. crop contained a small amount of GE corn. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)

- US: There have been virtually no corn exports from the US to the EU States because the GE corn cannot be separated from the rest of the crop, costing American farmers about $200 million a year. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)

- US: A Netherlands importer rejected corn chips made by Terra Prima, a certified organic producer in Hudson, Wisc., when traces of GM corn were discovered in the batch. It was a devastating blow to Terra Prima, a small producer that prides itself on a superior product free of chemicals or other substances. The company chose to destroy 87,000 bags of their corn chips and essentially swallow $147,000 when they couldn't sell their product as organic - a big bite out of a company with only about $4 million in total sales, says Chuck Walker, its president. Walker didn't blame the Texas organic farmer who sold them the corn, which was grown using rotational methods, minimal pesticides and no GM seed varieties. But he did blame the contamination on pollen from GM corn that was blown over from another farm and whose patented gene was the same one picked up in the test. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999) (See also: MSNBC, 14 Sep 1999, "Transgenic pollution a new concern", by Francesca Lyman) <http://www.msnbc.com/news/309357.asp>

- US: By summer 1999, US corn exports to the EU were reported to have dropped 96% in a year. To Monsanto's horror, farmers were beginning to choose traditional seeds rather than risk the new. One giant processor announced it would pay extra for traditional soybeans. (See: "How Monsanto's mind was changed", by John Vidal, Guardian - London, 9 Oct 1999)

- US: For months, analysts Timothy Ramey and Frank J. Mitsch at Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown have been arguing that "GMOs genetically modified organisms are dead." In May, Ramey correctly identified the emergence of a two-tier market for grain in which improved grains would sell for less than traditional hybrids. Two months later, he asked, "Are GMOs safe, good for the environment and necessary to support the inevitable growth in the world's population? Yes, but the same arguments can be made for advancing nuclear power. Despite the support of the scientific community, it is unlikely that we will add any new nuclear power plants any time soon." (See: Los Angeles Times, 5 Oct 1999, SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Financial Desk, "BIOTECH: PUBLIC OUTCRY OVER GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS HAS THE U.S. AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY BACKPEDALING", by PAUL JACOBS)

- US: U.S. soybean exports to Europe have declined from $2.1 billion in 1996 to $1.1 billion in 1999, and will likely decline to zero over the next 12 months as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and other anti-biotech campaigners drive GE soy and corn-derived animal feeds off the market. As the same thing happens in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the rest of Asia - not to mention the US and Canada - GE grains, for all practical purposes, will be dead. Meanwhile exports of GE-free soybeans from Brazil to Europe are booming, with sales rising from 3.1 million tons to 5.4 million tons over the past year. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)

- US exports of soybeans to the EU plummeted from 11 M tons in 1998 to 6 M tons in 1999, while US corn exports dropped from 2 M tons 1998 to 137,000 tons 1999: a combined loss for US agriculture of nearly $1 B in sales. (See Worldwatch News Brief, "Portrait of an Industry in Trouble" by Brian Halweil, 17 Feb 2000)

- US: The four year food fight by European consumers and farmers is slowly but surely driving GE foods and crops off the EU market, the largest in the world. US corn exports to the EU have fallen from $360 million a year to near zero, while soybean exports have fallen from $2.6 billion annually to $1 billion-and are expected to fall even further as major food processors, supermarkets, and fast-food chains ban GE soy or soy derivatives in animal feeds. Canada's canola exports to Europe similarly have fallen from $500 million a year to near zero. (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

- US: Market rejection of Bt corn has cost U.S. farmers more than $200 million in 1999 export revenue. (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

16. CLAIM: Countries are adopting GE crops

- Goverments are increasingly adopting mandatory labelling, rigorous testing, and restrictive measures over GE products, including banning GE products of questionable safety.

- AFRICA: In Africa, a group of nations, led by Ethiopia, are developing draft legislation that would make it illegal to export GE foods or crops to their countries without prior country approval, according to an article in Nature magazine August 5. This prior consent law would force GE exporters to carry out human safety, environmental, and socioeconomic studies. This initiative has drawn opposition from biotechnology corporations and grain-exporting nations, led by the US, who consider so-called Biosafety Protocols a restraint of trade. In early August it was announced that the government of South Africa, through its departments of Agriculture and Health, is moving toward compulsory labeling of GE foods. (See: Campaign for Food Safety News #22 Oct-Nov 1999, "News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory Farming, & Organics" by Ronnie Cummins & Ben Lilliston) <http://www.purefood.org>

- AUSTRALIA's $14 billion farm export sector is shunning GE crops due to fears of "consumer backlash." Despite heavy biotech industry lobbying, the country has not allowed the commercialization of many GE products, including sugar cane, beer, and canola. The only GE crop grown on a large-scale in Australia is cotton. (Reuters, 15 Oct 1999)

- AUSTRIA has banned imports of GM maize from Aventis, due to insufficient research into the long-term impact of these crops on the environment. "Austria is not a laboratory and it is important to continue to supply first class products for the entire common market", said Elisabeth Sickl, Minister for food safety and controls. (See: Reuters, 2 May 2000,, "Austria to ban Aventis GM maize")

- BRAZIL's Supreme Court ruled in June that Monsanto's GE soybeans (RRS) cannot be grown until the govt finalizes its biosafety rules and Monsanto completes an environmental impact statement. Monsanto reps admitted in September that no RRS soybeans will be planted in 1999-2000 and that prospects for 2000-2001 planting are also in jeopardy. Analysts believe that if Brazil's ban continues for several more years (and sales to the EU of non-GE soya continue to grow), GE crops may never gain significance in the country. Brazil grows 25% of the world's soybeans. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) <http://www.purefood.org> <http://www.organicconsumers.org>

- BRAZIL: Agriculture secretary Jose Hermeto Hoffmann of Brazil's southernmost state of Rio Grande do Sul said that the state will offer farmers a total of 10 million reals (US$5.37 million) in special low-interest loans if they rip out GM soy - illegal throughout Brazil - and replant normal varieties. Brazil, the world's second-largest soybean producer, is the last major U.S. competitor that has not followed the U.S. down the transgenic trail. (See: Reuters, "Brazil State Pays Farmers to Rip Out GM Soybeans", Phil Stewart, 7 Dec 1999)

- BRAZIL is in the process of deciding whether to make the new technology legal. And there is a growing sense that what happens in Brazil - the world's No. 2 soybean producer, after the U.S. - could tip the balance on GE crops around the world. Should Brazil officially reject GE's lure, it would be a big setback for American companies that have already been hurt financially by fierce resistance in Europe from consumers and large companies that refuse to buy GMOs. But if Brazil's huge agricultural sector joins the biotech fold, experts say, it may someday be difficult for consumers anywhere to find any GE-free food. (See: New York Times, 16 May 2000, "Super Seeds Sweeping Major Markets, and Brazil May Be Next" By ANTHONY DePALMA with SIMON ROMERO)

- CANADA's Wheat Board chief, Greg Arason, said last October that the giant Canadian grain exporting agency "must mobilize to identify and segregate GM wheat and barley from natural grain," to reassure consumers and safeguard Canada's multi-billion dollar wheat export market. Although GE wheat has not yet been commercialized, Monsanto and other companies hope to market GE wheat in a few years. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)

- CZECH REPUBLIC has approved a draft law which requires licensing of any GM product, spokesman Libor Roucek said. GM crops and products made from them would to be submitted to state authorities for approval before being sold, and would have to be labelled for consumers. For example, that GM tomatoes and ketchup made out of them would each have to be approved by state authorities and properly labeled. The measure must still be approved by parliament. (See: Reuters, 21 Dec 1999)

- EUROPE: Public opposition to GE foods is so strong that the European Union requires the labeling of all newly manufactured GE products from the U.S. The approval of new GE crops in the EU has ground to a halt. No new varieties have been approved in the last 15 months. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)

- EUROPE: On June 24, the environmental ministers of the European Union declared a three-year suspension, or in their words, "de facto moratorium", on approving new GMOs for cultivation. Citing a lack of scientific consensus on health and environmental risks, the group thereby limited cultivation to the two existing crops, Novartis Bt corn and Monsanto Round-up Ready soybeans. France, Denmark, Luxemburg and Greece have already banned GMO production. (See: "UK BREWERS SAY NO GM MAIZE IN BRITISH BEER", 24 Sep 1999, Reuters)

- EUROPE: No new GM crops have been approved in the 15 member EU since April 1998, (See: Reuters, "EU fears legal action if GMO deadlock remains" by Michael Mann, 24 Nov 1999)

- GERMANY has banned all planting, growing, and selling of GE corn produced by Novartis, based on research published in Freiburg, Germany, that showed the GE corn can cancel out the effect of antibiotic treatments for illnesses because the corn has been modified to resist certain antibiotics.

- GHANA's Minister of Environment, Science and Technology Cletus Avoka assured the nation that his ministry is doing everything to check the influx of GM foods on the market. Avoka said the GM food issue has generated a lot of controversy in developed countries and Ghana, a developing country, would not risk allowing its use, Ghana News Agency reported. On the dreadful terminator seed technology, he said the government would not tolerate its use since it has the potential to harm crop management in the country. (See: Xinhua News Agency Xinhua General News Service 15 Jan 2000, "Ghana Checks Influx of Genetically Modified Food")

- HAWAII's Agriculture board chair Nakatani said market economics have forced the papaya industry to rethink its much-vaunted GM plant strains. The Japanese market, looked to as a source of 40% of potential sales, has slammed the door on GM fruit, Nakatani said. Meanwhile, growers said they're getting a far better price here for old varieties. Kapoho Solo cells for 60 cents a pound, while the GM Rainbow papayas fetch a paltry 20 cents per pound, they said. (See: The Hawaii Tribune-Herald, 7 Apr 2000, "Big Isle Papaya Crops Tainted")

- HONG KONG lawmakers this month passed a motion calling for compulsory GM food labelling and the government has said it would do a feasibility study on setting up such a system. Labels are required in the European Union and other countries where consumer resistance to biotech foods is greater. (See: The Toronto Star, 26 Jan 2000, "Modified food conflict grips Hong Kong; Local demand for healthier choices growing" by Tan Ee Lyn)

- INDIA's Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 23 to halt all field trials of Monsanto's Bt Cotton. The court said that no field trials can be permitted on a large scale unless the rules and guidelines are amended ensuring protection of the environment, biodiversity and human health. The court ruling was a response to the petition of Dr Vandana Shiva of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, which also calls for a 3-5 year moratorium on field releases. (See: Environmental News Service, February 23, 1999)

- INDONESIA, PAKISTAN: Officials recently announced plans for more stringent safety-testing of GE imports. crops and imports. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999)

- ISRAEL's Health Ministry has recently decided to force food producers to mark food products which have undergone genetic modification. The products in question are those containing edible produce whose genetic composition has been altered - often by the insertion of animal genes, bacteria or viruses - in order to improve resistance to pests or to increase the crops' yield. The Israeli Consumers' Council and the Organic Consumers' Association have been pressing the Health Ministry for the last year to have labels put on such food products. In order for the new rule to come into effect more quickly, the ministry decided not to bring the issue to a vote before the Knesset plenum, but instead to have it approved in the Knesset's Finance Committee. Dr. Brian Coussin, the director of the ministry's food branch who is responsible for markings on food, has predicted that the new regulation will go into effect by the end of the year. (See: Ha'aretz, "Health Ministry: Modified foods to be labeled as such" by Tamara Traubman, Jan 2000)

- ITALY's Farm Minister Paolo De Castro on Friday blocked 3 GM crops - maize, soya and chicory - that had completed testing and were ready to proceed to field planting... For the moment, De Castro has also halted all new GM testing programs. He said he wanted responsibility for the schemes to be shared by regional governments before giving the go-ahead. (Xinhua, 5 Nov 1999)

- ITALY has temporarily suspended the use of 7 GM food products, a Health Ministry statement said Friday. "Following opinions from the Italian Health Institute and the Health Council, the Health Ministry will take a precautionary step, in conformity with EU regulations, to suspend temporarily the use of the substances," it said. The Health Council said the 7 GM products are maize Bt11, maize Mon 810, rapeseed oil Gt73, rapeseed oil MS1 RS1, rapeseed oil RF2 MS1, maize Mon 809 and maize T25. The Health Council said it was not possible to guarantee that genetic alteration of foods was safe. (Reuters World Report, 17 Dec 1999)

- ITALY's Agriculture Ministry said today that three Italian regions have, according to this story, banned cultivation of GM crops. The spokesman added, "I can confirm that the regions of Marche, Tuscany and Lazio have decided to ban GM crops." (See: "THREE ITALIAN REGIONS BAN GM CROPS" 17 May 2000, Reuters)

- ITALY's northern city of Genoa has banned GM crops on the eve of an international biotech conference there, a spokesman said on Tuesday. Mauro Cordo said Genoa town council voted overwhelmingly late on Monday to ban the cultivation and marketing of GM crops on land under its jurisdiction, citing concerns over possible health and environmental risks. ``Twenty eight councillors voted for, five abstained and none voted against,'' he told Reuters. ``The vote was backed by the centre-left majority and the (far right) National Alliance.'' The vote preceded a three-day conference starting on Wednesday, organised by Genoa Trade Fair, which was expected to draw speakers from life sciences companies and discuss plant biotechnology, agricultural and health care issues. (See: "Genoa bans GM crops before biotech event", Reuters, 23 May 2000)

- JAPAN: some 2,300 out of 3,300 local governments have asked the national government to require mandatory labeling of GM food (See: "Wake-up Call for Biotech Foods," Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)

- JAPAN: In April 2000, a new law will require dozens of foods with GM ingredients to carry labels, giving consumers a clear choice to reject the crops 50 years. (See: Journal of Commerce, 11 May 2000, "Food-Biotech Backlash Spreads Through Japan" by Sharon Schmickle)

- JAPAN's health ministry said on Tuesday it would not approve any more GM foods pending the introduction of tighter regulations April next year. Under the new procedures, suppliers of GM foods must pass the ministry's safety checks and the import of foods containing unapproved GMOs will be banned. The rules are being tightened in response to criticism by consumers who say the current system, whereby suppliers seek approval under the ministry's food safety guidelines on a voluntary basis, is too lax. Nishimoto [director general of the ministry's environmental health bureau] also said GM foods that are confirmed as safe under the new procedures will have to be clearly labelled as such, possibly from April 2001. (See: Reuters, 14 Dec 1999, "Japan to Tighten GMO Approval Procedures", Aya Takada)

- JAPAN plans to require safety screening of GM products, making it more difficult to import agricultural produce from the US. Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare has accepted a recommendation from a government panel that mandatory safety tests on GM products should be required for approval in order to import those products into Japan. Currently, safety testing is voluntary. The government's earlier decision to require labelling, which has been spurred by growing consumer concerns about GM modified foods, has already resulted in a rush by importers and retailers to seek non-GMO products. (See: Financial Times/London, 26 Apr 2000, "Japan to Screen GM Produce", By Michiyo Nakamoto)

- JAPAN dropped a regulatory bombshell in mid-April when the Ministry of Health announced that starting next year agricultural producers must "screen" imported genetically modified foods for potential food allergies and other health hazards. In addition new mandatory labeling rules on GE food ingredients coming into force next April will have a major impact on the marketplace. (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

- MEXICO's Senate was cited as voting unanimously to require the labeling of foods that contain GM ingredients. Under the measure, GM foods would have to bear a label reading "transgenic food." Those containing some GM ingredients would need a label reading: "Food made with transgenic products." The measure approved by the Senate now must be approved by the lower house of congress, the Chamber of Deputies, before going to the president for his signature. (See: The Associated Press/Dow Jones, 30 Mar 2000, "Modified Food Vote in Mexican Senate")

- NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA now require GE foods to be labeled.

- NORWAY, DENMARK: The governments have banned the commercialization of GM organisms and food

- PARAGUAY's Biosafety Commission, supported by many NGOs, called on August 4 for GE-free production in Paraguay. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) <http://www.purefood.org> <http://www.organicconsumers.org>

- PHILIPPINES: A proposed labelling law has been submitted.

- PORTUGAL's agriculture ministry suspended the production of the two GM-maize registered for domestic planting. Authorities had approved two strains, called Elgina and Compa Cb, in Feb 1999, and 15 more approvals were expected. They reconsidered their decision due to widespread concern over the widespread cultivation of GMOs. (See: Reuters, 28 Dec 1999) Cited as reasons were the precautionary principle and the present inability to accurately and independently monitor the impacts of the releases. Growers had earlier voiced concern about the lower market value of GE or mixed corn production. (See: Margarida Silva, Quercus, Portugal, 28 Dec 1999) <msilva@esb.ucp.pt>

- RUSSIA has banned the sale of foodstuffs and medicinal preparations obtained from GM sources, without special marking on the package, starting from July 1, 2000. (TASS, 5 Oct 1999)

- SAUDI ARABIA banned Thai canned tuna last March. The Thai tuna industry and the government are seeking ways to assure the Saudi government that local canneries use soybean oil that does not contain GM beans. The Riyadh government said it did not allow the imports of any food products containing GM material. Exports of Thai canned tuna to Saudi Arabia are worth about one billion baht a year. (See: Bangkok Post, ?? Apr 2000, "Tuna Firms Say Certification Could Help End Ban By Saudi Arabia")

- SOUTH AFRICA is now considering a proposed labelling law.

- SRI LANKA has banned imports of all GM foods with immediate effect, a senior health ministry official said. ``The government wants to wait until the controversy surrounding GM foods has cleared,'' S. Nagiah, chief food inspector of the health ministry, told Reuters by telephone. Nagiah said the government's food advisory committee was keen to avoid health risks associated with genetic modifications, adding there were no price advantages to be gained from importing GM foods. Sri Lanka does not produce any GM foods, but is a significant importer of wheat and sugar. (See: Reuters, 10 Apr 2000, "Sri Lanka Bans Import of Genetically Modified Food")

- THAILAND will set up GMO-free agricultural zones to promote exports, a senior Thai official said. 'Agricultural products from GMO-free zones exported to foreign markets will be guaranteed by Thai authorities as GMO-free,' said Newin Chidchob, deputy agriculture minister... 'We have no policy of allowing trading in modified food in Thailand. GMO plants are banned from import, except for study and research, and we never produce and export such food,' Newin said. In certain areas, the govt will control the whole process of production from seed to harvest, he said, noting the zone will be expanded until the entire nation is GMO-free. (Kyodo, 27 Sep 1999)

- THAILAND's govt announced Oct. 18 it will ban imported GE seeds "pending clear scientific proof that they are safe." Fears reached new levels last week when a shipment of GE wheat from the U.S. mysteriously arrived in Thailand. EU warned that Thai rice may be rejected if shipments are found contaminated with GE rice being grown in Thailand. (AP, 18 Oct 1999)

- THAILAND: All products using GMOs will be labelled by next year, the Thai Food and Drug Administration said yesterday. Siriwat Tiptharadol, deputy secretary-general, said authorities concerned must have all the technology needed for testing GM products before labelling can begin. (See: BANGKOK POST, 16 Mar 2000, "GMOs: Labels to be introduced by next year: Activists say market is being flooded")

- THAILAND's Agriculture Department yesterday signed an agreement with the Thai Food Processors' Association to co-operate in certifying shipments of non-GM foods from Thailand. Ananta Dalodom, the department director, said certificates would be issued on a lot-by-lot basis. Exporters or producers must have products verified by surveyors or agencies authorised by the department. The department will soon select private surveyors to examine product samples. Using government laboratories, the department is ready to certify about 100 items of exported fruits and vegetables. (See: BANGKOK POST, 27 Apr 2000, "GM-Free Certificate Agreement Signed")

- US: The Austin City council unanimously approved a resolution today, May 18, supporting federal legislation for labeling and food safety testing of GE foods. Austin is home of Whole Foods Markets, a national health and organic food supermarket chain that has pledged to not include biotech foods in its house products. The resolution said: "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: The City Council urges the Federal Government to require labeling of genetically manipulated foods and further urges a moratorium on the production of any more of these foods until acceptable testing systems are in place... ADOPTED: May 18 2000" Austin is the second city in the nation, after Boston to pass a resolution on this issue. Polls show that 90% of Americans want GE food labeled and tested. (See: "Austin City Council Approves GE Food Resolution", 18 May 2000, contacts: City of Austin Environmental Board Member, Secretary Tim Jones (512) 707-9975 <timdj@swbell.net>)

- US: In Nov 1999, a bi-partisan group of 20 U.S. legislators introduced a bill into Congress requiring labels on GE foods. (See: David Barboza, "Biotech Companies Take On Critics of Gene-Altered Food," NEW YORK TIMES November 12, 1999, pg. A1 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695.)

-- WALES' Agriculture Secretary, Christine Gwyther, National Assembly for Wales: "I certainly have problems with GM in that I think to have a GM-free Wales would be such a wonderful marketing opportunity for Welsh produce and I've always made that quite clear." (See: Press Release, 12 May 2000, Raoul Bhambral, Friends of the Earth Cymru)

-- WALES' assembly put itself on a collision course with Britain's govt over GM crops by voting unanimously for a ban throughout Wales. The 54-0 ballot comes even though London has said it will not destroy the GM maize crop already planted in Flintshire. (See: EU Commission's Agri-Biotech Newsletter, Economic Aspects, No. 25, 20-30 May 2000)

17. CLAIM: GE is a sunrise industry, the wave of the future.

- Many biotech firms are actually having financial problems.

- ADM: Multinational grain marketer Archer Daniels Midland recently announced that it will separately market non-GE soybeans and will reject any GE corn not accepted in Europe. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)

-- ADVANTA: Seed companies are moving their operations to GE-free countries to reduce the risk of contamination. Advanta, which delivered GE-contaminated oilseed rape in Europe said that it had abandonded producing seed in western Canada because the risk of cross pollination from GM crops and other was now too high. David Buckridge, the European business director, said the company had moved some of its production to New Zealand, where no GM production takes place, and the rest to New Brunswick in eastern Canada and Montana in the United States. Mr Buckridge added that the move was sharply increasing costs with "people having to get on planes and supervise production" hundreds and thousands of miles away from the company's main offices. He said the strategy could not last forever. "What happens if New Zealand approves GM? Where do we go then? It will get to the point where it will become too expensive to supply Europe." (See: London Times, Firms move to avoid risk of contamination BY NICK NUTTALL, ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT 29 May 2000) <http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/05/29/timnwsnws01017.html>

- AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS: The NEW YORK TIMES reported in January that American Home Products - a pharmaceutical giant - "has been looking for a way to unload its agricultural operations." At that time the TIMES also said, "Analysts have speculated that Monsanto will eventually shed its entire agricultural operation." (David J. Morrow, "Rise and Fall of 'Life Sciences'; Drugmakers Scramble to Unload Agricultural Units," NEW YORK TIMES January 20, 2000, pg. C1 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695.)

- ASTRAZENECA of Britain had warned, one month earlier, that it too might sell its agrichemicals business. AstraZeneca is a high profile GM company which has already put genetically engineered products on British supermarket shelves. It has also been the target of high profile demonstrations by environmental campaigners. (See: "Novartis to rethink its role in GM foods" Guardian, 16 Sep 1999, by David Teather and Julia Finch)

- ASTRAZENECA, MONSANTO, NOVARTIS: Meanwhile, a groundswell of consumer protest reached a crescendo last year in England and Europe, then spread to Japan and the U.S. where it has severely eroded investor confidence in the industry. Major U.S. firms that had invested heavily in the technology are now being forced to pull back. As we reported earlier (REHW #685), Monsanto, Novartis, and AstraZeneca all announced in early January that they are turning away from - or abandoning entirely - the concept of "life sciences" - a business model that combines pharmaceuticals and agricultural products. (David J. Morrow, "Rise and Fall of 'Life Sciences'; Drugmakers Scramble to Unload Agricultural Units," NEW YORK TIMES January 20, 2000, pg. C1 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695.)

- CARGILL: Reuters news service in Paris reported on Dec. 1 that Minneapolis-based grain commodities giant Cargill is "studying whether to adopt a system that would segregate GM soybeans from non-GM organisms for the purpose of supplying European consumers." Apparently Archer Daniels Midland and other grain traders' booming sales of GE-free soybeans and corn are starting to cut in to Cargill's profit margins. Both Cargill, ADM, and the rest of the firms that make up the international grain cartel now see the writing on the wall. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)

-- CARGILL's European protein operations manager, George Henni, says that the company's Dutch facilities will this summer crush of non-GE soybeans from Brazil which meet a new strict Identity Preservation (IP) scheme. The first shipment will amount to 70-80,000 tons. Citing market estimates, Henni said that in total, about 500,000 tons of conventional IP soybeans are expected to be available world-wide this summer from Brazil and up to two million tons from the United States. (Agbiotech Reporter, April 2000)

- DUPONT announced late February that it was returning to its traditional industrial chemical business to generate profits. The WALL STREET JOURNAL said February 23, "But the big plans DuPont announced for its pharmaceuticals and biotech divisions fizzled as consolidation changed the landscape, and investor enthusiasm cooled in the face of controversy over genetically engineered crops."[9] [9] Susan Warren, "DuPont Returns to More-Reliable Chemical Business - Plans for Biotech, Drug Divisions Fizzle as Mergers Change Landscape," WALL STREET JOURNAL 23 Feb 2000, pg. B4 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695.

- GE APPROVALS: Fewer new GE crop varieties are being marketed amid a slumping farm economy and growing public resistance vs GE food. Seed companies sought govt approval for 6 GE varieties in 1999, the fewest applications since 1993, and withdrew four of them by year end. One application has been filed this year. By comparison, businesses filed 14 applications with the USDA in 1997 and nine in 1998. All but four were approved. "Getting a new biotech crop approved is probably high on the dumb things to do for your stock price right now," said Alex Hittle, industry analyst with A.G. Edwards and Sons Inc. (See: Augusta Chronicle, 15 Feb 2000, "Hard Times Hit Biotech Agriculture - Growing Opposition To Engineered Plants, Poor Economy Hurt Growers Of Genetically Altered Food Products")

- MONSANTO: At the same time Monsanto, the large US company has seen its share price fall from $62 (#163#38) to $40 in the past 12 months ($37 dollars today). Analysts increasingly believe the GM foods research has the potential to inflict serious damage on the lucrative global pharmaceuticals business and are keen to see the controversial division put at arms length. (See: "Novartis to rethink its role in GM foods" Guardian, 16 Sep 1999, by David Teather and Julia Finch)

- MONSANTO: Deutsche, the largest European bank, had in May recommended institutional investors to sell Monsanto shares - within days the price had dropped; when Deutsche repeated the advice in September, other analysts joined in. Monsanto stock had lost 35% of its value in a year, while Wall Street as a whole went up 30%. (See: "How Monsanto's mind was changed", by John Vidal, Guardian - London, 9 Oct 1999)

- MONSANTO: Robert Koort, industry analyst at Deutsche bank, said that Monsanto had been forced to look at selling part of its business as it was dragging down the value of the entire company. "Monsanto might sell its agricultural chemicals business as it is currently valued [by the stock market] at nothing," he said. (See: "Monsanto pressured to sell off GM assets", by Jane Martinson, Guardian, 22 Oct 1999)

- MONSANTO: Analysts believe the group's share price of just over $38 is a fair value for the business without the GM part. Shares in the group have plunged from a high of $51 in May when Wall Street first realised the intensity of consumer concern. (See: "Monsanto pressured to sell off GM assets", by Jane Martinson, Guardian, 22 Oct 1999)

- MONSANTO announced in early May that they were closing down their NatureMark plant in Crystal, Maine, a transgenetic laboratory and greenhouse operation that had been producing Bt potatoes since 1992. Bt potatoes are gene-spliced with the soil bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis, to repel the Colorado potato beetle. Earlier this year, Monsanto laid off 20 of the 30 employees in their other Bt potato lab in Idaho. Bt potatoes thus join the growing obituary list of Monsanto's Frankenfoods. In 1996 Monsanto/Calgene's Flavr Savr tomatoes were taken off the market after dismal performances in the field and on grocery store shelves. (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

- MONSANTO: Global protests against GM foods have forced Monsanto to close its NatureMark facility in Crystal, Maine, a GE lab and greenhouse set up in 1992. The lab grew GM seed potatoes that would repel Colorado potato beetles, which eat the leaves of potato plants. (See: Bangor Daily News/Maine, 3 May 2000, "Monsanto Lab in Crystal Closes Amid Food Protests; NatureMark facility raised insect-resistant potatoes")

- MONSANTO, the beleaguered U.S. biotech firm, is coming under intense pressure from Wall Street analysts and professional investors in New York to dismember itself in the wake of the anti-GM food campaign. New York's financial community is now convinced that successful protests in Europe have hurt Monsanto's growth prospects and its stock market rating so badly that the only option to realise some value for investors would be some kind of sell-off. (The Guardian, 22 Oct 1999, London)

- MONSANTO, NOVARTIS, DELTA & PINE: Europe's biggest bank has advised the world's largest investors to sell their shares in leading GMO makers because consumers do not want to buy their products. In a report sent to several thousand of the world's large institutional investors, including British pension funds, Deutsche Bank says that "growing negative sentiment" is creating problems for the leading companies, including Monsanto and Novartis. "More broadly speaking, it appears the food companies, retailers, grain processors, and governments are sending a signal to the seed producers that 'we are not ready for GMOs'." Since the report was circulated to investors, shares in companies named have fallen against a rising trend in stock markets generally and the frenzy to takeover seed companies has stopped. In the six months to yesterday Monsanto's stocks had fallen 11%, and Delta & Pine, a seed company that owns the terminator gene, which Monsanto is taking over, has lost 18% of its value. The Deutsche Bank's Washington analysts, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell, say it is nine months since they first voiced their concerns that the biotech industry was "going the way of the nuclear industry in this country, but we count ourselves surprised at how rapidly this forecast appears to be playing out. Deutsche Bank's first research report, dated May 21 and entitled GMOs Are Dead, said: "We predict that GMOs, once perceived as a bull case for this sector, will now be perceived as a pariah. "The message is a scary one - increasingly, GMOs are, or in our opinion, becoming a liability to farmers," it adds. Non-GMO grains were already gaining a premium price which would, if the trend continued, far outweigh any economic benefit in growing GMOs. GM grains would have to be sold at a discount. "Farmers who planted (Monsanto's) Roundup Ready soya could end up regretting it." It could become an "earnings nightmare" for Pioneer Hi-Bred (a company due to be taken over by the chemicals giant DuPont) and for Monsanto which is buying Delta & Pine, a stock, the bank says, not worth holding on to. The concerns of European consumers are real, concludes the report. "European consumers have recently been through the mad cow crisis, the French Aids-tainted blood crisis, the Dutch pig plague crisis, the Belgium chicken dioxin crisis, the Belgian Coca-Cola crisis, etc. Therefore hearing from unsophisticated Americans that their fears are unfounded may not be the best way of proceeding." (Paul Brown and John Vidal, GUARDIAN (London), 25 August 1999)

- NOVARTIS last night said it was considering spinning off its ailing agribusiness division which includes the company's controversial research into genetically modified foods. Novartis, which is the world's number two pharmaceuticals company and the biggest maker of crop protection products, is considering "a number of options" for the troubled agribusiness division including separating it from the main company or seeking an alliance. (See: "Novartis to rethink its role in GM foods" Guardian, 16 Sep 1999, by David Teather and Julia Finch)

- NOVARTIS: In 1996, Ciba-Geigy AG and Sandoz AG agreed to a $36-billion merger that created Novartis AG for genetic research. Yesterday, Novartis abandoned its GE vision. The Swiss company said it will spin off its farm-chemicals business, the world's biggest, and merge it with a similar unit to be spun off by the British life-sciences company AstraZeneca PLC. The new firm, Syngenta, will have 24 per cent of the $32.6-billion farm-chemicals market. (See: The Gazette, Montreal, 3 Dec 1999, "Novartis to Spin Off Chemicals: Swiss drugmaker gives up on its vision of genetically improved foods", Dane Hamilton)

- PIONEER: "Ag Biotech: Thanks, But No Thanks?" - that was the title of a July 1999 report of investment analysts Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell of the Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, the largest investment firm in the world. The two said they were "willing to believe that GMO crops are safe," but they warned that the "no thanks" attitude "appears to be in the lead in Europe and could easily become the thought process in the United States as well." Earlier, three analysts from the same company had sent investors a report entitled "GMOs Are Dead," advising them to sell their Pioneer Hi-Bred stocks. <http://www.dmg.com/central/ver40/index.html> <http://www.biotech-info.net/Deutsche.html>

-- PIONEER Hi-Bred, which supplies 12 per cent of the British maize crop, is moving its production after worries that GM impurities in supposedly non-GM seeds were soaring. Most of its European maize seed production has moved to Romania, Hungary and Austria. Simon Preece, spokesman for the Pioneer's British operations, said that too many GM crops were being grown in parts of North America. This led to a rising risk of cross pollination from GM to non GM seed production and the mixing of seeds at packing centres. "With some 40 million acres of GM under cultivation worldwide, we were presented with significant challenges. We decided in 1999 to re-site the majority of the maize production in Eastern Europe where there is significantly less GM," he said. (See: London Times, Firms move to avoid risk of contamination BY NICK NUTTALL, ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT 29 May 2000) <http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/05/29/timnwsnws01017.html>

- TOP 5 SEED FIRMS: RAFI found that the world's seed supply is being controlled by a shrinking number of large corporations. These same multinational corporations are also dominating the agrochemical and pharmaceutical industries. The top five seed companies - AstaZeneca, DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis, and Aventis - account for nearly two-thirds of the global pesticide market (60%), almost one-quarter (23%) of the commercial seed market, and virtually 100% of the GE seed market. Five years ago, none of top five Gene Giants appeared on the list of leading seed corporations. In fact, three of the top five companies didn't even exist. Zeneca and Astra merged to form AstraZeneca; Rhone Poulenc and Hoechst became Aventis; Ciba Geigy and Sandoz became Novartis; and DuPont swallowed Pioneer Hi-Bred earlier this year, RAFI reports. (See: Organic View, v.1 n.14, 28 Sep 1999) <http://www.rafi.org/pr/release36.html>

18. CLAIM: GE firms simply want to help feed the world and to get a reasonable return on their investments

18.1. CLAIM: GE firms want to feed the world.

- The real motive of GE firms is to control the world food chain, and to extract monopoly profits from such control.

- DuPont and Monsanto together own 73% of the seed corn companies in the U.S. Novartis, Dow, and Cargill own most of the rest. In the face of this concentration, farmers have few planting choices, and most of the best genetics are bundled with GE traits. (See: Chemical and Engineering News, 1 Nov 1999)

- The biotech industry's actual main motive is to create profit windfalls by increasing sales of their pesticides and dominating the entire food supply. For example, the patent on Monsanto's herbicide known as "Roundup" will expire soon. Monsanto has enticed farmers with their experimental GE crops to absorb and tolerate their chemical pesticides and their other crops which create their own pesticide internally. Monsanto, DuPont, and Novartis are also taking direct action to buy out and bring the world's largest seed companies under their control. (From: pmligotti@earthlink.net)

- Farmers growing GE crops have to sign binding contracts with the biotechnology producers. These commit them to using only the herbicides produced by that company and prohibit them from the traditional practice of saving seed for the next season. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)

- Since 1969, more than 800,000 farms have disappeared from America's landscape, as large corporate operations consumed smaller family-owned farms. By 2000, the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that half of all U.S. farm production will come from only 1 percent of all farms. For those wanting to preserve the livelihood of the family farm, few options for survival remain. (John Fetto, American Demographics, August 1999)

18.2. CLAIM: Life patents enable GE firms to recover their R&D costs

+ Life patents are needed to reward innovation.

- GMO patents will illegalize the age-old farmer practice of saving and sharing seeds.

- A year ago, Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser for illegally growing Monsanto's special GM canola, called "Roundup Ready." The 68-year-old Percy, who has been farming in Saskatchewan for 40 years, ushered me outside, walked to a hydro line, and showed me a growth of canary-yellow canola. "This is it," he said, then he took me to the north side of the building where another shoot of Roundup Ready GM canola was growing. "All over the place," he said. "It blows in the wind, cross-pollinates." He pulled off one of the flowers, popping open a pod of canola, displaying the freckle-sized, black seeds. "Little plant like this makes a minimum 4,000 seeds...maybe 10,000 seeds," he said. "Now they're not saying I stole their seed," Percy said. "Now they're saying it doesn't matter how the (Monsanto canola) gets into a farmer's field. Doesn't matter if it's blown onto the field or if it's by cross-pollination. They say it's their patent and if they find it on your field they'll take your crop, they'll sue you, they'll fine you." (Martin O'Malley, CBC News Online, 29 Sep 1999)

- Edward Zielinski, a Saskatchewan farmer, is being charged with growing Monsanto GE canola without a licence. Zielinski claims that he unwittingly received and planted Monsanto canola from seed he swapped with another farmer in exchange for wheat. If found guilty, he could be forced to pay $29,000. He would also face a 3-year on-spot inspection of his fields by Monsanto patent enforcement and a gagging clause that would prevent him from disclosing the terms of the agreement. Zielinski's suit comes in the wake of a legal suit Monsanto has pinned on another Saskatchewan farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for allegedly growing Monsanto GE canola without a licence. Schmeiser, whose case comes before court in early autumn, maintains that the ReadyRoundUp canola pollinated his fields. (See: Sunday Independent, March 14 1999)

- There is an urgent need to challenge the patent system and IPR intrinsic to the WTO which not only provide MNCs with the right to seize and patent genetic resources, but that will also accelerate the rate at which market forces already encourage monocultural cropping with genetically uniform GM varieties. Based on history and ecological theory, it is not difficult to predict the negative impacts of such environmental simplification on the health of modern agriculture (Altieri l996). (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)

- USDA spent $229,000 of US taxpayers' money to create the new "technology protection system" with Delta and Pine Land Company. The research was done, according to the inventor himself (Melvin Oliver), to improve the bottom lines of U.S. firms.

- Monsanto announced in October 1999 that it was dropping its Terminator seed program, confirming the effectiveness of the global campaign against the technology sterile GE-seeds.

- According to RAFI, every major seed and agrochemical firm is developing its own version of Terminator seeds. Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Monsanto are among the MNCs who have sterile seeds in the pipeline; others like Pioneer Hi-Bred, Rhone Poulenc, and DuPont have seed technologies that could easily be turned into Terminators. The patents uncovered by RAFI reveal that companies are developing "suicide" seeds whose genetic traits can be turned on and off by an external chemical "inducer" mixed with the company's patented agrochemicals. In the not-so-distant future, farmers may be planting seeds that will develop into productive (but sterile) crops only if sprayed with a carefully prescribed regimen that includes the company's proprietary pesticide, fertilizer or herbicide. The latest version of Monsanto's suicide seeds won't germinate unless exposed to a special chemical, while AstraZeneca's technologies outline how to engineer crops to become stunted or otherwise impaired if not regularly exposed to the company's chemicals. Ignoring potential impacts on farmers around the world, the seed and agrochemical industry argues that GE seed sterility is highly beneficial to the environment because it will eliminate the problem of horizontal gene transfer - it will prevent cross-pollination and thus the escape of GE genes from transgenic plants to nearby weeds or wild relatives. Suicide seeds could eliminate the possibility of genetic pollution and conveniently offers a "green" rationale for acceptance of genetic seed sterility. Industry also argues that they can't continue to develop new, more productive varieties for agriculture unless they get a fair return on their investment. A RAFI report "Traitor Technology" provides an in-depth analysis of the seed sterility patents. For this study and a detailed chart of patent claims, visit RAFI's homepage at <http://www.rafi.org/>

- Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl Inc. is seeking to enforce its corn patent by suing an Iowa farm-supply dealership. Farm Advantage of Belmont, Iowa sold Pioneer's patented corn seed last year without its permission. Pioneer has sued Farm Advantage for reselling its corn seeds, since Pioneer's patent grants exclusive control over the licensing of its product. President of Farm Advantage, Marvin Redenius is arguing that the US Patent and Trademark Office acted illegally when it granted patents on GM plants. Since the first patent on a life-form was awarded in 1980, an increasing number of scientists, environmental organizations, farm organizations, trade organizations, public health organizations, and other NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have opposed patents on the grounds that they are immoral and illegal. Pioneer is currently engaged in several other lawsuits, including a "germplasm misappropriation" suit against rival life science corporation Monsanto Co. "Pioneer has spent decades and billions of dollars developing the world's largest plant genetics library," claims Rick McConnell, Pioneer senior vice president for research and product development, in a February 1999 release. (Jon Akland, Research Director, Foundation on Economic Trends, 802-658-1472 phone 802-863-4665 fax)

- A US-based company, POD-NERS, L.L.C, is suing Mexican bean exporters, charging that the Mexican beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) they are selling in the US infringe POD-NERS' US patent on a yellow-colored bean variety. It's not surprising that the Mexican beans are strikingly similar to POD-NER's patented bean. That's because POD-NERS proprietary bean, "Enola" originates from the highly popular "Azufrado" or "Mayocoba" bean seeds the company's president purchased in Mexico in 1994. The Mexican yellow beans have been grown in Mexico for centuries, developed by generations of Mexican farmers and more recently by Mexican plant breeders. (See: RAFI, "Mexican Bean Biopiracy: US-Mexico Legal Battle Erupts Over Patented "Enola" Bean Plant Breeders' Wrongs Continues", 17 Jan 2000)

- These technologies respond to the need of biotech firms to intensify farmers' dependence upon seeds protected by so-called" intellectual property rights," which conflict directly with the age-old rights of farmers to reproduce, share or store seeds. (Hobbelink, H. (1991) Biotechnology and the future of world agriculture. Zed Books, Ltd., London. p. 159. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) Whenever possible corporations will require farmers to buy company's brand of inputs and will forbid farmers from keeping or selling seed. By controlling germplasm from seed to sale, and by forcing farmers to pay inflated prices for seed-chemical packages, companies are determined to extract the most profit from their investment. (Krimsky, S. and R.P. Wrubel (1996) Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment: science, policy and social issues. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)

- Over 30 patents have already been issued for Terminator and Traitor technology, which is designed to make farmers chemically dependent and prevent them from saving their own seeds. This is the most transparently greedy and ecologically dangerous technology of all.

- Farmers who plant GE crops must sign licensing agreements allowing biotech companies unlimited access to their farms. The farmers don't buy the seed - they only lease the right to grow it.

- Farmers who save their own seeds are subject to investigation, harassment, and litigation by biotech companies. This is well documented.

- Farmers whose crops have been subjected to genetic drift have even been investigated and accused of saving GE seeds without having signed licensing agreements.

- What takes place to encourage well-meaning farmers throughout North America to consider planting such a environmentally questionable crop in the first place? Farmers are first invited to a meeting attended by an array of high-pressure salesmen. They are then told something along the lines of, "We'll sell you the seed, you sign our contract, but you must sell the seed back to us and buy it again next year." There is a $15 "technology charge" to accompany the spiel, and for every year thereafter. After the farmer succumbs to purchase, the farmer must sign a contract stating that Monsanto has the right to tread upon their land for 3 years following to check on whether or not their seed is growing. This is done to avoid infractions and doesn't take into consideration occurances of cross-pollination. It should also be mentioned that Monsanto has the right not only to its patented seed technology, but legally owns the plants and profits from that crop. "It doesn't matter how genetically modified seed got on anybody's land," say Schmeiser, "...they say they have the gene. They have a patent on the gene. Now, they're trying to come in the back door. They have complete control over that plant, that seed. Monsanto says, 'It's ours...' We don't have rights left!" (See: "Percy Schmeiser - The Gutsy Canadian Farmer Who Dares Take on Monsanto", by Joanne Stephenson, free-lance writer, joanne@inetex.com) <http://www.inetex.com/joanne>

- What if a farmer is caught with patented seed? If the farmer has the unlucky experience of getting caught, he or she is fined the dollar value of the crop, plus has to sign a trade non-disclosure agreement regarding the incident. Farmers are then told to keep quiet about the infraction. But that deal works only one way: Monsanto's way. Having been caught with his seeds in the soil, one innocent and unsuspecting farmer was caught mixing leftover GM soybean seeds with next year's crop. Someone squealed on him. It cost him his $37,000 crop. After signing the trade non-disclosure agreement and being told to keep it quiet, he was more than a little surprised to hear his name mentioned two days later in a Monsanto radio ad threatening other farmers. The company had broadcast news of the infraction for the world to hear, although he was legally bound to keep his mouth shut. At this point, the farmer's hands are tied, but Monsanto can very publically say what they like about him. (See: "Percy Schmeiser - The Gutsy Canadian Farmer Who Dares Take on Monsanto", by Joanne Stephenson, free-lance writer, joanne@inetex.com) <http://www.inetex.com/joanne>

- The farmer must live by several conditions imposed by Monsanto, at least in North America. Farmers must pay a fee for each bag of seed. They must agree not to save seed for the following year, a practice farmers have used for years. And they must agree that if they ever stop using the seed, Monsanto investigators - farmers call them "gene police" - can walk their fields to take plant samples. (See: New York Times, 16 May 2000, "Super Seeds Sweeping Major Markets, and Brazil May Be Next" By ANTHONY DePALMA with SIMON ROMERO)

-- Farmers buying Monsanto's seed must sign a contract promising to buy fresh seed every year. Then, they must let Monsanto inspect their fields for cheating. (See: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, "Blowin' in the Wind", May 2000 story extract) <http://tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/canola/index.html>

-- Percy Schmeiser says he's never used Monsanto's seed. He saves the seeds from his own crops, then replants them in the spring. But Monsanto investigators say they've found Monsanto DNA in Schmeiser's crops. Monsanto says Schmeiser never paid for the rights to use its DNA. Now they're suing Schmeiser for the money. "It will blow in the wind. you can't control it. you can't just say, put a fence around it and say that's where it stops. It might end up 10 miles, 20 miles," Schmeiser says. Schmeiser is backed up by some impressive research. scientists from Agriculture Canada say wind can blow seeds or pollen between field, meaning the DNA of crops in one field often mixes with another. Seeds or pollen can also be blown off uncovered trucks and off farm equipment. But Monsanto seems to be saying it's up to farmers to dig out any Monsanto crops blowing into their fields. (See: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, "Blowin' in the Wind", May 2000 story extract) <http://tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/canola/index.html>

-- Last year, Edward Zilinski of Micado traded seeds with a farmer from Prince Albert. This is an old farming tradition. But the seeds he got in return had Monsanto's DNA. Now Monsanto says Zilinski and his wife owe them over $28,000 in penalties. "Farmer's should have some rights of their own!" Zilinski says. (See: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, "Blowin' in the Wind", May 2000 story extract) <http://tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/canola/index.html>

-- The Kram family in Raymore say planes and a helicopter have buzzed their fields. The couple says agents dropped weedkiller on their canola field, to see if the crops had the Monsanto's gene. Monsanto says they had absolutely nothing to do with it. The Krams think otherwise: "We are honestly disgusted with the way things are going," Elizabeth Kram says "Who put the canola in? It is the farmer. It doesn't belong to Monsanto or anybody else and I don't see anybody else's name on the titles of all the land we own. It's my husband and myself. Nobody else. [We're] thoroughly pissed off. " (See: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, "Blowin' in the Wind", May 2000 story extract) <http://tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/canola/index.html>

19. CLAIM: Biotech firms follow the regulations strictly

-- "The biotech industry is developing two very different sales pitches for its products - one for farmers and one for the rest of us." (See: NEW SCIENTIST, Oct 1998)

- Monsanto has been condemned for making 'wrong, unproven, misleading and confusing' claims in a #1m advertising campaign. The Advertising Standards Authority, the industry's official watchdog, criticised the firm for wrongly giving the impression that GE potatoes and tomatoes had been tested and approved for sale in Britain. ASA also dismissed Monsanto's assertion that GM crops were grown 'in a more environmentally sustainable way' than ordinary crops as unproven. (John Arlidge, Observer (London), 28 Feb 1999)

- Almost 200 cotton farmers in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are suing Monsanto for damages after crop failures of Monsanto's Bt and Roundup Ready cotton seeds. In a separate lawsuit 25 cotton farmers in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Louisiana are suing Monsanto for fraud and misrepresentation - also in regard to Bt cotton crop failures. (See: Augusta Chronicle, Georgia, 25 Jan 1999)

- Biotech giant Monsanto exported Canadian GE potatoes to Ukraine, ignoring the domestic laws which require environmental impact assessment, according to a Greenpeace report published today... Monsanto NewLeaf potatoes were exported to Ukraine in 1997 and 1998 with the help of Solanum-PEI, a joint venture company created by Monsanto and the government of PEI. (See: Canada Newswire, 17 Sep 1999)

- Monsanto was fined #17,000 by magistrates in Lincolnshire for failing to maintain a 6-metre pollen boundary around a field trial of GE oilseed rape. The crops were all destroyed. Although Monsanto pleaded guilty, the company said that the mistake was entirely the responsibility of contractors. The seed producers for the trial, Perryfield Holdings, were fined #14,000 and ordered to pay #5,000 costs in a prosecution by the Health and Safety Inspectorate. (Source: The Guardian, February 18 1999)

- The Senate Agriculture Committee is demanding that new studies of BST be carried out following allegations that BST files were stolen at Health Canada, and that scientists expressing doubts about Monsanto's safety tests have been pressurized to water down their comments. Health Canada refused to approve rBST in Canada in January 1999. Controversy has also erupted following evidence that a scientist representing Canada on the Jecfa panel was suggested by Monsanto.

- John Hermann, chair of the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (Jecfa), which reports back to the Codex Commission, has admitted that an FDA official on the panel passed confidential EU documents to Monsanto. The official, Dr. Nick Weber, has been accused by Consumer's International of professional misconduct and 'breach of trust'. He was, however, defended by Hermann. It also appears that a former Monsanto rBST analyst participated in the Jecfa review and helped draft the Committee's report, although she did not take part in the actual vote approving rBGH. (Gregory Palast, UK Observer, 14 Mar 1999)

- Monsanto included false information about a GE crop in a safety assessment submitted to U.K. government advisers. The firm was forced to redo its research after it emerged last month that crucial information about the gene it proposed to put in a new strain of maize was incorrect. Monsanto was called "incompetent" by scientists of the U.K.'s influential Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment (Acre). The committee accused Monsanto of submitting sloppy research, "poor interpretation" and work far below required standards. The agro-chemical company misdefined the gene it planned to insert into the maize which was genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Minutes of Acre's meeting last month show that members were furious that Monsanto had asked them to approve a marketing application based on inaccurate information. Sources close to the meeting say Monsanto was called "incompetent" and that the standard of its work was "wholly unacceptable". Acre told Monsanto to do its research again after Monsanto scientists - asked for clarification about their research - realised that their "molecular data . did not support the conclusions". The minutes of the meeting, on 13 January 1999, deliver a sharp rebuke to Monsanto, saying that ". the molecular data submitted by the applicant did not support the conclusions regarding genomic organisation of the transgenes". The Monsanto application was last month approved by the UK after the company spent several months redoing its research and scientists concluded that the GM maize would not harm human or animal health. It will now be submitted to other European countries for assessment. But the decision to grant approval has proved controversial with other scientists who say that it casts doubt on other work carried out by Monsanto. "It's very worrying. This means that somebody somewhere in Monsanto is getting it wrong," said Janey White, a molecular biologist. The mistake also has international implications because Monsanto's maize is already grown in America and will soon be sold around the world. Monsanto has had to tell regulatory authorities in Japan and Europe, now considering an application to sell the GM maize, that its data is incorrect. The same GM maize is exported widely from America and is believed to be used in food sold in Britain. "It is our policy to advise all the relevant authorities of any new information," said Alistair Clemence, regulatory affairs manager for maize in Europe. "We haven't totally messed up, but there was a certain part of the gene sequence we hadn't defined properly." Licences to sell and plant GM crops in Britain are based on work done by the agrochemical companies themselves and not on independent tests carried out by the Government. (Marie Woolf, Sunday Independent, 21 Feb 1999)

+ Biotech firms are conducting thorough trials to ensure the safety of GMO products.

- Results from vital Government-backed crop trials to assess GM seeds have been falsified, The Observer can reveal. Internal minutes from the UK Ministry of Agriculture show that an employee at a Suffolk-based firm, Grainseed, manipulated scientific data to make certain seeds in the trials appear to perform better than they really did. The minutes give precise details of how the Grainseed employee manipulated his data. When the harvest showed that some crops were not doing as well as was hoped, he simply forged the results. It was only after an investigation by firm's managing director that the full extent of the fraud came to light. The employee boosted the amount of the crop's 'dry matter' - a crucial measurement which shows how effective the maize would be in animal feed: the more dry matter, the better the crop. The Ministry documents - taken from a meeting on 11 February, said: 'An employee of Grainseed altered the data from the... trials at Crewe so that they appeared to be within protocol for dry matter content at harvest. 'It appears that he then went on to manipulate the data on individual varieties which had the effect of increasing the dry matter yields of some and decreasing those of others.' (See: "GM FIRM FAKED TEST FIGURES; POOR CROP RESULTS WERE REPLACED BY A FORGERY, MINISTRY'S INTERNAL PAPER SHOWS," 16 Apr 2000, The Observer - UK, Antony Barnett)

-- "All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector." (See: THE LANCET, April 2000) <http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000409.html>

-- I am writing to provide a first hand perspective on articles stating that "Bt corn poses little risk to monarchs" which have appeared in the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, St Louis Post Dispatch, and other papers in the past two days. Some of these articles are below. I attended Tuesday's (Nov 2) meeting in Rosemount, Illinois, on Bt corn and monarchs that is described in these articles. With the exception of an article in today's NYTimes, these articles all stated that the meeting would reach a conclusion that Bt corn poses little risk to monarchs -- even though most of the articles were written before the meeting was even held!! Luckily, Carol Yoon from the NY Times attended the meeting. During the afternoon, she stood up and said that she had just talked to her editors and that they had received a press release from industry stating that the meeting would conclude that Bt corn presented little risk to monarchs. (See BIO's press release, below.) Carol asked if participants agreed with this conclusion. The answer was a clear "No" from a number of researchers. To be frank, I am appalled by industry's manipulation of a scientific meeting at which a number of researchers -- many of which have only analyzed some of their data and thus have only preliminary results to report -- were supposed to discuss their work in a careful and deliberate manner. Please feel free to circulate this email message. (See: First-person account by Becky Goldburg of Env Defense Fund, posted on SANET mailing list 4 Nov 1999)

-- About 10 of the 20 papers at the symposium were funded with $100,000 provided by the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Working Group, the industry consortium that also sponsored the symposium. (See: "Butterfly, corn link rethought" By Andrea Knox, Philadelphia Inquirer, ?? Nov 1999)

20. CLAIM: Labelling is difficult, costly, unnecessary and unfair.

20.1. CLAIM: Segregating non-GE crops is impossible.

* Genetic ID's DNA tests can reliably detect as little as two molecules of GM DNA and identify all the commercialized GM varieties of grains, fruits, and vegetables on the market. Genetic ID's two new varietal tests identify the seven GM corn varieties unapproved in Japan, and the 11 varieties unapproved in the EU. In addition, Genetic ID can quickly develop variety-specific tests for any GMOs unapproved by any trading partner. (See: BUSINESS WIRE, 23 Mar 2000, "Genetic ID's New GMO Tests Can Save U.S. Corn Exports to Japan; Restore Exports to Europe") (See also: www.genetic-id.com)

- The most immediate problem is how to accomplish that segregation. More than half of the nation's soybeans and about a third of this summer's corn were genetically engineered. But many of the grain elevators and other storage depots that farmers bring their harvests to don't have multiple bins or the capacity needed to keep GE and non-GE varieties apart, said Randy Sexton, of Niantic Farmers Grain Co. in Niantic, Ill. "We do 75 percent of our volume within 30 days after harvest," Sexton said. "We unload one truck right after another, and we're not well suited to switch from one load to another." Moreover, Sexton said, elevator operators would have to clean their equipment between batches to prevent any carryover of GE varieties into conventional ones - a difficult job that would cost the company time and wages. And what if some contamination occurred? Who would be responsible? For farmers too, segregation is a problem. If their local elevator decides to take only one kind of crop or the other, because of an inability to keep them separate, farmers may have to drive many miles farther than before to unload their harvest, again costing time and money. (See: "Food War Claims Its Casualties", by Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 12 Sep 1999; Page A01)

- According to the Times, "a study conducted by Pioneer Hi-Bred, a subsidiary of DuPont, indicated that, of the 1,200 U.S. [grain] processors surveyed, 24 percent were planning to segregate corn crops this year, up from 11 percent in 1999, and 20 percent were planning to segregate soybean crops, up from 8 percent last year." (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

- American grain dealers starting to segregate GE crops. A May 4 report on the New York Times website <www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html> indicates that many of America's grain wholesalers are segregating GE and non-GE corn and soybeans for overseas export, even though they've been telling the public for years that segregation is impossible. "We are encouraging farmers to segregate crops," said Larry Cunningham, senior vice president for corporate affairs at Archer Daniels Midland. "And we have an opportunity to also benefit from it. In Europe and Japan some people are willing to pay a premium for segregated crops." (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

- US: A study conducted by Pioneer Hi-Bred, a subsidiary of DuPont, indicated that, of the 1,200 U.S. processors surveyed, 24 percent were planning to segregate corn crops this year, up from 11 percent in 1999, and 20 percent were planning to segregate soybean crops, up from 8 percent last year. (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html>

20.2. CLAIM: Segregation is going to be very expensive. The consumers will eventually realize that the cost of segregation is prohibitive and they will accept mixed foods.

- No segregation costs will be incurred in countries and areas which have so far refused to commercialize or even field-test GE-crops. These areas will therefore enjoy a huge advantage compared to those who jumped early into the GE-crop bandwagon. Other countries should learn from this experience and stop even the field-testing of GE-crops until all the necessary studies in biologically confined laboratories have been done and there is widespread scientific consensus on the safety of a GE product to be released.

+ Complicating the issue, GE DNA or proteins can disappear during processing, so products can test negative despite their GE origins. At the same time, even a sprinkling of GE cornmeal or soy flour from a previous shipment can make an entire grain silo or rail car of otherwise non-GE food test falsely positive as GE. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999)

20.3. CLAIM: Labelling is not necessary

* The following companies, industry associations and government officials have opposed the mandatory labelling of GE products:

* BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ASSN: Most food processors and retailers are opposed to labeling. They note that U.S. regulators have deemed GM food safe; they warn that labels could cost consumers millions of dollars. Mandatory labels, they say, would wrongly imply questions about the safety or nutritional value of these foods. "The concern," said Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, "is that a label would be seen as a stigma, like a skull and crossbones." The industry is also wary of labels saying "GE free," because such labels might imply superiority, as in "fat free." (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999)

* CLINTON ADMIN: Mandatory labels on foods containing GM ingredients are not necessary because there is no reason to believe the foods are more risky, the Clinton administration said. White House officials defended their decision to tighten some rules for the approval of biofoods without going so far as to require labels on the GM products. (See: Reuters, 3 May 2000, "Administration Says GM Foods Safe, No Labels Required")

* GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA (GMA) recently announced that it and other groups would initiate a $1 million advertising and educational campaign to counter the nascent U.S. anti-biotech and pro-labeling movements. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999)

* GMA: Mandatory labeling of GE products "would result in consumer confusion, not consumer education," said 35 leading trade associations in letters sent to every member of the Senate. GMA was among several major food, farm, retailer, and manufacturer groups that urged lawmakers to oppose a mandatory labeling bill being introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Her bill is similar to one introduced in the House by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). (See: PRNewswire, "GMA, Major Trade Groups Urge Hill to Oppose Biotech Labeling Bill", 23 Feb 2000) <http://www.gmabrands.com>

* GMA believes labelling mistakenly raises questions about food safety and contributes to global trade tensions. Karil Kochenderfer, GMA Director, International Trade and Environmental Affairs, said that mandatory labelling proposals could be seen by some consumers as warning labels. (See: AgraFood Biotech, 17 May 2000)

* GMA testified in Maine recently that "the FDA has determined that biotechnology-enhanced foods are equivalent to foods developed through crossbreeding and traditional methods. Thus, compulsory labeling provides no significant or useful information to consumers. In fact, mandatory labeling of biotechnology products has the negative impact of misleading consumers to believe foods derived from biotechnology are harmful."

* NATL ASSN OF WHEAT GROWERS: NAWG said labelling policy should only be allowed "if the biotech product is materially different from its traditional counterpart" in nutrition, composition or different allergens or toxins. (See: AgraFood Biotech, 17 May 2000)

* DAN GLICKMAN, USDA SECRETARY: "We strongly oppose efforts to have mandatory labelling or segregation of genetically engineered products." (Dec 1998)

+ Europe's banning of GE-foods is simply a protectionist move. It is a trade issue, not a health issue.

- Even analysts from Deutsche Bank, the largest investment bank in the world, who were themselves willing to concede that GE-foods were safe, were telling their investors to sell their Pioneer stocks, because the health concerns of Europeans are real, not imagined. In fact, not only Europeans but also Americans have called for a recall of GE-foods on the market. (See: anti-FDA lawsuit) <http://www.dmg.com/central/ver40/index.html>

+ One can always choose not to eat GE food.

- Because GE food remains unlabeled, consumers cannot choose between GE and non-GE food. Should health problems arise, it will be difficult to trace their source. Lack of labels also helps shield firms that could be potentially liable. (Lappe, M and B. Bailey l998. Against the grain: biotechnology and the corporate takeover of food. Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine)

+ With European protests fresh in their minds, U.S. biotech firms made a plea to the U.S. government recently: Defend U.S. rules that keep GM foods unlabeled or risk a consumer backlash at home. "We said to them that we really needed their voice because we don't want this to spread to the United States," said Phillips of the Biotechnology Industrial Organization. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999)

- U.S.: Glickman also said the administration was considering asking the food industry to do voluntary information labeling, a practice strongly opposed by the biotech industry but one that has been demanded by the Europeans and some American consumers. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)

- U.S.: The Sierra Club declared with a flourish last week that it is joining the debate on GM food. The group's president, Carl Pope, wrote to President Clinton that the 550,000-member club wants mandatory labeling of GM products. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999)

- U.S. Lawmakers seek labeling for GE food: Everybody who eats food made in America deserves to know what's in it, a bipartisan group of lawmakers said as they offered legislation to create special food labels. "Today's limited scientific knowledge warrants allowing consumers to make a better, more informed choice," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, leader of an effort to identify for the marketplace all GE food. (AP, 11 Nov 1999)

- U.K.: In May 1999, the British Medical Association, which counts some 80% or nearly 115,000 of Britain's medical doctors, issued an official statement expressing concern over the safety of GE-foods. The BMA recommended a moratorium on planting commercial GE-crops in the UK "until there is scientific consensus (or as close agreement as reasonably achievable) about the potential long-term environmental effects." The BMA also called for 1) segregation at source, "to enable identification and traceability" of GE-foods; 2) labelling GE-imports and banning unlabelled ones, if the industry refuses to segregate (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999)

- ASIA: Despite biotech industry and US govt complaints, mounting public pressure has forced regulatory authorities in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan to begin to implement programs of mandatory labeling of GE foods. Although consumer and public interest groups in these countries have criticized proposed labeling rules as incomplete and riddled with loopholes, US trade officials are "concerned" about the possible loss of "billions of dollars" in US grain exports to the region, according to a Sep 1 Reuters story. Similar labeling demands are building in Malaysia and the Philippines, while farm and consumer groups in India have called for an outright ban on GE crops and imports. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) <http://www.purefood.org> <http://www.organicconsumers.org>

- The 15-country European Union, as well as Australia and New Zealand, has ordered the labeling of foods with modified DNA. The Japanese government has just published a list of 30 GM foods, including tofu, that soon must carry labels. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999)

- E.U.: That problem of being able to back up a claim that a food either contains or does not contain GE ingredients has plagued regulators in the European Union, where a law went into effect in September saying all GM foods must be labeled. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999)

- U.S.: Last summer, two consumer groups sued the US FDA, claiming that the agency's failure to institute a labeling regimen for GM food violates the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which requires that food additives not "generally recognized as safe" be labeled. This spring, activists gathered half-million signatures calling for labeling of GM food and submitted them to Congress and other officials. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999)

- U.S.: The no-labels policy hinges on a decree by the FDA in 1992. The FDA rules that food from new plant varieties is "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) and that it is no different from conventional food in nutrition or in storage and handling needs. So, no special labeling is needed. That was 4 years before farmers, pushed by Monsanto and other biotech firms, began sowing millions of acres with GM soybeans and corn. Neither the FDA nor US food distributors anticipated the anti-GMO resistance abroad. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, with a strong debate over the adequacy of American food labeling. (See: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999)

- Countries which have adopted mandatory labelling: UK, Australia-New Zealand Food Standards Council (Dec 1998),

20.3. CLAIM: Labelling is a form of trade discrimination.

- Consumers have a right to know and to choose what they are eating. In the U.S., labelling falls under First Amendment freedoms to exchange information. (See: Philip Bereano, Seattle Times, Op Ed: "The Right to Know What We Eat," 11 Oct 1998)

- RBGH: In 1993, Ben & Jerry's triggered a 3-year legal battle by labeling its milk products as free from rBGH, a hormone that boosts milk production. "People can say 'dolphin-free tuna' and 'stone-ground wheat,' " said Liz Bankowski, a senior director for the company in South Burlington, Vt. "We felt strongly that people have the right to know how their milk is produced." After tangling with federal and state regulators over the issue, Ben & Jerry's won the right to keep the label as long as it is accompanied by a disclaimer saying the FDA considers the milk equivalent to conventional milk, and that in any case there is no known way of testing milk to confirm whether it is really free of the offending hormone. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999)

- Below is a list of processed foods that tested positive for GE ingredients (September 1999). These tests were not "safety" tests; they were only to establish the presence of unlabeled GE ingredients. (NYTimes full page ad October 18, 1999)

- Frito-Lay Fritos Corn Chips * Bravos Tortilla Chips * Kellogg's Corn Flakes * General Mills Total Corn Flakes Cereal * Post Blueberry Morning Cereal * Heinz 2 Baby Cereal * Enfamil ProSobee Soy Formula * Similac Isomil Soy Formula * Nestle Carnation Alsoy Infant Formula * Quaker Chewy Granola Bars * Nabisco Snackwell's Granola Bars * Ball Park Franks * Duncan Hines Cake Mix * Quick Loaf Bread Mix * Ultra Slim Fast * Quaker Yellow Corn Meal * Light Life Gimme Lean * Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix * Alpo Dry Pet Food * Gardenburger * Boca Burger Chef Max's Favorite * Morning Star Farms Better'n Burgers * Green Giant Harvest Burgers (now called Morningstar Farms) * McDonald's McVeggie Burgers * Ovaltine Malt Powdered Beverage Mix * Betty Crocker Bac-Os Bacon Flavor Bits * Old El Paso Taco Shells * Jiffy Corn Muffin Mix [Sources: Genetic ID (an independent testing firm) and Consumer Reports (September 1999).] <http://www.turnpoint.org>

- List of GE-foods in the U.S.: * Canola (oilseed rape) * Chicory, red hearted (Radicchio) * Corn * Cotton * Papaya * Potato * Soybean * Squash * Tomato (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists) <http://www.turnpoint.org>

- A high percentage of the following ingredients have been made from GE plants, and are commonly found in processed foods: * Soy flour * Soy oil * Lecithin * Soy protein isolates and concentrates * Corn flour * Corn starch * Corn oil * Corn sweeteners & syrups * Cottonseed oil * Canola oil <http://www.turnpoint.org>

21. CLAIM: GE foods are one of the most thoroughly tested foods in history.

21.1. CLAIM: GE foods were required to undergo thorough testing before they were commercialized.

+ GE food is extensively tested and the GE food on our supermarket shelves are perfectly safe to eat.

- The U.S. regulatory system for GE foods, which was created in 1986, is voluntary. (See: National Research Council, GENETICALLY MODIFIED PEST-PROTECTED PLANTS: SCIENCE AND REGULATION (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000, p.143). ISBN 0309069300. <http://www.nap.edu/html/gmpp/>

- The US FDA does not require mandatory testing, only assurances from the GE food manufacturer that the product is safe. Glickman acknowledged that none of the agencies responsible for the safety of GM foods - USDA, FDA or Environmental Protection Agency - had enough staff or resources to conduct such testing. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)

- While Glickman stressed that most studies had indicated that there were no known health risks to consumers, he said no long-term studies had been conducted - one of the central arguments made by Europeans. In the past few years members of the EU have refused to import many products that contain GE ingredients. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)

- No independent GE food testing is done in America. We rely almost entirely on the testing carried out by the GE biotech firms that have spent billions of dollars developing the food and intend to make a profit selling it to us. There are serious doubts about the adequacy of the testing and the validity of the conclusions drawn from the results. Independent long-term testing is required before we can be sure that GE food is safe to eat. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)

- As the NEW YORK TIMES reported last July, "Mr. Glickman [U.S. Secretary of Agriculture] acknowledged that none of the agencies responsible for the safety of genetically modified foods - the Agriculture Department, the F.D.A., and the Environmental Protection Agency - had enough staff or resources to conduct such testing." (See: Marian Burros, "U.S. Plans Long-Term Studies on Safety of Genetically Altered Foods," NEW YORK TIMES July 14, 1999, pg. A18)

- The government should improve its testing and monitoring of genetically engineered crops to ensure they aren't killing butterflies and other harmless insects, a panel of scientists says. The Scientific Advisory Panel, which makes recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency, says the crops should be tested on a wider variety of insects than the current four species and that the EPA should require more data from seed companies on the impact of crops in the field. Jane Rissler, a senior staff scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the panel's report shows that the EPA's approval process for bioengineered crops is inadequate. "They have yet to do a good ecological assessment of [Bt corn and cotton], even though they've been approved for five years," she said. (See: Associated Press, 18 Feb 2000; Page A02)

- Many GE foods are marketed before adequate studies are done to test their risks to humans, according to the May 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Chiropractic Association (ACA). The JACA article says the long-term health impacts of the novel genes in these foods are impossible to predict, because they create proteins never previously consumed by humans in the quantities produced in GE crops. "According to most estimates, 60 - 70% of all processed foods contain GM ingredients, including proteins previously absent from human diets," write Shirley Watson, DC, director of education for ACA's Council on Nutrition, and Barbara Keeler, a journalist and health and nutrition expert, in the JACA article. "Some hazards from the GE process could directly impact patients who ingest the food. Other hazards are indirect, operating through pollution of other food species or through unintended effects on local and global ecosystems." Among the hazards of GE foods revealed in the article: 1) Toxin producers: The article quotes FDA documents that state, "Corn and potatoes engineered to produce toxins that kill insects are now classified by the EPA as pesticides, rather than vegetables." These vegetables are designed to kill harmful insects, but "non-target" insects and mammals have also been affected. 2) HT genes: 71% of last year's GM crops carried genes for tolerance to the herbicide made by the company engineering the seed. This will expose humans who ingest the foods to herbicides "with a litany of adverse health effects," the article explains. 3) Allergens: "GE may transfer new and unidentified proteins from one food into another, triggering allergic reactions. Millions of Americans who are sensitive to allergens will have no way of identifying or protecting themselves from offending foods," according to FDA documents quoted in the JACA article. 4) A Host of Unintended Side Effects: Impaired sense of smell and shortened lifespan in bees consuming pollen from GE plants; changed hormone levels and altered milk content in cows eating GE soybeans; sickness in cattle given rBGH; and toxicity moving up the food chain, causing death or impaired health in non-target species consuming insects that fed on crops with Bt toxins. (See: Journal of the American Chiropractic Association, May 2000)

- NAS indicated that testing procedures to date have been woefully deficient. National Research Council, GENETICALLY MODIFIED PEST-PROTECTED PLANTS: SCIENCE AND REGULATION (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000). ISBN 0309069300 as cited in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly #695) <http://www.nap.edu/html/gmpp/>

- New tests should be developed to test for allergenicity of genetically modified foods, the NAS said several times. Specifically, the NAS recommended that tests be developed that actually measure reactions of the human immune system, which is the human system in which allergic reactions develop. The genetically modified foods on the market today have not undergone controlled experiments on real human immune systems. (Putting such foods into grocery stores is an uncontrolled experiment of sorts, but with no one collecting the data.) (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.8)

- "Such pleiotropic effects are sometimes difficult to predict," the NAS said. The NAS said that FDA, USDA and EPA all need to pay attention to such "unintended compositional changes" of genetically modified foods. (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.134)

- GM crops may have to go through an array of new tests to detect any harmful effects for mallard ducks, rainbow trout, honeybees, and other wildlife, EPA scientists said. An EPA scientific advisory panel is drafting new requirements to ensure that biotech crops are safe for the environment at the same time several international groups, foreign governments and other U.S. agencies are taking a closer look at the controversial plants. The EPA panel met on Wednesday to consider requiring more test data from seed companies to ensure that genetically altered canola, squash, soybeans, corn and other crops are safe for wildlife, the soil, and water sources. (See: Reuters, 9 Dec 1999, "EPA Mulls Stricter Testing for Transgenic Crops", Julie Vorman)

- Much of the heavy testing done by GE firms are efficacy tests rather than safety tests.

- Japan plans to require safety screening of GM products, making it more difficult to import agricultural produce from the US. Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare has accepted a recommendation from a government panel that mandatory safety tests on GM products should be required for approval in order to import those products into Japan. Currently, safety testing is voluntary. The government's earlier decision to require labelling, which has been spurred by growing consumer concerns about GM modified foods, has already resulted in a rush by importers and retailers to seek non-GMO products. (See: Financial Times/London, 26 Apr 2000, "Japan to Screen GM Produce", By Michiyo Nakamoto)

- None of the following studies have been done on GE foods:

- Swine or cattle (major consumers of GE-corn and -soya) feeding studies;

- Primates or human volunteers feeding studies;

- The long-term effects of consuming GE-food;

- The effects of GE-food in combination with other toxins or with conventional chemicals

21.2. CLAIM: Millions in the U.S. are already buying GE food; nobody has gotten sick from eating them.

+ Every aisle of the supermarket now has GM corn and soybean derived products, from soaps and baby foods to Coke, which contains GE high-fructose corn syrup. All the products have been widely consumed for about two years, with no apparent ill health effects reported. (C.S. Prakash, a geneticist and professor of biotechnology at Tuskegee University in Tuskegee, Ala.)

- The feeding of GE-food to the American population is not a scientific experiment but a criminal act of doing uncontrolled experiments on human subjects without their knowledge or consent.

- GE-foods in the U.S. are neither segregated nor labelled. Because of this, it is impossible for epidemiologists to determine how much GE-foods have contributed to the greater incidence of allergies, emergence of new or more virulent pathogens, higher cancer rates, and other health problems in the U.S.

22. CLAIM: The GE industry is strictly regulated by governments

22.1. CLAIM: The U.S. has the strictest food regulations in the world

+ The U.S. FDA has determined that GE crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts. The U.S. has one of the most stringent food regulatory regimes in the world.

- In February 1999, the Center for Food Safety sued the FDA to have all GE foods taken off the market on the grounds that they are neither properly labelled nor safety-tested, and that lack of mandatory labeling illegally restricts the freedom of choice of those who would choose - on religious or ethical grounds - to avoid GE foods. <http://www.icta.org>

- In May 1998, a coalition of public interest groups, scientists, and religious leaders filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of all GE foods (Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et. al. v. Shalala). Nine eminent life scientists joined the coalition in order to emphasize the degree to which they think FDA policy is scientifically unsound and morally irresponsible. Now, the FDA's own files confirm how well-founded are their concerns. The FDA was required to deliver copies of these files-totaling over 44,000 pages-to the plaintiffs' attorneys. The FDA's records reveal it declared GE foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts-all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and (2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted the agency's current policy, which treats GE foods the same as natural ones. Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based, this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in allowing GE foods to be marketed without testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by qualified experts. The FDA admits it is operating under a directive "to foster" the U.S. biotech industry; and this directive advocates the premise that GE foods are essentially the same as others. However, the agency's attempts to bend its policy to conform with this premise met strong resistance from its own scientists, who repeatedly warned that genetic engineering differs from conventional practices and entails a unique set of risks. Numerous agency experts protested that drafts of the Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential for bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in a different manner and to a different degree than do conventional methods. Besides violating basic canons of ethics, the FDA's behavior flagrantly violates the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which mandates that new food additives be established safe through testing prior to marketing. While the FDA admits that GE organisms fall under this provision, it claims they are exempt from testing because they are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), even though it knows they are not recognized as safe even by its own scientists let alone by a consensus in the scientific community. (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods)

- The FDA's records reveal it declared GE foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts - all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose that: 1) FDA scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts; and 2) this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted FDA's policy, to treat GE-foods the same as natural ones. (See: Statement by Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, lawsuit coordinator, in collaboration with the Legal Department of the Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C.).

- FDA's own scientists repeatedly warned that GE differs from conventional practices and entails a unique set of risks. Numerous FDA experts protested that drafts of the Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential for bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in a different manner and to a different degree than do conventional methods.

- Dr. Louis Priybl (FDA Microbiology Group): "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and [GE] which is just glanced over in this document." He added that several aspects of gene splicing "...may be more hazardous." (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods)

- Dr. Linda Kahl (FDA compliance officer): The FDA was "...trying to fit a square peg into a round hole ... [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices." She said: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods)

- Dr. Jim Maryanski (FDA Biotechnology Coordinator) acknowledged there is no consensus about the safety of GE foods in the scientific community at large, and FDA scientists advised they should undergo special testing, including toxicological tests. (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods)

- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has placed new restrictions, effective immediately, on GM corn planting in response to concerns that GM crops may cause ecological disruptions. The new requirements include: 1) Corn borer refuges: farmers must plant non-GM corn in 20 - 50% of their acreage, to delay the emergence of resistance. Farmers will not be allowed to use chemical sprays on these refuges unless they can prove that pests have exceeded certain levels. 2) GM seed producers and farmers must monitor insect populations for the emergence of Bt resistance. At the first sign of resistance, sales of Bt corn seeds must be halted. 3) Seed producers must produce educational materials and programs or make farmers sign agreements to ensure compliance with the rules. Companies must submit details of those plans to the EPA for approval by Jan. 31. (See: The Washington Post, 16 Jan 2000, "EPA Restricts Gene-Altered Corn in Response to Concerns; Farmers Must Plant Conventional 'Refuges' to Reduce Threat of Ecological Damage", Rick Weiss)

- The GE pioneers who 25 years ago warned of public-health and environmental catastrophes if their science went awry are debating a new threat: rampant commercialization and carelessness. They warn that pressures on researchers to compete and on biotech firms to earn profits, while withholding information about their failures, are undermining a tradition of scientific integrity established at the original Asilomar Conference of 1975. Dr. Donald S. Fredrickson, the former director of the National Institutes of Health, put it harshly. ``Morality has been soiled. Entrepreneurs are repressing any information that suggests an unfavorable outcome as `proprietary' - and keep it secret,'' See: San Jose Mercury News, 17 Feb 2000, "Genetic researchers cite specter of profits, LISA M. KRIEGER) <http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/gene021700.htm>

- In sum, agricultural biotechnology has raced ahead at lightning speed (going from zero acres planted with GE crops in 1994 to 70 million acres planted in 1999) without any long-term testing, and with minimal understanding of the consequences. The NAS refers to these politely as "uncertainties" and it acknowledges that these uncertainties "often force agencies to base their decisions on minimal data sets." (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.139)

22.2. CLAIM: Philippine biosafety regulations are very strict.

- Safety issues are "not relevant"? The National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) disregarded health and safety, environmental and economic and other relevant issues raised by oppositors when it approved the country's first field test in August 1999. The NCBP considered the issues "not relevant". (See: Minutes of 4 Aug 1999 Meeting, NCBP c/o Dept of Science & Tech)

- False claims are "technicalities"? The NCBP disregarded the false claims made by the field-testing proponents, particularly the claims that 1) Bt corn will raise farmers' yields by at least 20%, 2) Bt corn is not harmful to non-target species, and 3) the WHO and FAO have declared Bt corn to be as safe as conventional corn. The NCBP considered these false claims mere "technicalities" and "not relevant" (See: Minutes of 4 Aug, 25 Aug 1999 Meeting, NCBP c/o DOST)

- Conflict of interest: The NCBP disregarded the conflict of interest in at least one NCBP member: The UP-Inst of Plant Breeding (UP-IPB) is a project proponent of the field-test and at the same time has a voting representative in the regulatory body (NCBP) which has to approve/disapprove the field-test.

- Sham scientific review: The NCBP formed a Scientific & Technical Review Panel (STRP) to make a thorough assessment of the issues and recommend action to the NCBP. The STRP made a sham review. The so-called review did not make any assessment of health and safety, environmental and economic issues. It just consisted of a one-page set of six questions and, in the same document, an irrational recommendation for approval without waiting for their six questions to be answered! The six questions were: 1) the genotypic background of the test plants and their adaptibility under tropical conditions; 2) basis for 40-50-50 scheme in artificially infesting the test plants with neonatal larvae; 3) the common pollinator to be used; 4) tests that identified the transformed cells with no antibiotic marker genes; 5) studies to indicate the safety of toxin levels in the test plants; and 6) the meaning of the word "version". (See: Letter of the Scientific & Technical Review Panel to NCBP Chair Dr. Raymundo Punongbayan, 28 Dec 1998)

22.3. CLAIM: UK pesticide regulations are very strict

- THE limits on pesticide residues allowed in soya have been increased 200-fold to help the GM industry, according to one of the country's leading food safety experts. Malcolm Kane, who has just taken early retirement as head of food safety at Sainsbury's, warned that higher levels of pesticide residues could appear in a range of foods from breakfast cereals to biscuits. Previously, UK and European rules stated that residues of the pesticide glyphosate left on a crop of soya beans should not be higher than 0.1 parts per million (ppm). But according to Mr Kane, the Government has increased this figure by 200 times to 20 ppm specifically to smooth the path of GM soya into the national diet. Mr Kane believes that rather than force the industry and farmers to meet the existing safety levels, officials have instead relaxed the rules to ensure GM crops remain legal. (See: "Pesticide safety limit raised by 200 times 'to suit GM industry'", UK Daily Mail, 21 Sep 1999)

- In 1992, the FDA decided-over the objections of environmental and consumer groups-to treat GE crops just like other foods. As long as the transferred genes produced proteins already in the food supply, the agency would not require pre-market approval or special labeling. (See: Los Angeles Times, 5 Oct 1999, SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Financial Desk, "BIOTECH: PUBLIC OUTCRY OVER GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS HAS THE U.S. AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY BACKPEDALING", by PAUL JACOBS)

- The first test under the FDA's voluntary review system came in 1994, when the agency approved the Flavr Savr tomato, a fruit genetically altered to stay firm during shipping. It proved a flop in the marketplace. (See: Los Angeles Times, 5 Oct 1999, SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Financial Desk, "BIOTECH: PUBLIC OUTCRY OVER GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS HAS THE U.S. AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY BACKPEDALING", by PAUL JACOBS)

- The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has had its funding dollars cut so they don't have the necessary resources to test GE seeds, or their potential affect on natural crops. Their decisions are being based solely upon data provided by the company. (See: "Percy Schmeiser - The Gutsy Canadian Farmer Who Dares Take on Monsanto", by Joanne Stephenson, free-lance writer, joanne@inetex.com) <http://www.inetex.com/joanne>

- The United States Agriculture Department, the primary agency responsible for assuring the ecological safety of such plants, has not rejected a single application for a genetically engineered crop. Scientists who studied the approvals say the department has frequently relied on unsupported claims and shoddy studies by the seed companies. Department officials defend their decisions but acknowledge that their system for weighing applications is evolving. (See: NYTimes, pg. 1, 3 Nov 1999, "Reassessing Ecological Risks of Genetically Altered Plants", by CAROL KAESUK YOON)

- A close look at how the Asgrow squash made its way from laboratory to the dusty fields of West Texas, based on documents and interviews, shows that the virus-resistant strain was approved without rigorous study, setting what critics say is a lax standard for assessing environmental risk. (See: NYTimes, pg. 1, 3 Nov 1999, "Reassessing Ecological Risks of Genetically Altered Plants", by CAROL KAESUK YOON)

- The Agriculture Department officials involved in approving the squash stand by their decision and note that there are no signs of environmental damage. But the department in effect acknowledged a lack of safety data this summer when another U.S.D.A. agency financed a study to determine whether the genetically engineered squash could create superweeds. (See: NYTimes, pg. 1, 3 Nov 1999, "Reassessing Ecological Risks of Genetically Altered Plants", by CAROL KAESUK YOON)

- So in 1992, Dr. Quemada and Tricoli petitioned the Agriculture Department, the main government body overseeing genetically modified plants, requesting that the squash be deregulated. (The Environmental Protection Agency regulates plants engineered to produce pesticides; the Food and Drug Administration does not require engineered products to go through an approval process, but is available for consultations.) In its petition, Asgrow, then part of the Upjohn Company, stated that the plant presented no risk to the environment. Industry officials and environmental groups watched the case closely. The squash was the second plant to be considered for deregulation, after the Flavr Savr tomato, and the first to raise the possibility of significant ecological threats. Scientists were concerned that the squash might turn its relatives into virus-resistant weeds by interbreeding with them. The squash also posed the risk that its virus genes or the coat proteins they produced might interact with other viruses to produce new diseases. And, as with any genetically engineered crop, the squash posed the risk that its new genes might cause it to spread and become difficult to control. Still, after two months the Agriculture Department issued a proposed ruling approving the squash. Environmental groups and some state agriculture departments protested, prompting the federal agency to commission a report by Dr. Hugh Wilson, a squash expert at Texas A&M University. But instead of backing up Asgrow and the Agriculture Department, Dr. Wilson agreed with critics. In his report in July 1993, Dr. Wilson found there was insufficient scientific information to draw conclusions about safety and that studies "point toward the clear presence of risk." Dr. Wilson's report revealed that Asgrow's petition contained crucial errors and omitted information that pointed toward risk. For example, Asgrow claimed that wild squash was unlikely to interbreed with genetically engineered squash, despite much scientific evidence to the contrary. Dr. Wilson's report also noted that the wild relatives of the new squash were already problematic weeds in parts of the country, suggesting it might take little to push them into the category of superweed, another fact omitted by Asgrow. Despite these findings, in the spring of 1994 the Agriculture Department again proposed approving the new squash and issued draft documents dismissing ecological risks. (See: NYTimes, pg. 1, 3 Nov 1999, "Reassessing Ecological Risks of Genetically Altered Plants", by CAROL KAESUK YOON)

- Despite scathing criticisms of its conclusions, in December 1994, the Agriculture Department again dismissed ecological risks and gave final approval to the squash. (See: NYTimes, pg. 1, 3 Nov 1999, "Reassessing Ecological Risks of Genetically Altered Plants", by CAROL KAESUK YOON)

- Since then Dr. Quemada, in a surprising turn, has succeeded in persuading the Agriculture Department to support further analysis of the possible risks of the squash. After years of arguing on behalf of Asgrow that the squash posed no environmental risk, this summer, Dr. Quemada, now an independent regulatory consultant, received a $253,000 grant from the Agriculture Department to study whether the new squash posed a superweed risk and whether viruses infected wild populations. (See: NYTimes, pg. 1, 3 Nov 1999, "Reassessing Ecological Risks of Genetically Altered Plants", by CAROL KAESUK YOON)

- In a 1995 study of Agriculture Department petitions, Dr. Joy Bergelson, an ecological geneticist at the University of Chicago, and Dr. Colin B. Purrington, an evolutionary biologist at Swarthmore College, examined the seven petitions approved at that time and reported that much of the data was from critically flawed experiments. They also reported a "remarkable reliance" in the petitions on unsupported claims. Four years later, Dr. Bergelson said: "It still is the case. A lot of the key experiments don't seem to be being done." (See: NYTimes, pg. 1, 3 Nov 1999, "Reassessing Ecological Risks of Genetically Altered Plants", by CAROL KAESUK YOON)

- Biotech giant Monsanto Company struck a private deal with senior federal food regulators that resulted in the swift approval of two new kinds of GM potatoes, according to an internal Health Canada document obtained by the Citizen. The undated memo, addressed to a senior aide for Health Minister Allan Rock, outlines a deal brokered in March that paved the way for Monsanto to begin selling its new potato seeds less than two months later. Until the deal was negotiated, the potatoes had been held up in the regulatory system because Monsanto refused to provide key scientific information to regulators assessing the products' health and environmental effects, the memo shows. "Monsanto objected to these requests believing that their data adequately supports their conclusions that these products present 'no significant environmental, feed or food safety risk.' " "What you're seeing is a high-level example of a very dirty game that practically nobody knows about. These kinds of meetings go on all the time and it's almost never captured because people are careful not to let this kind of thing be known." said Michele Brill-Edwards, a former Health Canada drug regulator and critic of the system. She added it is highly unusual for briefing notes of such meetings to be prepared for top ministerial aides. (See: The Ottawa Citizen, 30 Nov 1999, "Government fast-tracked Monsanto's GM potatoes" by Pauline Tam)

- Levels of growth hormone in the fish are so low, Mr. Matheson said, that the FDA will not require one particular set of tests - feeding the salmon to rodents - that are typical for new drugs for animals. "You can't choke rats with enough salmon to cause an effect other than choking," he said. Some scientists not involved with the company also pointed out that fish growth hormone was unlikely to have an effect on humans. The International Salmon Farmers Association, which represents the vast majority of salmon farmers worldwide, has taken a strong stand against the new fish. "[GE] salmon is a solution looking for a problem," said Joseph McGonigle, executive director of the Maine Aquaculture Association. "Virtually everyone in the world has taken a position against them." (See: The New York Times, 1 May 2000, "Altered Salmon Lead the Way to the Dinner Plate, but Rules Lag" By CAROL KAESUK YOON)

- In fact, Mr. Matheson said some GE animals had already been approved for use in animal feeds. He said he was unable to disclose what kinds of animals had been approved for such use or what animals they might be fed to as these GE animals are still experimental and under confidential review within the FDA. (See: The New York Times, 1 May 2000, "Altered Salmon Lead the Way to the Dinner Plate, but Rules Lag" By CAROL KAESUK YOON)

-- On Wednesday the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety a United Nations agreement was signed by 62 countries to introduce new regulations for trade in GMO's. Opposition led by the US has delayed the process and some delegates criticised what they described as a watered-down agreement. The UN were accused of bowing to the "Miami group", the world's biggest GMO exporters including the United States, Canada, Australia and Argentina. Only Argentina signed from the group, although the United States, barred by Congress from signing said it would abide by the convention. Enforcement is a major concern particularly on the issue of liability, which a United States delegate said could take years to be resolved. (See: EU Commission's Agri-Biotech Newsletter, Economic Aspects, No. 25, 20-30 May 2000)

23. CLAIM: Our scientists assured us that GE food is safe.

- The money for scientific research on GE comes from either the biotechnology companies or the government. Both are committed to the promises of biotechnology. This means that even when scientists have concerns about the safety or commercial application of the technology, it is often hard for them to risk their careers by being openly critical. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)

- A "revolving door" exists between the biotech industry and U.S. regulatory bodies, seriously compromising the U.S. regulatory process. Many other countries rely on the U.S. process, so their approvals for GE field-testing or commercialization have been compromised too. Some examples:

- DAVID W. BEIER, former head of Government Affairs for Genentech, Inc., now chief domestic policy advisor to Al Gore, Vice President of the United States. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- LINDA J. FISHER, former Assistant Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, now Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto Corporation. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- MICHAEL A. FRIEDMAN, M.D., former acting commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Department of Health and Human Services, now senior vice-president for clinical affairs at G. D. Searle & Co., a pharmaceutical division of Monsanto Corporation. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- L. VAL GIDDINGS, former biotechnology regulator and (biosafety) negotiator at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA/APHIS), now Vice President for Food & Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- MARCIA HALE, former assistant to the President of the United States and director for intergovernmental affairs, now Director of International Government Affairs for Monsanto Corporation. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- MICHAEL (MICKEY) KANTOR, former Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce and former Trade Representative of the United States, now member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- JOSH KING, former director of production for White House events, now director of global communication in the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- TERRY MEDLEY, former administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, former chair and vice-chair of the United States Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Council, former member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food advisory committee, and now Director of Regulatory and External Affairs of Dupont Corporation's Agricultural Enterprise. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- MARGARET MILLER, former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In effect, the FDA hired Monsanto's top dairy scientist to review Monsanto's research in the process of approving rBGH, a Monsanto product. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- MICHAEL PHILLIPS, recently with the National Academy of Science Board on Agriculture, now head of regulatory affairs for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, former chief administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),,now (and for the past 12 years) a member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- MICHAEL TAYLOR, former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA, still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company, still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration, and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding., now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation. In effect, the FDA hired a Monsanto lawyer to write the labelling laws that would govern rBGH, a Monsanto product. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- LIDIA WATRUD, former microbial biotechnology researcher at Monsanto Corporation in St. Louis, Missouri, now with the United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- JACK WATSON, former chief of staff to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, now a staff lawyer with Monsanto Corporation in Washington, D.C. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- CLAYTON K. YEUTTER, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, former U.S. Trade Representative (who led the U.S. team in negotiating the U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement and helped launch the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations), now a member of the board of directors of Mycogen Corporation, whose majority owner is Dow AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- LARRY ZEPH, former biologist in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, now Regulatory Science Manager at Pioneer Hi-Bred International. <http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html>

- Under fire for its GM agricultural products and the constant topic of rumors as to the company's possible merger or sale, Monsanto's top brass appears to be placing its bets on lobbyists instead. The firm of Griffin, Johnson, Dover & Stewart Inc. and several of its members registered with the Senate last month as lobbyists for Monsanto. Patrick J. Griffin is the former chief congressional lobbyist for President Clinton, and David E. Johnson is the former director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Not to slight the GOP, the Griffin firm also lists on its roster of Monsanto lobbyists Leonard Swinehart, a top aide to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Keith Heard, from the staff of Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. Monsanto's own most recent report says that for the first half of 1999 it shelled out $2 million on D.C. lobbying activities. (See: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 21 Nov 1999, "Monsanto Lines Up Heavy-Hitters As Lobbyists", Jon Sawyer, Terence Samuel and Nahal Toosi)

- LORD SAINSBURY, the UK Minister of Science, and member of the Supermarket chain family, was revealed to have had confidential discussions with Monsanto representatives at key points over the last months. Sainsbury was further shown to have strong personal business interests in the genetic engineering food industry. He is a shareholder and investor in GE companies. His own company, Diatech, is the patent holder of the cauliflower mosaic promoter, which is believed to be at the centre of the Pusztai/Rowett Institute controversy. Environmental groups have called for his resignation. (See: Guardian UK, 16 Feb 1999)

- US NATL RESEARCH COUNCIL: Through its huge think tank, the National Research Council (NRC) chaired by US NAS president Bruce Alberts with a full-time staff of 1000 and a $200 million budget, the NAS conducts studies and prepares about 200 reports annually, largely under contract to federal agencies. However, in flagrant violation of governmental openness rules (the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act) which Alberts still vehemently opposes, NRC committees and panels meet secretly in closed sessions, fail to disclose their minutes and conflict of interest statements, and fail to require that their membership reflects balanced representation of divergent interests and viewpoints. Illustrative is the conduct of the NRC committee on "Comparative Toxicity of Naturally Occurring Carcinogens" which issued the 1996 report on "Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet." This report trivialized concerns on cancer risks to infants and children from food contaminated with carcinogenic pesticides, as these were alleged to "occur at levels far too low to have any adverse effects on health." Acting on behalf of an ad hoc coalition of about 100 leading independent experts in public health and cancer prevention, and representatives of a wide range of labor and citizen groups, one of us (SSE) warned Alberts that this committee was grossly unbalanced and "disproportionately weighted with industry consultants;" it should further be noted that no pediatrician was invited to serve. Alberts responded admitting "that some of the committee members have performed some consulting for industry," but dismissed these concerns as "the same members have also advised or consulted for regulatory agencies." Other concerns were expressed that the composition of the NRC Committee could "be used to discredit or undermine" the previous NRC report on "Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children," which explicitly warned of cancer risks to children. (See: Letter by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition; Edward Goldsmith, M.A. The Ecologist - UK; Mae Wan Ho, Ph.D. Department of Biology The Open University - UK; Mark Ritchie, President Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy - USA)

- BRUCE ALBERTS: A more blatant conflict of interest is evidenced by the composition of the March, 1999 NRC biotechnology panel with its disproportionate representation of experts directly linked to the industry. This conflict was compounded by the subsequent discovery of a revolving-door relationship between the industry and NRC. Unknown to the panel, its executive director Dr. Michael Phillips was secretly negotiating for a senior position in the Biotechnology Industry Organization. He joined the industry some 3 months later. (See: Letter by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition; Edward Goldsmith, M.A. The Ecologist - UK; Mae Wan Ho, Ph.D. Department of Biology The Open University - UK; Mark Ritchie, President Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy - USA)

31. CLAIM: The quality of GE foods is better

31.1. CLAIM: GE foods are healthier and more nutritious

- No GE food commercialized to date has been shown to be more nutritious than non-GE food. Most GE crops are only designed to be resistant to specific herbicides, to produce their own insecticides or to have an increased shelf life. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)

- 71% of GE acreage is for HT-soya, which encourages farmers to use more herbicides. Another 25+% is for Bt crops, which puts a toxin in the food itself.

- RBGH: The use of rBGH to stimulate milk production in cows resulted in udder inflamations, infections and other problems affecting milk quality.

+ Many fungal toxins are harmful to human health (to name a few species: Aspergillus flavus, Claviceps purpurea etc), so fungi-resistant GE plants could be even safer than their parental strain.

31.2. CLAIM: Vit. A and iron-rich rice will solve a worldwide problem

+ Most rice varieties today lack iron and vit. A, a health problem for people who eat rice daily. In 1999, Swiss researchers announced a GE rice variety with more beta-carotene, which the body metabolizes to vit. A. Work is also underway on an iron-rich rice variety, to be given free to poor farmers in dev. countries thru the Rockefeller Foundation. See: <www.rockfound.org> (From: m.j.cohen@cgiar.org)

+ BC (beta-carotene) rice will help solve the widespread problem of Vit. A deficiency.

+ Iron-rich rice will help solve the widespread problem of iron deficiency.

- The BC rice and the iron-rich rice contain the CaMV promoter which, according to scientists Mae Wan Ho, Angela Ryan and Joe Cummins, should not be used for GE transformations. They also use an antibiotic-resistance marker (ARM) gene which, according to the British Medical Association, should be phased out.

- GE may diminish the nutritional content of a plant. (See: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report on Biotech Foods, April 2000, pg.140)

++ The inventors of GM rice to combat Vitamin A deficiency have singed a ground breaking deal with AstraZeneca that will allow third world farmers to earn $10,000 without paying royalties. The deal will also allow the life sciences company to commercialise it in the developing world. Professor Ingo Potrykus, inventor of the Vitamin A enriched "golden rice" with German compatriot Peter Beyer, hope the agreement will be the first in a series of private public partnerships involving crops important to the third world. (See: EU Commission's Agri-Biotech Newsletter, Economic Aspects, No. 25, 20-30 May 2000)

32. CLAIM: There are no alternatives to GE crops.

- Ecological agriculture: Alternatives to GE crops consist of ecological systems of agriculture, also loosely referred to as sustainable agriculture. At their core is organic farming, but they also include other variations such as natural farming, biodynamic farming, permaculture, etc.

- Organic/natural farming: One of the most viable options is organic and natural farming, most successfully performed on small plots rather than thousands of acres. Organic sales alone are expected to reach $6 billion by 2001 and to grow 20-25% annually. A Food Marketing Institute study reports that organic and natural foods are available at approximately 73 percent of grocery stores and supermarkets. Of shoppers surveyed in FMI's study, more than 50 percent said they purchase organic or natural foods at least once a month; 35 percent said they actively seek out products that are labeled as "organic"; and 63 percent look for products labeled "natural." Purchase of organic products is highest among consumers between 18 and 29 (31 percent), with a heavier concentration of sales in the West (34 percent), according to the 1998 Fresh Trends Report published by The Packer. (John Fetto, American Demographics, August 1999)

- Crop rotation/intercropping: The dramatic effects of rotations and intercropping on crop health and productivity, as well as of the use of biological control agents on pest regulation have been confirmed repeatedly by scientific research. The problem is that research at public institutions increasingly reflects the interests of private funders at the expense of public good research such as biological control, organic production systems and general agroecological techniques . Civil society must request for more research on alternatives to biotechnology by universities and other public organizations (Krimsky and Wrubel l996).

- Agroecological principles: Yield increases are being achieved by using approaches based on agroecological principles that stress diversity, synergy, recycling and integration; and social processes that stress community participation and empowerment. When agroecological features are optimized, yield enhancement and stability of production are achieved, as well as a series of ecological services such conservation of biodiversity, soil and water restoration and conservation, improved natural pest regulation mechanisms, etc. (See: Rosset, P. l999 The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture in the context of global trade negotiations. Institute for Food and Development Policy, Food First Policy Brief No.4) (See also: Altieri, M.A., P.Rosset and L.A. Thrupp. 1998 . The potential of agroecology to combat hunger in the developing world. 2020 Brief 55. International Food policy research Institute. Washington DC)

- More minerals in organic food: Over a 2 yr period, organically and conventionally grown apples, potatoes, pears, wheat, and sweet corn were purchased in the western suburbs of Chicago and analyzed for mineral content. Four to 15 samples were taken for each food group. On a per-weight basis, average levels of essential minerals were much higher in the organically grown than in the conventionally grown food. The organically grown food averaged 63% higher in calcium, 78% higher in chromium, 73% higher in iron, 118% higher in magnesium, 178% higher in molybdenum, 91% higher in phosphorus, 125% higher in potassium and 60% higher in zinc. The organically raised food averaged 29% lower in mercury than the conventionally raised food. (See: Journal of Applied Nutrition 1993; 45:35-39, "Organic Foods vs. Supermarket Foods: Element Levels")

- IFOAM: At the 12th (1999) annual Scientific Conference of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted unanimously against the use of GMOs in food production and agriculture. The delegates called on all governments and regulatory agencies to immediately ban GE in agriculture and food production since it involves: 1) Negative and irreversible environmental impacts; 2) Release of organisms which cannot be recalled; 3) Removal of the right of choice, both for farmers and consumers; 4) Violation of farmers' fundamental property rights and endangerment of their economic independence; 5) Practices which are incompatible with the principles of sustainable agriculture as defined by IFOAM; 6) Unacceptable threats to human health.

- Organic farming wins Alternative Nobel Prize for Cuba: Grupo de Agricultura Organica (GAO) of Cuba, a farming association at the forefront of the country's transition from industrial to organic agriculture, was named winner of a major international prize - the Right Livelihood Award - commonly known as the 'Alternative Nobel Prize.' GAO is one of four winners of the 1999 Right Livelihood Award, chosen from more than 80 candidates from 40 countries. GAO brings together farmers, farm managers, field experts, researchers, and government officials to develop and promote organic farming methods. Its aim is to convince Cuban farmers and policy-makers that the country's previous high-input farming model was too import-dependent and environmentally damaging to be sustainable, and that the organic alternative has the potential to achieve equally good yields. During the 1990s Cuba overcame a severe food shortage caused by the collapse of its trade relations with the former Soviet-bloc and the on-going U.S. trade embargo. Self-reliant organic farming played a significant role in overcoming the crisis. (See: Organic View, v.1 n.15, 14 Oct 1999)

-- India to focus on organic farming: Federal Agriculture Minister Sundar Lal Patwa said India was developing hybrid seeds and would focus on organic farming before going into GM crops. "We are aware that we can raise the yields of many crops through organic farming," Patwa said. "That way, we can preserve the fertility of our cultivable lands, unlike chemical-aided farming." He said there was a great unexploited trade potential for organic crops such as foodgrains, spices, fruits and vegetables. (See: Reuters, 29 May 2000, "India examining GM crop options, trials on" by Sambit Mohanty)

- UK organic crops are healthier: Researchers say there is now firm evidence that organic crops are healthier to eat than conventional crops. The Soil Association, which campaigns for organic farming, told BBC Radio 4's Costing the Earth programme that organic crops contain more nutrients. Director Patrick Holden said research has shown that organic crops contain more secondary metabolites, substances which form part of the plants' immune systems, and which also help to fight cancer in humans. Mr Holden said organic crops also have a measurably higher level of vitamins. By contrast, he said, "intensive farming is devitalising our food". Mr Holden said the research, from Denmark and Germany, would be presented in the UK at the association's conference on organic food on 8 January. (See: BBC News Online: Sci/Tech, "Organic Food 'Proven' Healthier", Alex Kirby, 3 Jan 2000) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_588000/588589.stm>

- Clean energy from non-GE algae: A group headed by biochemist Anastasios Melis of the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology in Univ of California Berkeley, have made a sensational discovery: how to grow hydrogen gas from green algae and sunlight. Hydrogen is the cleanest renewable fuel around; the waste product of burning hydrogen is pure water. The alga is the single-celled Chlamydomonas, which can be grown easily in the lab. Normally, it lives by photosynthesis, in which sunlight is absorbed by the green pigment chlorophyll to split water into its elements, hydrogen and oxygen. Melis found that when the alga is deprived of sulphur, sealed tight and exposed to sunlight, it switches to another metabolic state after 24 to 30 h and begins to release hydrogen gas which is 87% pure. The rest is mostly nitrogen, with 1% carbon dioxide and traces of oxygen. And it can keep this up at least until 150 h. The alga had this ability all along, waiting to be discovered. All that was needed was to alter the environment. The rate of production is still modest, about 2 millilitres per hour per litre of culture, which the researchers are confident of increasing up to 10-fold. This is a prime example of the kind of science that can really provide safe, environmentally friendly and sustainable technologies. It also shows how rewarding it is to work with the organism, whose natural potential is far greater than can be imagined by reductionist, narrowly focussed genetic engineers. (See: Melis, A., Zhang, L., Forestier, M., Ghirardi, M.L. and Seibert, M. (2000). Sustained photobiological hydrogen gas production upon reversible inactivation of oxygen evolution in the green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Plant Physiology 122, 127-135.)

- Pesticide/fertilizer-laden US soil can recover in 4 years: The Rodale Institute of Kutztown, Penn., recently completed a 15-year study comparing organic farming methods to conventional methods, published in the November 11, 1998, issue of the journal Nature. It concluded that yields from organic farming equal conventional yields after four years. Experts have shown that using pesticides does not guarantee increased yields. According to David Pimentel, professor of insect ecology and agricultural sciences at Cornell University, ``Although pesticides are generally profitable, their use does not always decrease crop losses. For example, even with the 10-fold increase in insecticide use in the United States from 1945 to 1989, total crop losses from insect damage have nearly doubled from 7% to 13%''. (PRNewswire, 27 August 1999)

- 20-25% organic growth: US sales of organic foods have grown between 20 - 25% annually for the last 7 years, with overall sales of between $3.5 and $4.2 billion.

33. Websites On Genetic Engineering:

http://home.earthlink.net/~alto/boycott.html

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/biotech.htm

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rone/gedanger.htm

http://www.bio-integrity.org

http://www.biotech-info.net

http://www.campaignforfoodsafety.org

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/shag

http://www.essential.org/crg

http://www.foodfirst.org

http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/cbio/geneng.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/~usa/reports/biodiversity/roundup

http://www.indians.org/welker/genome.htm

http://www.indiaserver.com/betas/vshiva

http://www.k2net.co.uk/~savage/ef/earthfirst.html

http://www.med.upenn.edu/~bioethic/genetics/articles.html

http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html

http://www.natural-law.org/issues/genetics/ge_hazards.html

http://www.netlink.de/gen/home.html

http://www.notmilk.com

http://www.organicconsumers.org

http://www.peg.apc.org/~acfgenet

http://www.psagef.org/indexgen.htm

http://www.purefood.org

http://www.rafi.ca

http://www.rafi.org

http://www.safe-food.org/welcome.html

http://www.soilassociation.org

http://www.solbaram.org/articles/clm505.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/agriculture/ag.docs.html

http://www.worldwatch.org

34. OTHERS

+ The strong anti-GE feelings in Europe is due to the Europeans' distrust of their governments following such food scares as the "mad cow" disease and the dioxin-tainted food in Belgium. This springs from deep-seated cultural differences. "There is more reverence for nature there and more of a belief that food is sacred. Americans don't mind eating McDonald's and junk food... but Europeans eat traditional foods they've eaten for thousands of years, as they do in India. They're perceiving GM foods as somehow unnatural when really there is no cause for alarm." Prakash says that the GE produce and products on the American market are safe and "have been thoroughly tested in terms of their safety and environmental impacts." (Dr. C.S. Prakash, a geneticist and professor of biotechnology at Tuskegee University in Tuskegee, Ala.)

35. Recent items

-- Kansas firm Cropverifeye.com says it can deliver "field to food" identity preserved (IP) tracing on the Internet and wants to link farmers and buyers looking for identity preserved harvests. Cropverifeye's Jim Mock says "we provide a traceablility system" for IP production, independently confirming that the fine print in contracts is upheld. Cropverifeye says 70-80% of its business this year is GMO-related, involving mostly corn and soybean growers in the midwest. Most buyers are in the US with an increasing number in Japan, with "some pretty big names in there," he said. The system comes at a hefty cost: $150 plus $6 per acre verified. The company recommends the costs be shared by buyer and producer. (See: Cropchoice News, 1 Jun 2000) <http://www.cropchoice.com>

-- In a letter to the 5th Conference of Parties (COP5) on the Convention on Biological Diversity at Gigiri, Nairobi, some 310 scientists from North and South demanded a moratorium on the use of GMOs and LMOs, and expressed concern about the dangers these products posed for biodiversity, food safety, human and animal health. "We call for the immediate suspension of the release of [GM] crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least five years, for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned, and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all." They argued that GM crops intensify corporate monopoly on food. In order to protect their patents, GE firms continue to develop genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) like terminator and trait-specific technologies. Terminator technology makes seeds sterile in the second generation, preventing farmers from saving and replanting seed. GE made farmers dependent on GM seed, which is protected under IPR. Trait-specific GURTs make it possible to switch on and off specific characteristics of a plant, such as resistance to diseases. Farmers are then obliged to apply particular chemicals to ensure that their crops thrive. The scientists said this not only increased farmer dependency on chemicals and GE firms, it was likely to drive many to destitution. Despite promises last year to abandon the technology, 50 new GURTs patents have been issued. The scientists want the patents banned on grounds that they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise health care, impede medical and scientific research and work against the welfare of animals. GMO-derived products could also be hazardous. The GE bovine growth hormone (rBGH), injected into cows to increase milk yields, not only causes excessive suffering and illness for the animals, but also increases IGF-1 in milk, a substance linked to breast and prostate cancer in humans. Secret memoranda of the US FDA revealed that it ignored the warnings of its own scientists that GE is a new departure and introduces new risks. According to the documents, the first GM crop to be commercialised - the Flar Savr tomato - did not pass the required toxicological tests. In response to concerns on the potential risk of GE and the absence of control systems in developing countries, the legally binding Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is now in place to protect the environment from the potential risk caused by LMOs. Some 63 governments, including Kenya, have signed it. Under the protocol, strict informed agreement procedures will apply to seeds, live fish, and other LMOs introduced into the environment. (See: "Suspend GM Crops For 5 Years - Scientists" by Wandera Ojanju, The East African - Nairobi, 2 Jun 2000)

-- ASEAN: Private firms in the ASEAN want the U.S. to implement labelling rules that will distinguish GM from non-GM food products. ASEAN Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ASEAN-CCI) president Jose S. Concepcion, Jr. yesterday said chamber members agreed last week to lobby for the promulgation of US rules that will identify food products which use GM ingredients from those that do not. Mr. Concepcion said the ASEAN private sector wants its consumers to be properly informed about the matter in light of growing concern over the safety of GM food products in European countries. (See: BusinessWorld - Manila, 2 Jun 2000, "ASEAN asks US to label GM food" by Earl Warren B. Castillo)

36. Major changes to this version

36.1. Helpful titles were added to many items.

36.2. Major improvements to the outline were made, and headings were modified to be more descriptive.

36.3. Many items were moved to a different heading.