--- Begin Message ---
Bt Corn Linked to Hog Breeding Problems
Submitted by Jim Riddle
Rt. 3 Box 162C
Winona, MN 55987
May 20, 2002
In its April 29, 2002, edition, the Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman contained an
alarming story on sow breeding problems related to the feeding of
genetically engineered Bt corn.
According to the article, Shelby County, Iowa, farmer Jerry Rosman was
alarmed when farrowing rates in his sow herd plummeted nearly 80 percent.
Rosman, who has nearly 30 years of farrowing experience, checked and
double-checked all of the usual suspect causes. He tested for diseases,
verified his artificial insemination methods were being properly
implemented, and poured over his nutritional program. But he found nothing
out of the ordinary.
Eventually, Rosman became aware of four other producers within a 15-mile
radius of his farm whose herds had nearly identical pseudopregnancies. The
herds had different management styles, different breeding methods and
different swine genetics.
A common denominator, Rosman says, is that all of the operations fed their
herds the same Bt corn hybrids.
Laboratory tests revealed their corn contained high levels of Fusarium
mold. Rosman says researchers typed the Fusarium down to four strains, and
two of them (Fusarium subglutinans and Fusarium monlliforme) were
consistent in all of the producers' samples.
One of the producers subsequently switched back to regular non-Bt corn, and
pseudopregnancy is no longer a problem within that herd.
Rosman believes the problem manifested itself on his farm because he
planted 100 percent of the same brand of genetically engineered Bt seed
corn and fed 100 percent of that corn to his livestock.
According to the article, Rosman isn't sure whether or not he'll be
planting any corn on his land this year. An agronomist has told him that a
regular rotation of corn and soybeans might not get rid of whatever gene
has contaminated his corn ground.
In a follow up article on May 13, 2002, the Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman
reported that shortly after the story detailing Rosman s situation
appeared, he was flooded with phone calls. It hadn t even hit the mailboxes
and the phone started ringing, Rosman says.
By late last week he had received calls from 12 other producers from
various parts of the state detailing situations very much like his own. The
calls primarily came from smaller producers who, like Rosman, feed their
own corn and noticed a sharp decline in farrowing rates recently.
The Rosman article sparked the interest of Norm Smith, who farms east of
Winterset, Iowa. Smith says he started experiencing breeding problems
within a few weeks of feeding the new corn hybrids he planted for the first
time last spring.
I started feeding Bt corn in late September, and within 30 days I wasn t
getting anything bred, Smith said, adding that his brother encountered
similar problems.
The Spokesman articles illustrate the fact that genetically engineered
crops have been rushed to market without proper testing. There have been no
mandatory tests on the long term effects of these crops on livestock or
human health. For example, the EPA, which regulates Bt corn, requires no
tests to determine how the crop impacts the reproductive systems of the
animals that eat it.
Genetically engineered materials, such as products manufactured from Bt
corn, are now commonly found in conventional foods. Due to a political
decision made in 1992 by the Bush/Quayle administration, genetically
engineered foods are not required to be segregated or labeled. Anyone who
eats foods containing conventional corn, soy, canola, and/or cottonseed
products is an unwitting guinea pig in a vast, uncharted ecological
experiment.
From: "Jim Riddle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=============================
Washington Post
May 23, 2002,
Cultivating a New Image; Firms Give Away Data, Patent Rights on Crops
BY Justin Gillis, Washington Post Staff Writer
The world's largest agricultural biotechnology companies are setting up
charitable foundations, backing aid for subsistence farmers, and donating
valuable data and patents as part of a broad push to win acceptance of
genetically altered foods from skeptical consumers.
After encountering resistance in Europe and criticism around the world,
Monsanto Co. started the trend two years ago by giving away a trove of
genetic data on the rice plant that might improve a staple consumed by many
of the world's poor. Another giant agricultural biotechnology company,
Syngenta AG, is planning to follow suit as early as today by announcing that
it will turn over an even bigger cache of information on the plant.
Opposition to genetically modified food remains intense, and the
agricultural biotechnology industry is girding for battles over gene-altered
wheat, salmon, trees and other organisms. But many publicly funded
researchers, once deeply skeptical of the companies' intentions, are
impressed enough by the recent efforts to reconsider some of their views. "I
had heard so many bad stories, and actually witnessed some stuff, that I was
very skeptical when I was called to the Rockefeller Foundation two years ago
for a meeting with Monsanto," said Ben Burr, a coordinator of the
International Rice Genome Sequencing Project. "But we've had a very close
relationship. I have just changed entirely in my thinking about this."
The twin data contributions from Monsanto and Syngenta are expected to chop
several years and tens of millions of dollars off the effort needed to
produce a complete genetic map of rice, a critical step toward developing
hardier strains of a plant that feeds nearly half the world's population.
Monsanto and Syngenta spent $ 60 million assembling the rice data they are
giving away.
While the companies' new approach is a hit with some scientists, it's not
clear how much they have managed to improve their images with the public or
the financial markets. There are some favorable signs: India recently
granted approval for genetically modified cotton and Brazil may be on the
verge of doing so for altered soybeans. Gene-altered crops are still widely
planted in the United States and Canada.
A big test could come this fall. Monsanto, which lost its corporate
independence during the uproar over genetic engineering, plans to become a
stand-alone company again after being spun off from parent Pharmacia Corp.
How the market values Monsanto is likely to be seen as a barometer of
investor sentiment toward future stock offerings by "ag bio" companies.
Perhaps the biggest public test of all will come over the next two years as
Monsanto attempts to win approval of the first genetically modified wheat
plant, despite widespread concern among farmers that allowing such wheat
might taint the entire U.S. crop.
The Monsanto and Syngenta contributions to the rice-mapping project are the
biggest, but not the only, examples of the changes underway at major
agricultural biotechnology companies.
Monsanto has set up a unit to use biotechnology to help solve crop problems
faced by subsistence farmers in Africa and elsewhere. The sweet potato is a
critical staple in parts of Africa, and tests are underway of a variety,
developed with Monsanto technology, that can resist a serious affliction
called the feathery mottle virus.
Virtually every company is contributing to efforts of this kind. Syngenta is
playing a large role in developing "golden rice," an altered form of the
plant that could help combat vitamin A deficiency in poor countries. More
than 30 patent holders have agreed to donate some 70 relevant patents for
that project. In late 2001, Syngenta set up the Foundation for Sustainable
Agriculture to aid poor farmers. Others, including DuPont Co., are paying
for like endeavors.
The Rockefeller Foundation, the New York charity that sparked the "Green
Revolution" in Asia in the 1960s and thus helped to stave off mass
starvation on that continent, served as a forum two years ago for
discussions between Monsanto and its opponents. The foundation's president,
Gordon Conway, famously lectured Monsanto executives about their perceived
arrogance and unwillingness to listen.
Now, people at the foundation see improvements.
"Certainly, something genuine and real has changed," said Gary Toenniessen,
director of food security programs at the foundation. "Realizing that the
companies have got to make a profit, they've got to answer to stockholders,
I think they are being fairly open and willing to say yes to deals that
maybe in the long run benefit them but in the short run aren't going to be
much of a benefit."
In their peacemaking mood, the companies are even making peace with one
another. After years of legal battles between their seed units, Monsanto and
DuPont recently struck a comprehensive settlement that gives them access to
critical aspects of each other's technology. Howard L. Minigh, DuPont's vice
president for agriculture and nutrition, said the deal would free the
Wilmington, Del.-based company to focus on gene-altered products that
benefit consumers. One such project: soy milk without a bean-like
aftertaste.
The companies' kinder, gentler approach appears to have halted the slide in
their credibility among scientists, buying them time to try to sell their
vision of a world transformed by genetically engineered crops.
To be sure, the companies' changed attitude has not mollified their most
vocal opponents, nor has it resolved any of the serious environmental
questions that still swirl around agricultural biotechnology -- which
involves tinkering with the fundamental chemistry of life to create plants
and animals with altered traits.
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of a Washington advocacy group called
the International Center for Technology Assessment, complained that the
companies are continuing to sue farmers when genetically engineered crops
are found growing in fields without permission. He believes engineered
plants sometimes blow in from neighboring fields as seed, and the farmers
are not always to blame.
"We're seeing more and more lawsuits, more and more investigations, more and
more problems," Kimbrell said. "There's no letting up there -- quite the
contrary."
Jeremy Rifkin, a technology critic who has been one of the sharpest thorns
in the side of the companies, calls the fight a struggle over "who controls
the biological inheritance of the food of the world."
He believes the battle is far from over, noting that the companies still
face public skepticism and lawsuits, including a large antitrust suit that
he helped organize. But he concedes that the companies have gotten smarter
in their public relations.
"If I were thinking like them, I would try to do whatever I can in the short
run to put my best foot forward," Rifkin said. "I think they're trying to
put out small fires that come along while they keep focusing on the big
confrontation to come."
Once fairly sleepy businesses that sold drums of chemicals to farmers, the
companies in the 1980s jumped into one of the hottest fields in science.
With Monsanto in the vanguard, they realized they could use the techniques
of genetic manipulation -- to a large degree, the same laboratory techniques
that are permitting researchers to tackle diseases such as AIDS and
cancer -- to solve generations-old agricultural problems.
Monsanto rolled out the first products in the mid-1990s, including
insect-resistant cotton and potatoes, as well as corn and soybeans designed
to tolerate an herbicide used to kill nearby weeds. The products, especially
the soybeans, were a huge hit with farmers.
But in retrospect, the companies had left a critical factor out of their
calculations. They saw their customers as the farmers, not the final
consumers who would buy the food the farmers grew.
Longtime warnings from skeptics such as Rifkin gained little attention in
the United States, but in 1999 they began to take hold in Europe, a
continent already jumpy about food safety. Street marches and newspaper
headlines about "Frankenfood" ensued.
"All of a sudden the arguments of the activists had much more traction than
they ever had before," said Rob Horsch, one of the first scientists hired at
Monsanto to work on genetic engineering. "Suddenly it was real."
As the backlash mounted, Wall Street fled in a panic, undermining the
companies' ability to raise capital. The proud Monsanto, based in St. Louis,
got bought up by Pharmacia Corp., mostly for the value of a highly
successful human drug the company had developed called Celebrex.
Syngenta, in fact, wouldn't even exist but for the backlash. Novartis AG and
Astra-Zeneca PLC, pharmaceutical companies eager to shed agricultural
divisions that had suddenly become hot potatoes, combined them in 2000 to
form Syngenta, based in Basel, Switzerland.
In the four years the controversy has been unfolding, little evidence has
come to light to support fears about the safety of bioengineered food, and
American government agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration,
say they are safe.
But the long-term environmental impact of the crops remains a serious
question. Many scientists wonder whether foreign genes inserted into crops
can spread to the wild relatives of those plants, doing some kind of
unforeseen environmental damage.
In fact, several incidents have suggested that the ag bio companies,
whatever their intentions, won't be able to control where their altered
genes wind up. Agricultural biotechnology's biggest debacle to date occurred
when an altered crop called Starlink corn, approved only for use as animal
food, turned up in the human food supply, forcing widespread recalls of taco
shells and other products.
That mess forced all the biotechnology companies to pledge never to put a
crop on the market for animal use only, because it would be certain to wind
up in the human food supply. For similar reasons, many American farmers are
worried about Monsanto's efforts to commercialize a genetically engineered
wheat. The farmers, though they may support biotechnology in principle, are
afraid the altered wheat will taint the entire American crop in the eyes of
foreign buyers.
The European backlash has cooled somewhat as governments there adopted
labeling laws and barred imports of gene-altered ingredients. In the United
States, by contrast, foods using gene-altered ingredients are common on
grocery shelves. For instance, products whose ingredients include "soy
protein" often rely on genetically engineered soybeans.
With the controversy still simmering, it's clear the current strategy of the
ag bio companies is to try to be good corporate citizens while they wait for
the public to adjust to genetic engineering.
The approach was outlined most clearly in a speech given in late 2000 by
Hendrik A. Verfaillie, Monsanto's president and chief executive. Admitting
that Monsanto had been blinded to public concern in its enthusiasm for
biotechnology, he pledged a series of steps to improve the company's conduct
and vowed that Monsanto would "behave honorably, ethically and openly."
One of the early examples of the new approach, cited in Verfaillie's speech,
was Monsanto's decision to contribute its rice data to the International
Rice Genome Sequencing Project. Now, Monsanto's data set has become a
critical resource for international researchers.
Syngenta, which recently published a preliminary genetic map of the rice
plant in the journal Science, is planning to announce a similar contribution
as early as this morning. Neither company has a strong commercial interest
in rice, which is grown mostly in poor countries, but they have been pouring
millions into researching that plant because it is a "model organism" for
all crops descended from wild grasses, including wheat, barley, oats and
sorghum.
Toenniessen, of the Rockefeller Foundation, said he was grateful for the
spirit of cooperation he is seeing from Monsanto and Syngenta. But he also
noted that both companies combed the rice data for potentially valuable
genes, and filed some patents, before turning the data over.
"They've been mining that resource base as fast as they could," he said.
"Despite all the rhetoric, these companies still are in the business to make
money."
Excellent news! Next Wednesday, May 22, "The Genetically Engineered Food
Right To Know Act of 2002" will be introduced into the U.S. Congress.
When passed into law, this legislation will require the mandatory
labeling of genetically engineered foods.
Along with the labeling legislation, four other bills related to
genetically engineered foods will be introduced. They are:
* The Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act of 2002
* The Genetically Engineered Crop and Animal Farmer Protection Act of
2002
* The Genetically Engineered Organism Liability Act of 2002
* Real Solutions to World Hunger Act of 2002
These bills will be introduced into the House of Representatives by Ohio
Representative Dennis Kucinich and in the Senate by California Senator
Barbara Boxer.
Representative Kucinich has provided us with a detailed summary of the
five pieces of legislation that we have posted below.
ACTION ALERT!
The Campaign has set up a web page where you can send an e-mail to your
House Representative and your two Senators asking them to co-sponsor the
legislation. Normally we would prefer you send letters by U.S. mail to
members of Congress since they are much more effective. But since we
only have a few days until the legislation is introduced, e-mails will
be fine for this occasion:
http://www.thecampaign.org/cosponsor.htm
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
The Campaign's new Internet server developed a major technical problem
on Tuesday afternoon. Our e-mail server went down first and then the web
server was effected. So we switched over to our backup server on
Thursday. The server administrator we use has been on vacation in
Europe, so we are still trying to determine what caused the service
outage. Since it is a brand new server, it could be a hard drive
problem. Regardless, we have taken care of the immediate problem.
Most of you should now be able to view our web site again and send us
e-mail. But if you visit our web site and it is still down, please visit
later in the day on Friday since it will soon be up again all over the
world. If any of you sent us e-mail on Tuesday or Wednesday, there is a
possibility we never received it, so please send it again.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this technical problem may have
caused. But, as you know, anything high-tech can develop problems --
which is another reason why we should be concerned about possible
problems developing with genetically engineered foods!
TAKE ACTION PACKET SALE ENDS SOON!
As we previously announced, The Campaign's popular Take Action Packets
are on sale for 20% off ONLY until The Genetically Engineered Food Right
To Know Act gets introduced into Congress. So you only have until
Wednesday evening, May 22 to take advantage of the 20% off sale
price.
http://www.thecampaign.org/tap.htm
If you are sincere in your desire to help get The Genetically Engineered
Food Right To Know Act passed into law, The Campaign's Take Action
Packets are the best tool available for this purpose. Each full color
32-page Take Action Packet contain a wealth of educational information
and form letters to mail to members of Congress.
You can order any quantity of Take Action Packets and receive the 20%
discount. However, you must place your order over our web site to be
eligible for the sale. Order today to take advantage of the special
prices. Remember, you only have until May 22 to be eligible to receive
the 20% discount:
http://www.thecampaign.org/tap.htm
In closing, I would just like to encourage you to tell everyone you know
about The Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Act. It is only by
grassroots activism that we will get this legislation passed into law.
Take these two steps today:
1) Send an e-mail to your members of Congress:
http://www.thecampaign.org/cosponsor.htm
2) Order Take Action Packets:
http://www.thecampaign.org/tap.htm
Thanks for your activism!
Craig Winters
Executive Director
The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
The Campaign
PO Box 55699
Seattle, WA 98155
Tel: 425-771-4049
Fax: 603-825-5841
E-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org
Mission Statement: "To create a national grassroots consumer campaign
for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass
legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered
foods in the United States."
***************************************************************
Summary of Genetically Engineered Food Legislation
Genetic engineering, the ability to insert a novel gene in a organism,
is a developing science that offers possible benefits and hazards.
Genetic engineering is defined as something that has been altered at the
molecular or cellular level by means that are not possible under natural
conditions or processes. This does not include traditional breeding
techniques. Genetic engineering is a powerful technology. The ability to
insert any gene into any organism breaks scientific barriers and creates
new ethical quandaries.
Genetic engineering is having a serious impact on the food we eat, on
the environment, and on farmers. To ensure we can maximize benefits and
minimize hazards, Congress must provide a comprehensive regulatory
framework for all genetically engineered products (plants, animals,
bacteria, and other organisms).
Current laws, such as our food safety and environmental laws, were not
written with this technology in mind. These laws were not structured to
deal with a new paradigm created by the novel scientific capabilities
made available by genetic engineering. Therefore clearer laws are
necessary to ensure that these new scientific capabilities and the
associated impacts are closely monitored.
I: The Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Act of 2002
Consumers wish to know whether the food they purchase and consume is a
genetically engineered food. Concerns include the potential transfer of
allergens into food and other health risks, potential environmental
risks associated with the genetic engineering of crops, and religiously
and ethically based dietary restrictions. Consumers have a right to know
whether the food they purchase contains or was produced with genetically
engineered material. There is also a strong scientific rationale for
mandatory labeling. It provides an opportunity for continual postmarket
monitoring, allowing for the study of long-term health impacts. Adoption
and implementation of mandatory labeling requirements for genetically
engineered food produced in the United States would facilitate
international trade. It would allow American farmers and companies to
export and appropriately market their products-both genetically
engineered and non-genetically engineered- to foreign customers.
This bill acknowledges consumers have a right to know what genetically
engineered foods they are eating:
1. Requires food companies to label all foods that contain or are
produced with genetically engineered material.
2. Requires the FDA to periodically test products to ensure compliance.
(A threshold of 1% is established for accidental contamination.)
3. Voluntary, non-GE food labels are authorized.
4. A legal framework is established to ensure the accuracy of labeling
without creating significant economic hardship on the food production
system.
II: The Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act of 2002
Genetically engineered foods present new issues of food safety. Given
the consensus among the scientific community that genetic engineering
can potentially introduce hazards, such as allergens or toxins,
genetically engineered foods need to be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis and cannot be presumed to be generally recognized as safe. The
possibility of such hazards dictate a cautious approach to genetically
engineered food approvals. However, FDA has glossed over the food safety
concerns of genetically engineered foods and not taken steps to ensure
the safety of these genetically engineered foods.
This bill requires that all genetically engineered foods follow a
strenuous food safety review process:
1. Requires all genetically engineered foods to follow FDA's current
food additive process to ensure they are safe for human consumption.
2. Requires that unique concerns of genetically engineered foods are
explicitly examined in the review process, a phase out of antibiotic
resistance markers, and a prohibition on known allergens.
3. Continues FDA discretion in the food additive process in applying
the safety factors that are generally recognized as appropriate.
4. Requires the FDA to conduct a public comment period of at least 30
days once the completed safety application is available to the public.
5. The FDA is authorized to contract out for independent testing of a
genetically engineered food and to seek input on the food safety process
from the National Academy's Institute of Medicine.
III: The Genetically Engineered Crop and Animal Farmer Protection Act of
2002
Agribusiness and biotechnology companies have rapidly consolidated
market power at the same time as the average farmer's profits and
viability have significantly declined. Policies promoted by biotech
corporations have systematically acted to remove basic farmer rights
enjoyed since the beginning of agriculture. These policies include
unreasonable seed contracts and the intrusion into everyday farm
operations. The introduction of genetically engineered crops has also
created obstacles for farmers, including the loss of markets and
increased liability concerns. To mitigate the abuses upon farmers, a
clear set of farmer rights must be established.
Farmer Bill of Rights
This bill provides several farmer rights and protections to maintain the
opportunity to farm:
1. Farmers may save seeds and seek compensation from biotech companies
for failed genetically engineered crops.
2. Biotech companies may not shift liability to farmers, nor require
access to farmer's property, nor mandate arbitration, nor mandate court
of jurisdiction, nor require damages beyond actual fees, or any
otherunfair condition.
3. Farmers must be informed of the risks of using genetically
engineered crops.
4. Biotech companies may not charge more to American farmers for use of
this technology, than they charge farmers in other nations.
5. Seed companies must ensure seeds labeled non-GE are accurate and
provide clear instructions to reduce cross pollination, which
contaminates other fields.
6. The EPA is required to evaluate the concern of Bt resistant pests
and take actions necessary to prevent resistance to Bt, an important
organic pesticide.
7. The bill prohibits genetic engineering designed to produce sterile
seeds.
8. The bill prohibits loan discrimination based on the choice of seeds
an agricultural producer uses.
IV: The Genetically Engineered Organism Liability Act of 2002
The negative consequences of genetically engineered crops may impact
farmers who grow these crops, neighboring farmers who do not grow these
crops, as well as consumers. Biotech companies are selling a technology
that is being commercialized far in advance of the new and unknown
science of genetic engineering. Farmers may suffer from crop failures,
neighboring farmers may suffer from cross pollination, increased insect
resistance, and unwanted "volunteer" genetically engineered plants, and
consumers may suffer from health and environmental impacts. Therefore,
biotech companies should be found liable for the failures of genetically
engineered crops.
This bill ensures that the creator of the technology assumes the
liability resulting from the technology.
1. The bill places all liability from negative impacts of genetically
engineered organisms squarely upon the biotechnology companies that
created the genetically engineered organism.
2. Farmers are granted indemnification to protect them from the
liabilities of biotech companies.
3. The bill prohibits any transfer of liability away from the
biotechnology companies that created the genetically engineered
organism.
V: Real Solutions to World Hunger Act of 2002
The demand for mandatory labeling, safety testing, and farmer
protections do not constitute obstacles to the cessation of world
hunger. Technologies, like genetically engineered food, may have a
limited role, but economics remain the significant barrier to a
consistent food supply, and the development of expensive genetically
engineered foods may only exacerbate this trend. Most genetically
engineered food products and almost all research funding for the
development of genetically engineered food target the developed nation's
agriculture and consumers. Developing countries cannot afford this
technology and therefore are vastly ignored.
Agroecological interventions have had significantly more success in
helping developing nations feed themselves with higher yields and
improved environmental practices, all within reasonable costs for
developing countries. If the biotech industry believes they can help
mitigate hunger concerns, domestic or foreign, then requiring them to
fund the effort to mitigate hunger is appropriate.
This bill offers several new initiatives and protections to help
developing nations resolve their hunger concerns:
1. To protect developing nations, genetically engineered exports are
restricted to those already approved in the U.S. and approved by the
importing nation.
2. The bill creates an international research fund for sustainable
agriculture research.
3. A developing nation may choose to mandatorily license a genetically
engineered crop for the benefit of its citizens. The bill prohibits any
U.S. intervention that may block the mandatory license.
4. The bill establishes the Sustainable Agriculture Trust Fund with a
small tax on biotechnology company profits. This trust fund will fund
the activities in this bill.
For more information on this bills, please contact the office of
Representative Dennis Kucinich at (202) 225-5871.
If you wuold like to be removed from the NLLC World News email list, please
reply with unsubscribe in the subject matter.
--- End Message ---
