Guest guest Posted February 6, 2000 Report Share Posted February 6, 2000 - <rachel (AT) rachel (DOT) org> <rachel-weekly (AT) europe (DOT) std.com> Thursday, February 03, 2000 6:37 PM Rachel #685: TROUBLE IN THE GARDEN > =======================Electronic Edition======================== > . . > . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #685 . > . ---February 3, 2000--- . > . HEADLINES: . > . TROUBLE IN THE GARDEN . > . ========== . > . Environmental Research Foundation . > . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . > . Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf (AT) rachel (DOT) org . > . ========== . > . All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to . > . info (AT) rachel (DOT) org with the single word HELP in the message. . > . Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. . > . To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to . > . listserv (AT) rachel (DOT) org with the words . > . SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. . > . The Rachel newsletter is now also available in Spanish; . > . to learn how to , send the word AYUDA in an . > . E-mail message to info (AT) rachel (DOT) org. . > ================================================================= > > > TROUBLE IN THE GARDEN > > Wall Street investors lost confidence in agricultural > biotechnology during 1999.[1,2,3] Agricultural biotechnology is > by no means dead, but investors drove down stock prices of ag > biotech companies during 1999 in a stunning reversal for the > industry. The WALL STREET JOURNAL said Jan. 7, 2000, "With the > controversy over genetically modified foods spreading across the > globe and taking a toll on the stocks of companies with > agricultural-biotechnology businesses, it's hard to see those > companies as a good investment, even in the long term."[2] > > Hardest hit was Monsanto, the St. Louis chemical giant that had > spent 5 years and billions of dollars morphing itself into a > "life sciences" company, betting its future on biotechnology in > pharmaceutical drugs and agricultural crops. As the WALL STREET > JOURNAL wrote December 21, 1999, "Billions of dollars later, that > concept of a unified 'life sciences' company -- using technology > to improve both medicines and foods -- has become an affliction > itself for Monsanto. The crop-biotechnology half of the program > has grown so controversial that Monsanto has agreed to a deal > that is likely not only to push biotech to the back burner, but > also to cost Monsanto its independence. And investors are > reacting harshly."[3] > > Monsanto agreed late in 1999 to merge with Pharmacia & Upjohn, > Inc. and the combined company will be run not from St. Louis but > from Pharmacia headquarters in Peapack, New Jersey. Monsanto's ag > biotech business will be spun off into a separate company and as > much as 19.9% of it will be sold. > > Two other leaders in ag biotech, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant > Novartis AG, and the Anglo-Swiss drug firm AstroZeneca PLC, > announced during 1999 that they will combine their ag biotech > divisions into one and sell it off, "effectively washing their > hands of crop biotechnology," the WALL STREET JOURNAL said.[3] > > Thus by the end of 1999, ag biotech companies found themselves in > trouble, worldwide, for the first time. Here is a short list of > reasons why: > > ** A lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) > forced the release of government documents showing that FDA > scientists had expressed grave doubts about the safety of > genetically modified foods even as the agency was publicly > declaring such foods "substantially equivalent" to traditional > crops.[4] It seems clear from these documents that the scientific > integrity of the U.S. regulatory system has been compromised for > political purposes, to provide a "fast track" for the rapid, > large-scale introduction of genetically modified foods. > > ** The insurance industry has consistently refused to write > policies covering liability for harm caused by genetically > modified organisms. Steven Suppan, research director at the > Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis, > said last June, "It is worth asking what kind of regulatory > system approves for commercialization a technology whose risks > are so undetermined that the products developed from the > technology have not been insur- ed? An intuitive response is that > the U.S. rejection of liability suggests that U.S. agribusiness > and the U.S. government have less confidence than is proclaimed > publicly in the safety of the products approved and in the > integrity of the product review process," Dr. Suppan said.[5] > > ** A growing body of literature has begun to show that > genetically modified crops are creating new kinds of > environmental problems for farmers, and that genetically modified > crops are exacerbating already-severe economic problems on > American farms.[6] > > ** Europeans and others overseas have continued to insist that > the safety of genetically modified foods has not been > sufficiently documented and that import of such foods must be > prohibited, or they must be labeled. The doubts expressed by FDA > scientists, and the growing list of economic and environmental > problems are likely to stiffen European resistance to > genetically-modified seeds, crops, and foods. > > ** It became apparent in 1999 that the public rationale for > promoting genetically modified foods -- that such foods would > "feed the world" -- was based on wishful thinking, not economics. > It is now clear that U.S. genetically modified crops are too > expensive to "feed the world."[6] > > ** The rationale for refusing to label genetically modified foods > came unraveled in 1999 as biotechnology companies began to > announce new crops with special traits (rice with increased > vitamin A, for example). For years, biotech companies, the U.S. > Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Environmental Protection > Agency (EPA), and FDA have argued that labeling genetically > modified foods was impossible because it would require food > companies to segregate genetically modified crops from > conventional crops and it simply couldn't be done. All the crops > were mixed together in the grain elevator, so labeling would be > impossible, they said. > > This silly and disingenuous argument evaporated in 1999. As soon > as biotech firms announced specialty foods created by genetic > engineering, the labeling problem miraculously disappeared. > Labeling is suddenly easy -- indeed, required -- because > consumer's can't be expected to pay premium prices for specialty > foods if those foods aren't clearly identifiable on the grocery > shelf. > > Polls have shown that more than 80% of American consumers want > genetically modified foods labeled as such. Now that labeling is > acknowledged as feasible, will the biotech industry, USDA, EPA, > and FDA bend to the public will and start labeling ALL > genetically modified foods? Not on your life. Government and > industry argue with one voice that labeling is not necessary > because genetically modified foods are "substantially equivalent" > to the conventional foods they have replaced. They even say > labeling would be "misleading" because it would imply that there > are differences between biotech foods and conventional foods. > > Federal regulations governing biotech foods are founded on the > premise that there are no "material differences" between > genetically modified crops and conventional crops. This argument, > it turns out, was thoroughly discredited by FDA scientists before > the regulations were issued. > > The FDA spent 1989-1992 developing regulations governing > genetically modified foods for humans and feed for animals. This > was back when President Bush and Vice-President Quayle were > advocating "regulatory relief" for industry. > > FDA's rules -- which were announced by Mr. Quayle in 1992 -- > allow a biotech company like Monsanto or DuPont to decide for > itself whether its food products are "generally recognized as > safe" (GRAS). If a company decides that its new genetically > modified corn or soybean or potato or wheat is "generally > recognized as safe" then no safety testing is required before the > products are introduced into the food supply. FDA said these > rules -- like all their rules -- are based on "sound science." > > However, during 1999 a lawsuit filed by the Alliance for > Bio-Integrity in Fairfield, Iowa, forced the FDA to release some > 44,000 pages of internal documents for the first time.[4] Among > them was a series of memos from FDA scientists commenting on the > FDA's proposed "substantially equivalent" policy for biotech > foods. > > A key issue is whether "pleiotropic effects" will occur when new > genes are inserted into plants to give the plants desirable new > traits. Pleiotropy means that more than one change occurs in a > plant as a result of the new gene. For example, a gene that > allows a plant to grow better under drought conditions might also > make the entire plant grow smaller. The smaller size would be an > unexpected "pleiotropic" effect. > > FDA regulations assume that pleiotropic effects will not occur > when new genes are inserted into conventional foods such as corn > or potatoes or wheat or soybeans. Therefore, FDA says, > genetically modified crops are "substantially equivalent" to > conventional crops. > > Internal memos make it abundantly clear that FDA's scientific > staff believes pleiotropic effects will occur when new genes are > inserted into food crops. [in the following quotations, words > inside square brackets have been added for clarity but words > inside normal parentheses were in the original memos.--P.M.] > > Commenting on the FDA's proposed biotech regulations in early > 1992, Louis Pribyl, an FDA microbiologist, wrote March 6, 1992, > "It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended > effects.... This is industry's pet idea, namely that there are no > unintended effects that will raise the FDA's level of concern. > But time and time again, there is no data to backup their > contention, while the scientific literature does contain many > examples of naturally occurring pleiotropic effects. When the > introduction of genes into [a] plant's genome randomly occurs, as > is the case with the current [genetic modification] technology > (but not traditional breeding), it seems apparent that many > pleiotropic effects will occur," Dr. Pribyl wrote. "Many of these > effects might not be seen by the breeder [meaning Monsanto or > DuPont or other biotech firm] because of the more or less similar > growing conditions in the limited trials that are performed. > Until more of these experimental plants have a wider > environmental distribution, it would be premature for FDA to > summarily dismiss pleiotropy as is done here," Dr. Pribyl wrote. > > On the same subject, a memo from the Division of Contaminants > Chemistry within FDA's Division of Food Chemistry and Technology > said November 1, 1991, "Pleiotropic effects occur in genetically > engineered plants... at frequencies up to 30%. Most of these > effects can be managed by the subsequent breeding and selection > procedures. Nevertheless, 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 may escape breeders' attention unless > genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for > these changes. Such evaluations should be performed on a > case-by-case basis, i.e., every transformant should be evaluated > before it enters the marketplace." > > Instead of heeding the concerns of its scientific staff, FDA > issued biotech food rules that assume no pleiotropic effects will > occur, therefore no safety testing is required. All biotech foods > are assumed to be safe. The stage was thus set for confidence in > biotech foods to plummet as soon as word leaked out that the > scientific underpinnings of the regulatory system had been > compromised. > > To be continued next week. > > ============== > > [1] I am indebted to Steven Suppan, research director at the > Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis, > who provided me with several brief, thoughtful summaries of the > state of agricultural biotechnology. Contact: ssuppan (AT) iatp (DOT) org. > Telephone (612) 870-3413. > > [2] Christina Cheddar, "Tales of the Tape: Seed Co. May Yet Reap > What They Sow," WALL STREET JOURNAL January 7, 2000, pg. unknown. > > [3] Scott Kilman and Thomas M. Burton, "Biotech Backlash is > Battering Plan Shapiro Thought Was Enlightened," WALL STREET > JOURNAL December 21, 1999, pg.A1. > > [4] The FDA documents are available at > http://www.bio-integrity.org/list.html. And see Marian Burros, > "Documents Show Officials Disagreed on Altered Foods," NEW YORK > TIMES December 1, 1999, pg. A15. > > [5] Steven Suppan, unpublished paper, "National Summit on the > Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods, June 17, 1999, Capitol > Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C. 2 pgs. > > [6] Some of this literature is summarized in Charles M. Benbrook, > "World Food System Challenges and Opportunities: GMOs, > Biodiversity, and Lessons From America's Heartland," unpublished > paper presented January 27, 1999, at University of Illinois. > Available in PDF format at http://www.pmac.net/- IWFS.pdf . > > Descriptor terms: biotechnology; monsanto; dupont; novartis; > pharmacia; astrozeneca; agriculture; hunger; fda; regulation; > labeling; alliance for biointegrity; pleiotropy; > > > ################################################################ > NOTICE > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior > interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. > Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic > version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge > even though it costs the organization considerable time and money > to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service > free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution > (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send > your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research > Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do > not send credit card information via E-mail. For further > information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. > by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at > (410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944. > --Peter Montague, Editor > ################################################################ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.