Fwd: GMW:_Gene_Ecology_taking_off/Scientists_slam_Bush_again/US_regs_inadequate

[Guest guest]

Subject:

GMW:_Gene_Ecology_taking_off/Scientists_slam_Bush_again/US_regs_inadequate

" GM_WATCH "

Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:54:37 +0100

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

" Bayer's decision not to commercialize its GM corn in UK will be music to the

ears of the anti-biotech lobby in Europe. This is precisely what they have been

dreaming of for long. " - see item 4

 

1.Gene-ecology agreement circles the globe

2.Concern is more than just 'ruffled feathers'

3.GM Regulation in US Falls Short, Report Says

4.Syngenta man on Bayer pull out

---

1.Gene-ecology agreement circles the globe

DAVID CYRANOSKI

Nature 428, 6 (04 March 2004); doi:10.1038/428006b

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6978/full/\

428006b_fs.html

 

Thirty hours of flight time separate Tromsø in Norway and Christchurch in New

Zealand. But researchers in the two cities have unearthed a common interest —

gene flow — that springs from their respective positions as gateways to pristine

polar regions.

 

And last week, at the first meeting of parties to the biosafety protocol (see

Nature 428, 6; 2004), they agreed to team up to help other nations assess the

risks of genetically modified organisms.

 

The Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology (GenØk), based at the University of

Tromsø, and the New Zealand Institute of Gene Ecology at the University of

Canterbury in Christchurch, signed an agreement with the United Nations

Environment Programme

to help poor countries build the infrastructure needed to test genetically

modified organisms against environmental safety standards.

 

The two institutes have pioneered the new and contentious field of gene ecology,

a discipline that includes the study of how consumption of transgenic foods

affects the genes and long-term health of animals. " We start out by looking for

differences where other groups assume everything will be the same, " says Terje

Traavik, scientific director of GenØk. The subdiscipline combines genetics,

biochemistry, ecology and social analysis of related issues, he says.

 

The collaborators have received 5 million kroner (US$700,000) for the project's

first year from the Norwegian government, and hope this will be renewed

annually.

---

2.Concern is more than just 'ruffled feathers'

Correspondence

Nature 428, 255 (18 March 2004); doi:10.1038/428255a

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/\

428255a_fs.html

 

Sir – Your News story " Scientists slam Bush record " (Nature 427, 663; 2004)

reports on the statement by 63 prominent scientists accusing the Bush

administration of " misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge " . John

Marburger, the

administration's head of science and technology policy, quickly responded to the

initiative from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) by dismissing the move

as political and simply the result of a few individuals having their " feathers

ruffled " , according to the New York Times.

 

A similar response greeted Congressman Henry Waxman's like-minded report last

August.

 

The administration's response to the UCS initiative shows that nothing short of

a broad-based condemnation will deter this administration's misuse of science.

 

We are PhD students and postdocs at Stanford and the University of California,

Berkeley, who are attempting to publicize the widespread alarm of scientists at

the Bush administration's use of science (http://www.scienceinpolicy.org). We

have examined a broad range of environmental issues and uncovered a pervasive

pattern of misuse, suppression and contradiction of science, including that

performed by the administration's own researchers.

 

This is not about a few " ruffled feathers " . At the time of writing, more than

1,000 scientists, from all 50 US states and from around the world, have signed

our statement decrying the Bush administration's misuse of science.

 

Many of us are publicly funded researchers who feel that, if the current US

administration is abusing science to justify its policies, we have a moral

responsibility to speak out.

 

We invite you to join in these efforts to restore scientific integrity to US

policy-making.

 

Kai M. A. Chan & Stephen Porder

Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California

94305-5020, USA

 

Paul A. T. Higgins

151 Hilgard Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3110, USA

 

Sasha B. Kramer

Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California

94305-5020, USA

---

3.Biotech Regulation Falls Short, Report Says

Pew Study Calls for Better Oversight

By Justin Gillis

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, April 1, 2004; Page E03

 

Federal regulation of the increasingly exotic products of the biotechnology

industry may soon be inadequate to assure the public the products are safe,

according to a new report.

 

Opinion in Washington is sharply divided on whether the 18-year-old biotech

regulatory system can be fixed with administrative tweaking or whether

Congress needs to pass new laws, said the report by the Pew Initiative on Food

and Biotechnology, a think tank. But either way, the report cites

numerous examples to make the case that action by the federal government is

needed to ensure credible oversight of an industry that is tinkering with

the very foundations of life.

 

" The regulatory system isn't broken, but it is showing signs of wear and tear, "

said Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Pew Initiative, which has

taken a centrist position in weighing the risks and benefits of agricultural

biotechnology.

 

The need for fixes is likely to grow pressing as the industry develops

gene-altered fish and insects, farm animals that produce human drugs in

their milk, and plants that make drugs or industrial compounds in their leaves

and seeds, he added. A handful of these products are already in the late stages

of development, but for many of them, federal agencies have produced no final

guidance on how -- or even whether -- they will be

regulated.

 

The Pew report, to be formally released today, is the most detailed analysis in

years of a plan devised during the Reagan administration to oversee the new

crops scientists were designing in their laboratories. The heart of that plan

was to reinterpret existing laws, some of them passed decades earlier, to apply

to the new technology. The result was a patchwork regulatory system that split

jurisdiction among three agencies, all using different laws and standards.

 

The crops commercialized under that system have included corn, soybeans, cotton

and other plants into which new genes have been inserted to confer

better resistance to weeds and insects. Americans have been eating such foods

for nearly a decade, but polls show most don't know it. Europeans have

been more aware -- and more skeptical -- of the crops, with European politicians

repeatedly citing the perception that the U.S. regulatory system

is weak to oppose the technology in their own countries.

 

While maintaining that the current crops are safe to eat, biotechnology and food

companies have feared a repeat of the controversy as new biotech

animals near commercialization. That is one reason the industry is among those

pressing for clearer regulations.

 

One proposal for tighter regulation of biotech crops was endorsed several years

ago by virtually every group with a stake in the issue: the biotech

industry, the food industry, environmentalists and consumer groups. The proposal

was nearing approval as the Clinton administration left office, but

the Bush administration has not acted on it.

 

Thomas Hoban, a sociologist and food scientist at North Carolina State

University who has followed public opinion on biotech issues for years, said

he visited the Food and Drug Administration last week to brief lower-level staff

members. He described polls showing rising public unease with

agricultural biotechnology. The staffers, mostly scientists, " were livid " that

the Clinton-era proposal had languished, he said. " The scientists are saying,

'We need it,' " Hoban said.

 

Forthcoming products, ranging from a salmon designed to grow twice as quickly as

normal to plants designed to act as medicines, are likely to pose tricky new

issues of safety and public confidence, but the FDA has been slow to clarify how

it will regulate some of these products, he said. " I want a much, much stronger

FDA on this, as do most consumers, " Hoban said.

 

Several people in Washington trade groups, speaking on condition that they not

be identified because they need to maintain good relations with the FDA,

said the process of creating new rules had been bogged down by disagreement

between some of the scientists in the agency and the FDA's general counsel,

Daniel E. Troy. Troy is said to be more cautious about expanding the FDA's

authority to regulate various products.

 

Before joining the Bush administration, Troy was a lawyer who sometimes

represented tobacco and pharmaceutical companies in disputes with the FDA.

He declined requests for an interview through an agency spokesman. The

spokesman, Brad Stone, issued a statement saying " the agency and the

administration are carefully weighing the public health, scientific and legal

ramifications of this technology. " The statement said this review

would necessarily take time, but it added that " the agency is prepared to take

any appropriate measures necessary to protect the public health. "

 

Indeed, it is clear that the Bush administration is well aware of many of the

looming issues, and the White House science office is leading discussions aimed

at clarifying government regulations.

 

Perhaps the biggest dispute now is how to regulate genetically engineered

animals, such as fish meant for human consumption and farm animals genetically

altered to produce human drugs in their milk.

 

Two plans have been widely discussed in Washington. One would create a system of

voluntary consultations between the FDA and the biotech industry. That plan,

similar to the approach the FDA takes now for biotech crops, enjoys little

support among industry, consumer or environmental groups, but it is something

the FDA clearly has legal authority to do. A stricter plan, favored by virtually

all groups, would regulate the animals under a statute originally designed for

new animal drugs, and would involve detailed, mandatory reviews of food safety.

But it would also require a creative interpretation of the laws governing the

FDA.

 

The Pew report said it's not clear that even the stricter approach would provide

for an adequate review of environmental questions involving

gene-altered animals, one reason some groups want Congress to pass a new biotech

law.

---

4.Syngenta man on Bayer pull out

 

The following e-mail was posted on CS Prakash's AgBioView list. It comes from

Dr. Sivramiah " Shanthu " Shantharam who is both the President of Biologistics

International and the Regulatory Compliance Manager at Plant Sciences Division,

Syngenta Basel, Switzerland.

 

Until recently, he was the Head of Stakeholder Relations and Technology

Communications in the same company. He has also been responsible for developing

" public affairs and communications strategies " for Golden Rice. You get the

picture.

 

Prior to joining Syngenta, Shanthu Shantharam was employed with the US

Department Agriculture’s Biotechnology Regulatory Program in Washington for 14

years.

 

Note how he relates the concerns over GMOs purely to Europe as if there were no

conerns in his native India, in Africa or elsewhere in the South.

 

RE: Bayer decides against GM crop cultivation in the UK

Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:45:16 -0800

" Sivramiah Shantharam "

 

 

Déjà vu! All Over again!

 

Bayer's decision not to commercialize its GM corn in UK will be music to the

ears of the anti-biotech lobby in Europe. This is precisely what they have been

dreaming of for long.

 

If Governments support GM technology based on sound scientific advise and add

caveats (to please detractors and opponents) that makes it prohibitively

expensive to comply with it is as good as banning it for reason other than

safety is a sure way to kill the development of technology. Similar thing has

just happened in Germany where restaurants are asked to label any food that

contains GMO.

 

Now, what kind of approval is this? Do the authorities stop to think how

impossible is it to comply with these unscientific regulations? The cost of

regulations is going through the roof at this rate, and it is given that if

developing countries adopt such rules on labeling, and

segregations after KL biosafety protocol meetings, then there is no hope for

large scale commercialization of GMO there either as the basic

infrastructure to handle commodities are so inadequate to comply with the

requirements.

 

Europeans are doing one thing after another to really kill development.

 

- Shanthu Shantharam, Biologistics International LLC, Ellicott City, MD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today