GE Grass Study Raises Concerns + Fear of Pharming

[Guest guest]

" News Update from The Campaign " <newsupdate

 

GE Grass Study Raises Concerns + Fear of Pharming

Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:56:38 -0500

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

On Tuesday, the National Academy of Sciences published the results of

a newstudy that indicates the pollen from genetically engineered grass

can travelmuch farther than previously believed.

 

The lengthy first article posted below from The New York Times titled

" Genes From Engineered Grass Spread for Miles, Study Finds " goes into

great detail about this discovery.

 

The new research raises concerns about the genetically engineered

grass, but it also poses larger questions about the pollen drift of

other genetically engineered crops.

 

As the article points out, previous tests conducted on one-tenth of an

acre with less than 300 plants of genetically engineered grass showed

the pollen only traveled about 1,400 feet. The new test done on 400

acres with thousands of plants found the pollen drift increased from

1,400 feet to about 13 miles!

 

This huge discrepancy in distance that came from the increased density

of the crops raises concerns that pollen from other crops may travel

much further than previously believed. This is particularly alarming

news for organic farmers who have already been concerned about

cross-pollination of their crops from neighboring fields of

genetically engineered plants.

 

Further, the increased potential for pollen drift that this grass

study documents heightens concerns about the growing of so-called

" PharmCrops " close to food crops.

 

The second article posted below is from the prestigious Scientific

American web site titled " Fear of Pharming - Controversy swirls at the

crossroads ofagriculture and medicine. "

 

The Scientific American article does a good job of pointing out

concerns raised over crops that are genetically engineered to contain

pharmaceutical drugs. However, the article reports on a USDA

regulation that we feel is not accurate.

 

The Scientific American article states: " The new rules also require

that pharmaceutical corn be grown at least one mile away from any

other fields and planted at least 28 days before or after surrounding

corn crops are planted. "

 

Actually the " Proposed Rules " issued by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) in March 2003, indicate the 28 day rule only

applies if the pharmaceutical corn is grown from 1/2 mile to one mile

from food corn.

If the pharmaceutical corn is at least one mile from food corn, no 28

day timeadvancement or delay is required.

 

Here is a link to the March 2003 Proposed Rules if case you would like

to read the lunacy of what the USDA has proposed:

http://www.pharmcrops.com/usda_pharm.pdf

 

The rush to introduce genetically engineered crops into U.S.

agriculture has already created problems with contamination of organic

crops with GMOs.

We must work to prevent this contamination of organic agriculture from

continuing and getting worse. Further, we must fight the introduction

of " PharmCrops " in order to prevent food crops from being contaminated

with pharmaceutical drugs.

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods has set up two

adjunct web sites to help with these battles. Please visit our " Save

Organic Food " and " PharmCrops " web sites.

 

Both web sites contain educational information and ACTION ALERTS you

can send to your members of Congress to put pressure on them to

regulation these genetically engineered crops properly. They can be

found at:

http://www.saveorganicfood.org

http://www.pharmcrops.com

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

E-mail: label

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. "

 

***************************************************************

 

Genes From Engineered Grass Spread for Miles, Study Finds

By Andrew Pollack

 

The New York Times

September 21, 2004

 

A new study shows that genes from genetically engineered grass can

spread much farther than previously known, a finding that raises

questions about the straying of other plants altered through

biotechnology and that could hurt the efforts of two companies to win

approval for the first bioengineered grass.

 

The two companies, Monsanto and Scotts, have developed a strain of

creeping bentgrass for use on golf courses that is resistant to the

widely used herbicide Roundup. The altered plants would allow

groundskeepers to spray the herbicide on their greens and fairways to

kill weeds while leaving the grass unscathed.

 

But the companies' plans have been opposed by some environmental

groups as well as by the federal Forest Service and the Bureau of Land

Management.

Critics worry that the grass could spread to areas where it is not

wanted or transfer its herbicide resistance to weedy relatives,

creating superweeds that would be immune to the most widely used weed

killer. The Forest Service said earlier this year that the grass " has

the potential to adversely impact all 175 national forests and

grasslands. "

 

Some scientists said the new results, to be published online this week

by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, did

not necessarily raise alarms about existing genetically modified crops

like soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. There are special

circumstances, they say, that make the creeping bentgrass more

environmentally worrisome, like its extraordinarily light pollen.

 

Because Scotts has plans to develop other varieties of bioengineered

grasses for use on household lawns, the new findings could have

implications well beyond the golf course. And the study suggests that

some previous studies of the environmental impact of genetically

modified plants have been too small to capture the full spread of

altered genes.

 

Scotts says that because naturally occurring bentgrass has not caused

major weed problems, the bioengineered version would pose no new

hazards. And anyRoundup-resistant strains that might somehow develop

outside of intentionally planted areas could be treated with other

weed killers, thecompany said.

 

In the new study, scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency

found that the genetically engineered bentgrass pollinated test plants

of the same species as far away as they measured -about 13 miles

downwind from a test farm in Oregon. Natural growths of wild grass of

a different species were pollinated by the gene-modified grass nearly

nine miles away.

 

Previous studies had measured pollination between various types of

genetically modified plants and wild relatives at no more than about

one mile, according to the paper.

 

" It's the longest distance gene-flow study that I know of, " said

Norman C. Ellstrand, an expert on this subject at the University of

California, Riverside, who was not involved in the study but read the

paper.

 

" The gene really is essentially going to get out, " he added. " What

this study shows is it's going to get out a lot faster and a lot

further than people anticipated. "

 

One reason the grass pollen was detected so far downwind was the size

of the farm - 400 acres with thousands of plants. Most previous

studies of gene flow have been done on far smaller fields, meaning

there was less pollen and a lower chance that some would travel long

distances. Those small studies, the new findings suggest, might not

accurately reflect what would happen once a plant covers a large area.

 

" This is one of the first really realistic studies that has been

done, " said Joseph K. Wipff, an Oregon grass breeder. Dr. Wipff was

not involved in thelatest study but had conducted an earlier one that

found pollen from genetically engineered grass traveling only about

1,400 feet. That test, though, used less than 300 plants covering

one-tenth of an acre.

 

The effort to commercialize the bentgrass has attracted attention

because it raises issues somewhat different from those surrounding

the existing genetically modified crops.

 

It would be the first real use of genetic engineering in a suburban

setting, for example, rather than on farms. And the grass is

perennial, while corn, soybeans, cotton and canola are planted anew

each year, making them easier to control.

 

Bentgrass can also cross-pollinate with at least 12 other species of

grass, while the existing crops, except for canola, have no wild

relatives in the places they are grown in the United States. And crops

like corn and soybeans have trouble surviving off the farm, while

grass can easily survive in the wild.

 

The bentgrass, moreover, besides having very light pollen - a cloud

can be seen rising from grass farms - has very light seeds that

disperse readily in the wind. It can also reproduce asexually using

stems that creep along the ground and establish new roots, giving rise

to its name.

 

Because of the environmental questions, the application for approval

of the bioengineered bentgrass is encountering delays at the

Department of Agriculture, which must decide whether to allow the

plant to be commercialized.

 

After hearing public comments earlier this year, the department has

now decided to produce a full environmental impact statement, which

could take a year or more, according to Cindy Smith, who is in charge

of biotech regulation.

 

Ms. Smith, in an interview yesterday, said the new study " gives some

preliminary information that's different from previous studies that

we're aware of. " But more conclusive research is needed, she said.

 

Bentgrass is already widely used in its nonengineered form by golf

course operators, mainly for greens but also for fairways and tee

areas, in part because it is sturdy even when closely mown. It is

rarely used on home lawns because it must be cared for intensively.

And creeping bentgrass does not cross-pollinate with the types of

grass typically used on lawns, scientists said.

 

Executives at Scotts, a major producer of lawn and turf products based

in

Marysville, Ohio, said the genetically engineered bentgrass would be

sold

only for golf courses. They said golf courses cut their grass so often

that

the pollen-producing part of the plants would never develop.

 

And because nonengineered creeping bentgrass has not caused weed

problems

despite being used on golf courses for decades, they said, the

genetically

modified version would pose no new problems.

 

" There has been pollen flow but it has not created weeds, " Michael P.

Kelty,

the executive vice president and vice chairman of Scotts, said in an

interview yesterday. He said Scotts and Monsanto, the world's largest

developer of genetically modified crops, had spent tens of millions of

dollars since 1998 developing the bioengineered bentgrass.

 

The questions about the grass come after Monsanto, which is based in

St.

Louis, said earlier this year that it was dropping its effort to

introduce

the world's first genetically engineered wheat, citing concerns by

farmers

that its use in foods might face market opposition.

 

Scotts is also developing genetically modified grass for home lawns,

like

herbicide-tolerant and slow-growing types that would need less mowing.

But

those products still need several more years of testing, Dr. Kelty

said,

adding that the company would avoid types of grass that could become

weeds.

" We don't want to put a product out there that is going to be a

threat, " he

said.

 

Scotts and Monsanto have received some support for their argument from

the

Weed Science Society of America, a professional group, which conducted

a

review of the weed tendencies of creeping bentgrass and its close

relatives

at the request of the Department of Agriculture.

 

" In the majority of the country these species have not presented

themselves

as a significant weed problem, historically, " said Rob Hedberg,

director of

science policy for the society, summarizing the conclusions of the

review.

He said that because people have generally not tried to control

bentgrass

and similar species with Roundup, known generically as glyphosate, " the

inability to control them with this herbicide is a less significant

issue. "

 

Still, the society's report noted that bentgrass could be considered a

weed

by farms that are trying to grow other grass seeds. And the Forest

Service,

in comments to the Agriculture Department earlier this year, said that

bentgrass has threatened to displace native species in some national

forests.

 

John M. Randall, acting director of the Invasive Species Initiative at

the

Nature Conservancy, said bentgrass and related species had been a

threat to

native grasses in certain preserves that the group helps manage,

including a

couple near Montauk Point on eastern Long Island.

 

Other opponents of the genetically modified grass seized on the

results.

" This does confirm what a lot of people feared - expected, really, "

said

Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program for the

Union

of Concerned Scientists in Washington. " These kinds of distances are

eye-popping. "

 

The new study was done by Lidia S. Watrud and colleagues at an E.P.A.

research center in Corvallis, Ore., who were trying to develop new

methods

to assess gene flow, not specifically to study the bentgrass.

 

They put out 178 potted and unmodified creeping bentgrass plants, which

they

called sentinel plants, at various distances around the test farm. They

also

surveyed wild bentgrass and other grasses. They collected more than a

million seeds from the plants, growing them into seedlings to test for

herbicide resistance and doing genetic tests.

 

The number of seeds found to be genetically engineered was only 2

percent

for the sentinel plants, 0.03 percent for wild creeping bentgrass and

0.04

percent for another wild grass. Most of those seeds were found in the

first

two miles or so, with the number dropping sharply after that. Still,

said

Anne Fairbrother, one of the authors of the report, finding even some

cross

pollination at 13 miles " is a paradigm shift in how far pollen might

move. "

 

***************************************************************

 

Fear of Pharming

Controversy swirls at the crossroads of agriculture and medicine

 

By Alla Katsnelson

 

September 20, 2004

Scientific American

 

Farming, one of the world's oldest practices has suddenly found itself

entangled with modern medicine. Imagine this: at your child's

appointment

for a routine vaccination, the doctor proffers a banana genetically

engineered to contain the vaccine and says, " Have her eat this and call

me

in the morning. " Though still far-fetched, the scenario is getting

closer to

reality, with the first batch of plant-made medicines--created by

genetically modifying crops such as corn, soy, canola and even fruits

such

as tomatoes and bananas to produce disease-fighting drugs and

vaccines--now

in early clinical testing

 

Splicing foreign genes into plants is nothing new--biologists have been

doing it for about 25 years. Using the technology to produce

protein-based

medicine could revolutionize the drug industry, proponents say. Plants

are

inherently safer than current methods of using animal cell cultures,

which

carry a risk of spreading animal pathogens; plants also provide a much

cheaper means of production. But fears that these " pharma crops " will

contaminate the food supply are casting shadows on the promise of the

technology.

 

The problem is that containing genes from GM plants seems to be harder

than

scientists expected. Recent data suggest that bioengineered genes

spread

more widely than previously thought. A pilot study released in February

by

the Union of Concerned Scientists (USC) found that more than half of

native

species of corn, soybean and canola tested contained low levels of DNA

from

strains engineered to confer resistance against herbicides. An analysis

published in March established that genetically engineered corn had

found

its way into Mexico despite that country's six-year-old ban on growing

GM

varieties of the crop. And a major review of biologically modified

organisms

conducted last year by the National Academies of Science stressed the

need

to develop better confinement techniques. These findings and others

illustrate the reality that experts are starting to acknowledge: the

way

things are going, maintaining zero levels of contamination from GM

plants

may be impossible.

 

Leaks of pharma crops have occurred as well. Two years ago, USDA

inspectors

found experimental corn plants containing a pig vaccine growing in

nearby

conventional fields in two separate incidents in Nebraska and Iowa.

ProdiGene, the Texas biotech company responsible for the mishaps, was

heavily fined for violating its permit and ordered to destroy 500,000

bushels of soybeans and 155 acres of corn plants. But perhaps more

importantly, the leak shook the public's confidence in the technology.

So

far, no one has shown that current GM crops carry any health risks. But

pharma crops, the new generation of GM plants, raise the safety stakes:

the

proteins spliced into these plants are specifically chosen to target

physiological function.

 

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which

oversees

crops, responded to the ProdiGene incident by revising its regulations

for

growing pharma crops. Companies must now use designated equipment for

planting and harvesting, provide better crop containment training for

growers, and undergo at least five inspections a year. The new rules

also

require that pharmaceutical corn be grown at least one mile away from

any

other fields and planted at least 28 days before or after surrounding

corn

crops are planted. Lisa Dry, spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry

Organization (BIO), says the new rules make drug pharming so distinct

from

producing commodities crops that future contamination is preventable.

And

industry, keen to avoid any further negative publicity, takes

contamination

very seriously. In fact, according to Neil Johnson, regulatory programs

director at APHIS's Biotechnology Regulatory Services, many if not most

companies running field tests for pharma crops currently operate under

tighter restrictions than government regulations demand.

 

But even with stringent compliance by industry, the science of gene

flow

could flout APHIS's rules. Corn in particular, which accounts for about

two

thirds of pharmaceutical crops being tested, has a strong tendency to

cross-pollinate. " Corn is the world's worst organism for this, " says

Norman

Ellstrand, a plant geneticist at the University of California at

Riverdale

and director of the Biology Impacts Center. " When I heard about this,

my

first thoughts were, 'What were they thinking?' " Corn pollen is viable

for

only a few days, and the 28-day segregation requirement provides a good

deal

of additional protection against contamination. But the problem,

Ellstrand

observes, is that there is little actual data on how far genes can

travel.

 

" We're working on isolation standards based on research done in the

1950's, "

declares Joseph Burris, an emeritus professor of seed science at Iowa

State

University who now owns a consulting company specializing in gene

containment issues. " A lot of things have changed. " More recent work is

starting to suggest that genes can travel farther than previously

thought.

One report presented at the First European Conference on the

Co-existence of

Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Crops last

November

found viable corn pollen as high up in the atmosphere as 2,000 meters.

If

pollen is present that high, the researchers say, there may be a chance

that

it can spread over dozens of kilometers if there is enough convection

to

maintain it aloft. " Our fields are factories without walls. We can't

control

the environment, " Burris asserts. " With isolation distances of [1

mile], our

odds of having a problem are very much reduced, but they are not

eliminated. "

 

On the other hand, says Michael Pauly of the Chicago-based biotech

company

Chromatin Inc., current techniques for detecting gene contamination,

such as

PCR, which measures DNA levels, may be too sensitive for our own good.

(Chromatin is developing a novel technique for inserting drug-producing

genes into plants.) " You can detect a level of DNA that doesn't

actually

reflect risk, " he explains. Indeed, people and animals ingest foreign

DNA

with every hamburger they eat. " It's not the nucleic acid that's the

problem, but the protein, " he says, because it is protein, not the DNA

itself, that has a biological effect. Burris, too, notes that the

improvement in detection technology has essentially redefined

contamination.

" We've gotten so abstract about zero contamination. I don't even know

what

that means, " he says.

 

Many researchers, as well as groups including the Union of Concerned

Scientists, the Food Manufacturers of America, and the Consumer Union,

contend that the only measure sufficient to ensure zero contamination

by

pharmaceutical crops would be to avoid developing the technology in

plants

that can find their way into the stomachs of people or farm animals.

But the

biotech industry bristles at the suggestion, countering that oilseed

crops

such as corn not only provide the best medium for obtaining a high

level of

very pure protein, but are also safer because they are so well studied.

" These are the crops that have formed the basis of our culture, our

civilization, our economy. This is our knowledge base, and that is

fundamentally enabling, " Pauly insists.

 

A consensus about how worried people should be about contamination

seems

unlikely to emerge in the near future. When it comes to the risk of

drugs

making their way into the food supply, says Ellstrand, " I wouldn't say

zero

tolerance for all pharmaceuticals, because presumably some of those

things

would be totally benign if they got into the food supply. " Those

products

that might not be harmless, he advises, " should be put into non-foods,

grown

inside of buildings, or simply shouldn't be created in plants at all. "

Margaret Mellon, head of UCS's food biotechnology program, disagrees.

" We

can't have a policy which only allows safe drugs in our food. It has to

be

no drugs. "