Franken Foods: Don't rely on Uncle Sam, says Nature/Illegal and Undetectable

[Guest guest]

GMW: Don't rely on Uncle Sam, says Nature/Illegal and

Undetectable

 

" GM WATCH " <info

 

Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:41:15 +0100

 

 

 

Don't rely on Uncle Sam, says Nature/Illegal and Undetectable

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http;//www.gmwatch.org

------

1.Don't rely on Uncle Sam - Nature editorial

2.EU may move soon vs. suspect corn imports - AP

3.Illegal and Undetectable GM Maize Contaminates Exports - Gaia (useful

summary)

 

EXCERPTS

" Some scientists are shocked that this oversight (illegal Bt10 in the

food chain) could have been allowed to persist for so long without

detection. One might think that the US federal government, a

long-standing

champion of agricultural biotechnology, would be hopping mad about the

mistake, and keen to get the facts out to satisfy sceptics around the

world that it now has the situation firmly under control. Think again. "

- editorial in the journal NATURE (item 1)

 

" The USDA, meanwhile, sees itself primarily as a promoter of US

agriculture... Its press office could be taking its line straight from

Syngenta: 'The system is working,' a departmental spokesman said late

last

month of a process that has taken four years to unearth the cultivation

of an unapproved crop. " - NATURE (item 1)

 

" The company should be forced to reveal how Bt10 got on to the market

in the first place, and why it then took four years to discover the

mistake. So far, we've heard nothing on the former, and Syngenta has

attributed the belated discovery of its inadvertent release of Bt10 to

progress in

the technology that it uses to monitor seeds. If true, this explanation

will come as news to anyone who had assumed that the

agricultural-biotechnology industry had known from the start what

transgenes it was

putting into its seeds. If the discovery was simply a matter of

happenstance, we can have little confidence that similar problems

won't occur

again. " - NATURE (item 1)

 

" what we are talking about is that the concerned imports from the U.S.

would have to be accompanied by an analytical report from an accredited

lab certifying that they are free of Bt10. " - EU spokesman, Philip Tod

(item 2)

------

1.Don't rely on Uncle Sam

Nature 434, 807 (14 April 2005)

 

European regulators should pursue their own investigation into how the

'wrong' genetically modified corn was allowed on the market for years.

Unfortunately, their US equivalents show little sign of rising to the

challenge.

 

Given widespread unease among the European public about genetically

modified crops, you'd have expected the news that unapproved batches of

transgenic seed containing a gene for antibiotic resistance had been

shipped from the United States to Europe to have provoked a vigorous

official response.

 

So far, however, reactions from Brussels have been equivocal. Markos

Kyprianou, the European commissioner responsible for health and

consumer

protection, started strongly, declaring that he " deplores " the

inadvertent release of unapproved seed in the European Union (EU). But

since then, his spokesman has sent mixed messages. First, he simply

expressed confidence in the ongoing US investigation into the incident;

only later did he state that the European Commission is itself

vigorously demanding more information from the company responsible about

what happened.

 

The spokesman's second statement is appropriate; the first seems

inadequate. This incident points to fundamental problems with the

regulatory

framework for agricultural biotechnology in the United States. And the

response of the agencies involved gives little confidence that these

problems are being seriously addressed.

 

The facts of the case are these: from 2001 until late last year, a US

subsidiary of the Swiss firm Syngenta allowed American farmers to plant

15,000 hectares of corn, or maize, that had been modified with an

unapproved version of a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus

thuringiensis that codes for an insecticidal protein (see Nature 434,

423; 2005). Small batches of the unapproved seed were also exported to

Europe.

 

After Nature revealed this mistake, Syngenta claimed that there was no

significant difference between the approved genetically modified corn,

called Bt11, and the corn that had been inadvertently released, called

Bt10. Only later did the company admit that Bt10 differs from Bt11 in

that it contains an additional gene that confers resistance to the

antibiotic ampicillin (see Nature 434, 548; 2005) - a difference that

most experts agree is of some significance.

 

System error

 

Some scientists are shocked that this oversight could have been allowed

to persist for so long without detection. One might think that the US

federal government, a long-standing champion of agricultural

biotechnology, would be hopping mad about the mistake, and keen to get

the facts

out to satisfy sceptics around the world that it now has the situation

firmly under control.

 

Think again. The US regulatory system divides responsibility between

three different agencies, which have collectively failed to respond

adequately to this incident. Under a framework introduced during the

administration of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the US

Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) and

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) between them share

responsibility for the approval and monitoring of genetically modified

crops.

 

Broadly speaking, the USDA checks to see whether a transgene should be

regarded as an agricultural 'pest'; the EPA considers the safety of

proteins that can act as pesticides, such as the bacterial toxins

expressed by Bt10 and Bt11; and the FDA is responsible for regulating

other

food safety aspects of transgenic crops.

 

The FDA has some justification in taking a back seat in the US

investigation, noting that the toxin in Bt10, as a pesticide, falls

outside

its jurisdiction, and judging - quite reasonably - that the

antibacterial-resistance gene in Bt10 does not represent a food safety

problem.

 

The USDA, meanwhile, sees itself primarily as a promoter of US

agriculture and related commercial interests - a self-image that has

so far

been reflected in its handling of this case. Its press office could be

taking its line straight from Syngenta: " The system is working, " a

departmental spokesman said late last month of a process that has

taken four years to unearth the cultivation of an unapproved crop. Using

the

time-honoured technique for burying uncomfortable information, the

USDA chose to release news of its decision to fine Syngenta $375,000 for

its error on a Friday afternoon.

 

Root cause

 

That leaves the onus on the EPA to investigate the matter. In theory,

it has the technical expertise and the legislative authority that it

needs

to function effectively. But in practice, the EPA's efforts in

regulating transgenic crops are mostly devoted to premarketing

approvals.

According to well-informed critics, the agency has few

resources to devote to the Bt10 investigation. This does little to

dispel the message of a story carried on 23 March by the satirical

website The Onion (http://www.theonion.com), which suggested that the

EPA

had announced that it would henceforth be known as The Agency.

" We're not really 'environmental' anymore, and we certainly aren't

'protecting' anything, " read a quote mischievously attributed to an

agency

official.

 

Given the state of the US investigation, the European Commission

should establish the relevant facts to its own satisfaction. Syngenta,

after

all, is a European company - albeit one with headquarters in

Switzerland, a non-EU state not known for the transparency of its

corporate

sector. The company should be forced to reveal how Bt10 got on to the

market in the first place, and why it then took four years to

discover the

mistake.

 

So far, we've heard nothing on the former, and Syngenta has attributed

the belated discovery of its inadvertent release of Bt10 to progress

in

the technology that it uses to monitor seeds. If true, this explanation

will come as news to anyone who had assumed that the

agricultural-biotechnology industry had known from the start what

transgenes it was

putting into its seeds. If the discovery was simply a matter of

happenstance, we can have little confidence that similar problems

won't occur

again.

 

Thankfully, on this occasion we're not dealing with a threat to public

health. But the incident will further undermine public confidence.

Covering up the circumstances of the current incident may in the short

term make life more comfortable for Syngenta and for the regulators who

were supposed to prevent the release of unapproved seed. But the

long-term prospects for the application of plant genetics would be better

served by firm regulation and a degree of candour that has so far been

sadly lacking in the performance of the main players in this case.

------

2.EU may move soon vs. suspect corn imports

The Associated Press/BRUSSELS, Belgium

By RAF CASERT

Associated Press Writer

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D89EK4LG0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_\

down

 

APR. 13 12:01 P.M. ET The European Union said Wednesday it could decide

by the weekend to ban U.S. shipments of suspect corn gluten animal feed

unless it has full assurance that the imports are free of the Bt10

unauthorized genetically modified corn.

 

The move could affect millions of euros (dollars) in corn gluten

exports. Shipments totaled 347 million euros ($450 million) last year.

 

The dispute centers on a batch of Bt10 that Swiss agrochemicals company

Syngenta AG inadvertently sold in the United States and exported to

Europe without approval. The EU has said that, at the moment, it knows of

no foolproof way to detect Bt10 and wants to keep the unauthorized

strain out.

 

The EU head office is preparing measures to counter the threat and

hopes to have them approved by late Friday, said EU spokesman Philip Tod.

 

Although no specific measures have been approved, Tod said that " what

we are talking about is that the concerned imports from the U.S. would

have to be accompanied by an analytical report from an accredited lab

certifying that they are free of Bt10. "

 

Yet, even if the corn gluten exports get approval from U.S. certified

labs, EU member states could still demand more checks.

 

The EU head office is in constant contact with U.S. authorities about

the issue. A ban on corn gluten imports could further strain

trans-Atlantic trade relations.

 

Syngenta said last week it had reached a settlement with the U.S.

government over the inadvertent sale to farmers of Bt10, which has not

been

approved by American or European regulators.

 

The company said in a statement that under the settlement reached with

U.S. authorities, it would pay a fine of $375,000 and teach its

employees the importance of complying with all rules.

 

However, the EU has been annoyed that U.S. authorities allowed the

export of Bt10 to Europe after it was mixed up with an authorized

Syngenta

maize labeled Bt11.

 

About 1,000 tons of animal feed and food products such as oil and flour

containing the corn are thought to have entered the EU since 2001.

 

The case has underscored European concerns about biotech foods, coming

shortly after the EU relaxed restrictions on genetically modified

organisms.

 

Greenpeace urged the European Union on Tuesday to ban all food crop

imports from the United States amid concern over the shipments.

------

3.Illegal and Undetectable GM Maize Contaminates Exports

Gaia <gaia

 

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

 

A huge scandal has broken out and become even more shocking as details

emerge about the scale of the crisis and the subsequent attempts to

cover-up or ignore the issue. This case demonstrates that GM corporation

Syngenta cannot be trusted, that the US Department of Agriculture is

complicit in allowing illegal contamination, and EU legislation on

Biosafety is insufficient to protect consumers from potential disasters.

 

Towards the end of March, it emerged that Syngenta had accidentally

been selling an unapproved variety of GM maize, Bt10, along with an

approved variety, Bt11. Apparently this had been going on for 4

years, and

the company had known about it for the last 4 months, without making it

public. Syngenta claimed that since the amount was " very small " , that

the gene was " identical " to Bt11, and that the maize was destined for

animal feed there was no risk involved.

 

However, it has since emerged that the situation is much more serious

than Syngenta originally admitted. In fact, 150,000 tonnes of

contaminated Bt10 grain have been distributed. And the Bt10 GM crop is

significantly different from Bt11. Not only is the transgene in a

different

place on the genome and not been tested for safety, but it also contains

a gene for resistance to the antibiotic Ampicillin, which is widely

used in medicine. Furthermore, as the Bt10 was being sold as Bt11, which

is a sweetcorn variety for human consumption, it is likely that

consumers have been eating Bt10 without knowing it.

 

The alarm was raised in the European Union, where Bt11 has been

imported for nearly a year now, since regulations were relaxed. The

European

Food Safety Authority has recommended that antibiotic-resistance marker

genes should not be used in GM foods, so Bt10 is unlikely to ever have

commercial approval in the EU. But because Bt10 is an unapproved

variety, the EU authorities do not currently have the necessary data

to test

imports for this potentially dangerous GM food. The EU and Japanese

authorities have been asking Syngenta for the necessary data so that

testing of imports can be carried out – but the company so far has

refused

to comply.

 

As a result, EU countries may now require all US maize imports to be

certified free of Bt-10, or US GM maize imports may be stopped altogether

for some time.

 

Best wishes,

Teresa

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------