Superweeds, Frankenfoods, Biotech Rice + an update on projects at The Campaign

[Guest guest]

" News Update from The Campaign " <newsupdate

Superweeds, Frankenfoods, Biotech Rice + an update on

projects at The Campaign

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:55:51 -0700

 

 

 

 

 

News Update From The Campaign

----------------

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Posted below are three articles. Plus, this News Update will give you a

status report on some current projects at The Campaign.

 

SUPERWEED RISK INCREASES

 

The first article is from the British newspaper The Guardian and is

titled

" Scientists warn of GM superweed risk. " It points out that the use of

the

herbicide glyphosate has " increased from 5,000 tonnes a year in 1995 to

more

than 30,000 tonnes in 2002, and has increased since. "

 

The reason glyphosate use has gone up so rapidly is because of

genetically

engineered herbicide resistant crops such as Monsanto's Roundup Ready

soybeans. Approximately 86 percent of the soybeans grown in the United

States this year are genetically engineered to resist applications of

glyphosate.

 

However, as the article points out, this is setting the stage for 15

weed

species that are resistant to glyphosate to become " a serious problem

unless

a strategy for dealing with them is developed. "

 

'FRANKENFOOD' REVOLUTION STALLS

 

The second article from The Christian Science Monitor is titled

" 'Frankenfood' Revolution Stalls. " It points out that the adoption of

genetically engineered foods has not been as rapid as expected. It

explains

that consumer resistance from around the world is a primary reason for

the

slow spread of this controversial technology.

 

Although the article does not mention this fact, it is important to

note

that only five countries are growing 98 percent of the world's

genetically

engineered crops -- the United States, Argentina, Canada, China and

Brazil.

The other two percent are grown in eight countries -- South Africa,

Mexico,

Australia, India, Romania, Spain, Philippines, and Uruguay.

 

The article states that the " next generation " of biotech crops offering

" better-tasting, more nutritious, or longer-lasting food -- is taking

longer

than the industry's optimists expected. "

 

If the biotech industry does want to eventually bring the " next

generation "

of genetically engineered crops to market, it would be smart for them

to

quit fighting labeling and safety testing on the " first generation "

biotech

crops. If genetically engineered crops are truly safe as the biotech

industry claims, they should be eager to safety test these foods and

proudly

label them. But as long as the biotech industry refuses to do adequate

safety testing and refuses to label them, consumers will continue to

fight

these untested, unlabeled 'Frankenfoods.'

 

The article points out that " rice is poised to become the latest " crop

célèbre " in the ongoing debate over conventional and

genetic-engineering

approaches to feeding the world. "

 

PHARMACEUTICAL RICE

 

The third article from the New York Times is titled " Can Gene-Altered

Rice

Rescue the Farm Belt? " This is an in-depth article about the

development of

pharmaceutical rice and how farmers are hoping that these crops will

help

their economic future.

 

While pharmaceutical rice has much less chance of cross-pollinating

with

food crops than pharmaceutical corn, the potential of contaminating the

human food supply is still very significant. The Campaign opposes the

outdoor growing of ALL genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops. And

even

the pharmaceutical crops grown in confined environments should be

restricted

to non-foods crops such as tobacco.

 

UPDATE ON THE CAMPAIGN'S WEB SITES

 

As you may be aware, The Campaign has three web sites. Our primary web

site

for The Campaign www.thecampaign.org is in the process of undergoing a

major

update incorporating a lot of advanced technology. In a couple weeks,

all of

you who are d to this News Update list will be invited and

required

to re- in order to continue receiving our e-mails. The reason

for

having you re- is that the new technology will allow us to

capture

your e-mail address and zip code. With the zip code, we will be able to

keep

you informed about activities in your area. For example, if you live in

an

area where a key committee member of Congress lives, we will be able to

ask

you to make an extra effort to get the attention of this key decision

maker

to hold hearings on these issues.

 

Further, The Campaign's new web site will provide you access to

multiple

form letters to mail to your members of Congress. Currently when you

mail a

form letter, they generally mail a response form letter back. But with

the

new system, you will be able to send a different response letter back

to the

member of Congress posing different questions. As a result, the member

of

Congress will not be able to send the initial form letter back to you

again.

They will need to go out of their way to create multiple responses. At

some

point in time, they are likely to decide that it is a lot easier to

just

co-sponsor the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act than

having

their staff spend a large amount of time keeping track of multiple form

letter responses.

 

As the saying goes " the squeaky wheel gets the grease. " The Campaign's

new

web site will make it a lot easier for you to be an effective " squeaky

wheel " on the issue of labeling genetically engineered foods.

 

We are also enacting a new " Find An Activist " feature that will make it

a

lot easier for you to connect with other grassroots activists in your

locality. There is a saying that " All Politics Are Local Politics. "

Working

with others in your area can greatly increase the ability to get city

and

country council resolutions passed supporting the labeling of

genetically

engineered foods.

 

Once we get the new version of The Campaign's web site launched, we

will be

updating both the Save Organic Food www.saveorganicfood.org and the

PharmCrops www.pharmcrops.com web sites. We will incorporate some of

the new

technology from The Campaign's web site into these specialty web sites

and

make sure the content is fresh and up-to-date.

 

You may have noticed that we stopped posting all the latest news

articles on

The Campaign's web site at the start of 2005. We were spending a huge

amount

of time posting those news stories and simply did not have the staff

resources

to continue. However, we will soon be bringing this feature back with a

different approach. With the introduction of the new web site, we will

be

shifting the daily news over to the Forums. And we will be recruiting

some

volunteers to act as " News Rovers " for The Campaign. These News Rovers

will

have exclusive access to post articles in the news areas of the Forums.

We

will be telling you more about this in the near future. But we are

confident that

this will be an excellent way of making the latest GMO news available

to you

with minimal expense to The Campaign. And we expect since people will

be

reading the news from the Forums area of The Campaign's web site, many

more

of you will use the Forums to engage in lively debates about the

issues. And

more people will likely network with others about how to move forward

on our

agenda of getting mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.

 

We will continue with these News Updates and relaunch The Campaign

Reporter.

Plus, we will be adding a blog to provide more editorial comments on

developments in the ongoing global battle over genetically engineered

foods.

 

We will also be launching one more new web site as we enter into 2006.

This

will be the www.NoGMORice.com web site. As you will read in the

articles

below, genetically engineered rice will be the next big push from the

biotech industry. China appears poised to move forward with genetically

engineered rice and companies are rushing ahead in the United States on

pharmaceutical rice. The No GMO Rice web site will be an excellent

resource

center for activists from around the world to visit and encourage the

Chinese government and other governments to not move forward on

genetically engineered rice until more research has been done. It

is essential to assure health and environmental safety issues have been

addressed before allowing commercial development of GMO rice for food

or for the development of pharmaceutical drugs.

 

THE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD RIGHT TO KNOW ACT

 

We had hoped that the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act

would

have been introduced before Congress went on their summer break.

However, we

are confident that Representative Kucinich will be introducing it soon

after

they return in September. Further, on a more personal note, it

currently

appears that I will be spending about five hours with Representative

Kucinich and his new bride in early October when he comes to the

Pacific

Northwest. This length of time will allow us ample opportunity to

brainstorm

our strategy to get Congressional hearings on the bill in early 2006.

 

DONATIONS NEEDED

 

As you can imagine, these new web site updates and projects cost

thousands

of dollars. As a 501©(4) political advocacy organization, we are not

eligible to get the large grants that fund most 501©(3) educational

non

profits. So financial support from individual donors is an essential

factor

in our continued existence and forward growth:

http://www.thecampaign.org/donate.php

 

If you have not made a donation to The Campaign in the past year, you

are

strongly encouraged to do so now. We are continuing to offer as a bonus

for

any donation of $10 or more, a free copy of Anita Roddick's popular

book

" Take It Personally: How to Make Conscious Choices to Change the

World. "

This 224-page book has received outstanding reviews and normally sells

for

$24.95. That right, make a donation of $10 or more and get a $24.95

book

delivered to your door, anywhere in the United States:

http://www.thecampaign.org/donate.php

 

Plus, as an added bonus, until the end of August, we will include an

Audio

CD of a lecture by Jeffrey M. Smith called " You're Eating What? " This

is one

of the best presentations we have ever heard on why genetically

engineered

foods may be harmful to human health.

 

A big " THANK YOU " goes out to those of you who have recently donated to

The

Campaign. You should have received your FREE Audio CD by Jeffrey M.

Smith

and the Anita Roddick book by now (or else they are currently on their

way

to you). To those of you who have not yet donated, please take the

opportunity to do so now:

http://www.thecampaign.org/donate.php

 

If you would prefer to mail in your donation, here is a printable form:

http://www.thecampaign.org/donationform.pdf

 

Thanks again for supporting The Campaign!!!

 

Craig Winters

President

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

http://www.thecampaign.org

http://www.saveorganicfood.org

http://www.pharmcrops.com

 

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

 

Scientists warn of GM superweed risk

 

Paul Brown, environment correspondent

Thursday August 18, 2005

 

The Guardian

 

Scientists have identified 15 weed species that are resistant to a

herbicide

widely used on GM crops and are warning farmers they may become a

serious

problem unless a strategy for dealing with them is developed.

 

Some of the most common weed species, including types of ryegrass,

bindweed

and goosegrass either have some strains with a natural resistance to

the

widely used GM herbicide glyphosate or have developed one.

 

Writing in the journal Outlooks on Pest Management, four scientists

argue

there is a danger that by ignoring the threat these weeds pose, farmers

may

be giving them a huge advantage over other plants which are killed by

glyphosate.

 

Even where they did not previously thrive on farmland or were in a

minority

of weeds, farmers may be creating a new niche for them among arable

crops

which would allow them to multiply rapidly.

 

The paper is published alongside an assessment of the three-year

farm-scale

trials of GM oilseed rape, sugar beet and maize in Britain. All three

crops

are glyphosate-resistant and, if the American researchers are right,

would

be troubled by glyphosate-resistant weeds if grown commercially in the

UK.

 

Glyphosate has been used by farmers to kill off weeds for 30 years but

since

the 1990s, when GM crops were modified to resist glyphosate, its use

has

mushroomed.

 

The paper says that worldwide use has increased from 5,000 tonnes a

year in

1995 to more than 30,000 tonnes in 2002, and has increased since.

 

However, intensive use of the herbicide combined with the non-rotation

of

glyphosate-resistant GM crops is expected to increase the problem and

it

will develop on " a global scale, " the paper says.

 

The researchers, based at the State University and the Southern Weed

Research Unit in Mississippi, are concerned that the widespread

usefulness

of an extremely efficient weedkiller will be lost if farmers do not

take

precautions.

 

" The problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds is real, and farmers have to

realise that the continuous use of glyphosate without alternative

strategies

will likely result in the evolution of more glyphosate-resistant weeds.

 

" Even in the short term no one can predict the future loss of

glyphosate

efficiency due to weed species shifts and evolution of glyphosate

resistance, " says Vijay Nandula in the conclusion to the paper.

 

He advises farmers to treat land with additional herbicide to kill off

the

weeds before they multiply sufficiently to cause a problem.

 

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

 

'Frankenfood' Revolution Stalls

 

The Christian Science Monitor

August 15, 2005

by Peter N. Spotts

 

It's the kind of breakthrough scientists often dream about.

 

They have unraveled the complete genetic blueprint for rice — the

staple for

more than half of the world's population. The development — a key to

future

genetic blueprints for other cereals and grains — should make it far

easier

to engineer better, more nutritious crops that could trigger a second

" green

revolution, " whose predecessor — using more traditional farming and

breeding

approaches — is said to be running out of gas.

 

There's just one problem. It's not clear the world is ready for another

food

revolution if it involves splicing foreign genes into crops.

 

" The initial expectation that this technology would be rapidly adopted

turned out to be a bit optimistic, " says Michael Rodemeyer, executive

director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. " We're in a

stall

in the development of new GM foods. "

 

To be sure, farmers are producing more bioengineered crops every year.

Farmers have found many of these genetically modified crops quite

useful. GM

soybeans are cheaper to grow; GM papaya has saved Hawaiian growers from

a

virus that had made their traditional crop unmarketable. But these

remain

first-generation GM varieties with only indirect consumer benefits.

 

The next generation — offering consumers better-tasting, more

nutritious, or

longer-lasting food — is taking longer than the industry's optimists

expected, Rodemeyer adds.

 

The reasons are legion, analysts say.

 

Outside the United States, public reluctance and activist campaigns

citing

everything from environmental concerns to the extensive clout of

multinational corporations have slowed the introduction of GM crops.

This

resistance led Monsanto last year to shelve the first commercially

available

genetically engineered wheat. U.S. wheat growers worried that GM-wary

global

customers would buy elsewhere.

 

Within the U.S., where farmers plant more than 167 million acres of GM

crops, public unease has been less evident. But some analysts expect

that to

change as companies genetically engineer crops to make them more

nutritious

or harness crops to produce compounds for drugs.

 

Second-generation GM crops also pose a tougher scientific challenge

than the

first-generation did. The traits researchers want to enhance are likely

to

involve several genes and complex interactions between the plant and

its

environment.

 

In this political and scientific environment, rice is poised to become

the

latest " crop célèbre " in the ongoing debate over conventional and

genetic-engineering approaches to feeding the world.

 

The new rice genome, pulled together by researchers worldwide under the

umbrella of the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, was

completed

three years ahead of schedule. Researchers say much of the credit for

the

speed goes to Monsanto for making available the rice data it had.

Scientists

picked rice as the first cereal crop to sequence because of its

genome's

relative simplicity. Other, more complex cereals share rice's genes,

often

in the same positions in long DNA assemblies known as chromosomes.

Thus,

rice has the potential to become a Rosetta stone for reading other key

cereal genomes.

 

" That's one of the exciting aspects " about having the rice genome in

hand,

says Sally Leong, a research chemist with the U.S. Department of

Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service lab in Madison, Wis. And

the

international nature of the project has helped build capabilities

within

some key developing countries.

 

Now comes the tricky part, scientifically associating the genes or gene

combinations with specific plant traits and processes. As that

information

becomes available, traditional breeders can use it to identify useful

genes

and then trace their movement through several generations. By using

seedlings alone, researchers speed up traditional breeding. Rice

genetically

engineered by inserting foreign genes, however, may face a tougher

challenge.

 

Several charitable foundations and international research institutes

are

working to enhance the level of " micro- nutrients " — trace minerals

such as

zinc and iron — as well as vitamin A in rice. The enhanced rice could

help

in the fight against malnutrition.

 

Yet golden rice so far has languished, partly because of environmental

concerns. Some of the countries that could most benefit have imposed

regulatory barriers that are too costly for the public project, says

Jorge

Mayer, golden-rice project manager at the University of Freiburg,

Germany.

 

In the U.S., meanwhile, a California biotech company proposing to grow

GM

rice on a 200-acre plot in Missouri was sent packing in April. The rice

had

been modified to produce two synthetic human proteins for

pharmaceuticals.

Anheuser-Busch, worried about contamination of conventional rice,

threatened

to boycott all Missouri-grown rice used in its brewing activities if

the

project was approved.

 

In the quest to ease global malnutrition, too much emphasis is being

placed

on genetic engineering without a sufficient look at the risks and

alternatives, says Doreen Stabinsky, a geneticist by training who

serves as

a science adviser to Greenpeace. " We need a realistic assessment of

what the

technology can and can't do. "

 

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

 

August 16, 2005

Can Gene-Altered Rice Rescue the Farm Belt?

By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO

 

WATSON, Mo. - Like an expectant father, Jason Garst stood in calf-deep

water

and studied the three-foot-high rice plants growing in a flooded field

here.

 

 

It was a curious sight in northwest Missouri, where the growing season

is

considered to be too short for rice. Mr. Garst, a sixth-generation

farmer,

is hoping at least one of the 12 varieties on his test plot will sprout

this

fall. If one does, he will start growing rice plants that have been

genetically engineered to produce proteins found in human milk, saliva

and

tears. Once converted into a powder form, those proteins would be used

in

granola bars and drinks to help infants in developing countries avoid

death

from diarrhea.

 

" I know in my heart that this will be better than anything else we are

doing, " said Mr. Garst, 35, who also farms soybeans and potatoes.

 

The rice project is backed by a private company called Ventria

Bioscience

but also has the support of the state and a local university, which are

hoping to reverse the long decline in the area's farm economy. But the

project has run into opposition from environmental groups and even the

beer

giant Anheuser-Busch amid fears about the health effects of genetically

engineered crops, making Mr. Garst's little rice paddy a piece of a

larger

battlefield.

 

The economic and academic ambitions of the Missouri project make it

unique,

but the arguments echo those heard in similar disputes in Europe and,

increasingly, in the United States. Critics of Ventria's plans are

concerned

that the gene-altered rice could contaminate regular rice crops and

pose a

health risk to consumers, scaring off buyers. Ventria and its academic

partner in the project, Northwest Missouri State University, say they

can

control the potential for contamination. And they say the risks are

minimal

when balanced against the potential for the special rice to help cut

the

costs of drugs and save lives.

 

The debate has a certain urgency in the Farm Belt because it highlights

the

challenge facing much of the region's economy: finding new products

that

will reduce farmers' reliance on commodity crops. As equipment has

become

more efficient and foreign competition has stiffened, farms have

consolidated and profit margins have shrunk, forcing farmers to plant

ever

more acres to squeeze out a living. The genetic engineering work that

Ventria and other companies are doing can add value to products like

rice,

offering farmers a more stable income that does not rely on steep

government

subsidies.

 

" There is no question that this represents a chance to transform the

economy

of the region, " said Mark Drabenstott, director of the Center for the

Study

of Rural America at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. " For

regions

like northwest Missouri, there is not a long list of economic

alternatives. "

 

Despite opposition, Ventria's plans to grow genetically engineered rice

-

eventually to commercial scale - are going forward. The company began

growing rice in North Carolina this summer after getting approval from

the

Agriculture Department. Once Ventria decides where it will grow rice in

Missouri, it will have to apply for a permit from the department, a

process

expected to take two to three months.

 

Dean L. Hubbard, president of Northwest Missouri State, persuaded

Ventria

last year to move its operations from Sacramento to new buildings

planned

for the Northwest campus in Maryville, about 90 miles north of Kansas

City.

 

Seeking a way to reverse the area's slide in population, Dr. Hubbard

teamed

up with Melvin D. Booth, a Northwest Missouri alumnus who previously

ran two

large biotechnology companies. The two approached Ventria about making

it

part of the university's plan to form joint ventures with young

biopharmaceutical companies.

 

Ventria was already considering similar offers from universities in

Georgia,

Louisiana and North Carolina, but Scott E. Deeter, Ventria's chief

executive, agreed to visit the university last August. Mr. Deeter said

that

on the ride from the Kansas City airport, he was intrigued when Dr.

Hubbard

described the university's program to heat and cool the campus using

bio-fuel derived from paper and wood chips.

 

At the meeting, Mr. Garst presented him with a research paper he had

prepared on what it would take to grow rice in northern Missouri. " It

was

very impressive, " said Ning Huang, Ventria's vice president for

research and

development, who was there.

 

Finally it came down to whether Ventria scientists would agree to move

to

Maryville, population 10,000, from California. Next year 13 will move,

including Dr. Huang.

 

Under the agreement reached last November, Ventria will pay farmers

more

than double what they make on their most profitable crop, and pay

Northwest

Missouri $500 an acre for crops grown on university land. The

university is

spending about $10 million to help build a production and teaching

complex,

and the state is kicking in another $10 million.

 

Atchison County, Mo., where Mr. Garst's farmland is, has lost more than

1,000 people, or 14 percent of its population, since 1990. The town of

Watson, once a thriving rural hub with three grocery stores and an

opera

house, has just over 100 people and no place to buy a soda. Most

buildings

have been boarded up.

 

" To reverse the population slide, you have to make it profitable to

farm, "

Dr. Hubbard said. " My dream is that 10 years from now, this rural

economy

has been transformed, that it is vibrant again and people are

renovating

their downtowns. "

 

The fate of Mr. Garst's experimental rice plot has loomed larger since

Ventria encountered resistance to planting its rice in the southern

part of

the state, where rice has traditionally been grown.

 

When the company was considering Missouri as a place to grow its rice,

it

talked to Anheuser-Busch, which uses Missouri rice in its beer. Mr.

Deeter

said Anheuser-Busch initially did not raise any opposition to the

project.

But when Ventria tried to plant rice in southern Missouri this spring,

the

beer maker threatened not to buy any rice grown in the state. The

company

feared a consumer backlash if people thought gene-altered rice could

end up

in their bottles of Bud.

 

For Missouri's farm economy, the risk of growing pharmaceutical rice is

high. More than half of Missouri's rice is sent abroad, to the European

Union and Caribbean countries that are especially sensitive about

genetically modified products.

 

" We are still having to make statements to our customers that the rice

we

export is not genetically modified, " said Carl Brothers, the vice

president

for marketing at Riceland Foods, which markets more than half of

Missouri's

rice. " We are concerned longer term that if Ventria and others get

involved

that will get harder to say. "

 

The two companies reached a truce in April: Ventria agreed not to grow

genetically modified rice within 120 miles of commercial rice crops.

" We can

continue to purchase rice grown and processed in Missouri as long as

Ventria's growing areas remain sufficiently far from commercial rice

production, " said Francine Katz, a spokeswoman for Anheuser-Busch.

 

That deal suddenly made four test plots in the northern part of the

state,

including Mr. Garst's, all the more important, since Ventria's

agreement

with Northwest Missouri State calls for the company to grow 70 percent

of

its rice in the state.

 

To prove to its customers that it would have a diverse supply base,

Ventria

must grow in at least one other location in North America, and is also

searching for a growing area in the Southern Hemisphere to be able to

produce year-round. In June, Ventria planted 70 acres of genetically

modified rice in North Carolina. There, environmentalists continue to

attack

the company, saying the rice poses a threat to other crops and the

human

food chain.

 

Ventria's rice fields are just a few miles from a rice-seed-screening

research center and are also close to two wildlife refuges with large

populations of migrant birds and swans that environmentalists contend

could

transport Ventria's rice seeds into wild areas. Storms and floods,

environmentalists say, could also lead to rice contamination.

 

" Just washing away in a big rain- storm is enough, " said Margaret

Mellon,

director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned

Scientists in Washington. Scientists at Ventria, which is yet to make

any

money from its bio-rice, say rice is among the safest crops for genetic

engineering. Rice stalks pollinate themselves, so the altered genes,

which

are synthetic versions of human genes, cannot be easily transferred to

plants in other fields. And Ventria requires farmers to employ a

" closed

system, " using dedicated equipment and a production process where the

seed

is ground into a powder before it leaves the farm.

 

But critics say that there is no way to guarantee that the farmers will

follow all the government regulations and Ventria's rules, and that

they are

worried about the risk of contamination because it would be hard to

detect.

" We simply wouldn't know if a contamination event took place, " said

Craig

Culp, a spokesman for the Center for Food Safety, in Washington.

 

Dr. Hubbard acknowledged that there are risks, but he said he believed

that

they were minimal.

 

Federal regulations have been tested before, most notably in 2002, when

drug-producing corn made by ProdiGene began sprouting in soybean fields

near

its Iowa and Nebraska sites. The Agriculture Department seized 500,000

bushels of soybeans and assessed the company nearly $3 million in fines

and

disposal costs. Earlier, in 2000, a gene-altered variety of corn that

was

approved for animal feed but not for human consumption was found in

taco

shells and other grocery items, prompting recalls.

 

Mr. Garst is a modern breed of farmer with a master's degree and a

healthy

interest in science. And he himself has done whatever he can to wring

more

from his commodity crops, even trying out a $300,000 tractor that

steers

automatically using a global-positioning satellite to till straighter

rows.

 

" Obviously, you will not see pharmaceutical crops from here to Kansas

City, "

he said of Ventria's project. " But there will be pockets in this area

where

you will see development. If you keep two more farmers in this area it

is

huge - there are four of us now. "

 

 

 

-------------------------------