GMW: Gene-Altered Crops Denounced - Washington Post

[Guest guest]

GMW: Gene-Altered Crops Denounced - Washington Post

" GM WATCH " <info

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:10:52 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

---

1.Gene-Altered Crops Denounced - Washington Post

2.Ruling hailed by opponents of genetically altered crops - Star

Bulletin (Hawaii)

---

---

1.Gene-Altered Crops Denounced

Environmental Groups Seek Moratorium on Open-Air Tests

By Rick Weiss

Washington Post, August 16 2006; Page A03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081501053.\

html

 

Environmental groups yesterday called for a moratorium on open-air

tests of crops genetically engineered to produce medicines and vaccines,

citing a federal court's conclusion last week that the Agriculture

Department repeatedly broke the law by allowing companies to plant

such crops

on hundreds of acres in Hawaii.

 

In a toughly worded 52-page decision released without fanfare late last

week, a U.S. District judge in Hawaii concluded that USDA's Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which grants permits for the

planting of genetically engineered crops, should have first investigated

whether the plants posed a threat to any of that state's hundreds of

endangered species.

 

The corn and sugar cane plants, already harvested because the

experiments involving them were completed before the case was decided,

had been

modified to produce human hormones, drugs and ingredients for vaccines

against AIDS and hepatitis B.

 

" APHIS's utter disregard for this simple investigation requirement,

especially given the extraordinary number of endangered and threatened

plants and animals in Hawaii, constitutes an unequivocal violation of a

clear congressional mandate, " wrote Judge J. Michael Seabright in his

Aug. 10 decision.

 

The ruling is the first by a federal court on the controversial

practice of " bio-pharming, " in which crops are engineered to produce

potentially therapeutic human proteins. But it is not the first

damning federal

critique of APHIS's oversight. A December 2005 audit by the Agriculture

Department's Office of Inspector General found multiple failings in the

agency's enforcement of research rules for gene-altered plants.

 

APHIS spokeswoman Rachel Iadicicco said yesterday that the agency had

already corrected the major problems cited in the 2005 report and had

recently made policy changes to satisfy the court's concerns, as well. In

addition, she said, APHIS is crafting a sweeping " programmatic "

environmental impact statement addressing larger, long-standing

concerns about

its oversight of biotech crops.

 

But opponents said they have heard such assurances before.

 

" We are asking the judge to enjoin the issuance of any biopharma

permits anywhere in the country unless and until APHIS completes a

programmatic analysis of their regulatory program, " said Paul H.

Achitoff,

managing attorney for Earthjustice in Honolulu, which litigated the

case with

the Washington-based Center for Food Safety.

 

The judge has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday to decide what remedies

to impose.

 

The court ruling is the latest in a decade-long struggle that has

pitted biotech companies against an uneasy coalition of environmentalists

and conventional food producers and distributors.

 

Advocates believe that some drugs and vaccines may be produced more

economically in crops than in the laboratory cultures that are commonly

used today. Some even envision " edible vaccines, " such as bananas laden

with proteins that would boost blood levels of protective antibodies --

an attractive strategy for developing countries, where the

refrigeration needed for many conventional vaccines is often not

available.

 

But opponents fear that ordinary crops may become contaminated with

drug-spiked versions grown in open fields, and that unwanted drug

exposures from foods could trigger allergic reactions or other

problems in

people or animals.

---

---

2.Ruling hailed by opponents of genetically altered crops

By Tom Finnegan

Star Bulletin (Hawaii), August 13 2006

http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/15/news/story03.html

 

A Honolulu federal court ruling will make it harder to win permits to

grow genetically engineered crops across the country, environmental

watchdogs said yesterday.

 

The ruling, by Judge J. Michael Seabright in a 2003 case pitting three

environmental groups against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, found

that permits filed in 2001 by four Hawaii seed companies violated

federal law.

 

Seabright said in last week's decision that the USDA should have at

least considered the impact on endangered species and the human

environment, as required by federal law, before issuing the four permits.

 

The permits to field-test corn and sugar cane engineered to produce

experimental vaccines, proteins, hormones or drugs for diseases such as

HIV, hepatitis B and cancer expired in 2003. The permits gave the

companies the ability to plant more than 800 acres on controlled sites on

Kauai, Oahu, Molokai and Maui. This type of farming is generally known as

biopharming.

 

Currently, no one is biopharming or growing crops to produce drugs in

Hawaii. Companies produce seeds here only for human and animal

consumption.

 

Still, last week's decision will be far-reaching, said Honolulu

Earthjustice Managing Attorney Paul Achitoff, whose office is handling

the

case for the environmental nonprofits.

 

" The days of rubber-stamping these (genetically engineered crop

permits) are over, " Achitoff said yesterday. " Whenever (the USDA)

proposes to

issue permits, they're going to have to examine their impact. "

 

Achitoff said he believes the decision will force the USDA to hold

public hearings on each permit as part of the National Environmental

Policy

Act, one of the federal laws the USDA violated.

 

That would be a huge win for opponents of genetic engineering, since

more than 6,000 negative comments were received when the USDA asked the

public to comment on field-testing these biopharming products in 2003,

according to Seabright's ruling.

 

Seabright reserved judgment on the permitting process. A separate

hearing on that issue is scheduled for next Tuesday.

 

Hawaii biotech advocates say they are not worried by the decision and

that their products are safe.

 

Before biotech products are marketed, they undergo seven to 10 years of

safety testing, said Rick Klemm, executive director of Hawaii Alliance

for Responsible Technology, an agricultural trade alliance.

 

Some 31 regulatory agencies in 17 countries, as well as prominent

international scientific authorities, have stated that biotech crops

are as

safe as conventional crops, he said.

 

Besides, Klemm said, the violations outlined in the decision " were

procedural " and did not involve " any harm to human health and safety

or the

environment. "

 

The USDA still issues permits to biopharm across the country, he said,

and in his view Seabright said it was " quite reasonable " to do so.

 

According to the Web site for the USDA Animal Health and Inspection

Service -- the branch entrusted to regulate genetically engineered crops

-- there is a rigorous process to regulate biopharming, including

inspections, audits and oversight, and its task is to make sure the

products

do not contaminate surrounding areas.

 

Between 1991 and July 2005, more than 90 permits for biopharming, or

" pharmaceutical and industrial crops, " have been issued across the

country, according to the USDA site.

 

 

 

 

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