The Ultimate Biotech Wrap-up for September 8, 1999

CONTROVERSY OVER LABELLING OR BANNING MODIFIED FOODS IS REACHING THE HOUR OF BIG DECISIONS (AgNet)

MP SOUNDS WARNING OVER GENETICS (Waikato Times)

ACCEPTING MONSANTO MONEY NAIVE, SAYS KIRTON (Evening Post)

GENE RESEARCH "NOT ON HOLD" (CSIRO)

MPS RELEASE FUNDING DETAILS OF TRUST (New Zealand Press Association)

UPTON SPEECH MAY ASSIST PROTESTERS (Dominion)

PROBE EXPANDED IN CORN DESTRUCTION (Bangor Daily News)

WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT (Bangor Daily News)

ORGANIC GROWERS PUSH MORATORIUM ON LICENSING GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEED (Saskatoon StarPhoenix)

FARMERS PREFER HYBRID SEED FOR HIGHER YIELDS, FASTER GROWTH (Monsanto India)

EU TO PLACE NEW CURBS ON FEED ADDITIVES (Wall Street Journal Europe)

ASSEMBLY PRESSURE OVER GM CROPS BAN (BBC News)

ITOCHU TO IMPORT SOYBEANS FROM US SUPPLIERS IN OCT-NIKKEI (Nikkei/Dow Jones)

AG BIOTECHNOLOGY CONCERNS SPREAD TO ASIA (Farm Bureau News)

COALITION LAUNCHING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CAMPAIGN THIS FALL (Health & Environment Newswire)

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY 2-3 SEPTEMBER 1999 (Sustainable Developments)

GOVERNMENT GRANTS $1 MILLION FOR BETTER PESTICIDES (CSIRO)

GENE TECHNOLOGY: PICKING WINNERS SAFELY (CSIRO)

AXIS: FIRST BIOTECH GROUP GOES INTO ADMINISTRATION (Financial Times)

GM FOOD EXPERT: WE NEED TOUGHER TESTS (Daily Mail)

GM BACKLASH HITS BIOTECH COMPANY (BBC News)

GM STUDY SCIENTIST BACKS TESTS CALL (Press Association)

MEMO TO MONSANTO (National Post)

NEW RULES THREATEN NATURAL FOOD INDUSTRY (Calgary Herald)

WORK IN PROGRESS (New York Times)

HUNGER CAN BE A POLITICAL ISSUE (New York Times)

CROP-SEPARATION ORDER COMES UNDER FIRE (Spokane Spokesman Review)

ARS ELECTRONICA TRIES ON GENES (Wired News)

SCIENTIST RAISES HACKLES AT ARS (Wired News)

HEMP FOODS GIVING SOY HEADY COMPETITION IN NUTRITION, VERSATILITY (PRNewswire)

GROUP WANTS DIOXIN LEVELS CHECKED (ABC Newswire)

ISP TO ACQUIRE MONSANTO’S ALGINS BUSINESS (PRNewswire)

MONSANTO SELLS ALGINS OPERATION TO INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (PRNewswire)

FRENCH FARMER RELEASED, BIG MAC TURNS ON THE CHARM (Reuters)

EU CONSIDERS TARIFF APPROACH TO END BANANA ROW (Reuters)

HEALTH SOURCE(TM) SHAKES UP NUTRITION AND MAKES SOY PROTEIN CONVENIENT FOR CONSUMERS (PRNewswire)

FIRMS IN EUROPE BACK NEW TRADE ROUND (Reuters)

COURT REVIVES NOVARTIS BREACH-OF-CONTRACT SUIT VS MONSANTO (Dow Jones)
1
CONSUMER ALERT: ADM -- SPECIALTY MARKET TO THE RICH (PRNewswire)

UK FOOD AGENCY MUST WIN CONFIDENCE ON GM - EXPERTS (Reuters)

GRAIN MERCHANTS PAYING UP FOR NON-GMO CROPS (Reuters)

DEUTSCHE BANK REPORT (activist e-mail)

PROGRESS, OR CRIMES AGAINST NATURE? (London Times)

FAILED GM FIRM PAYS PRICE OF BAD PUBLICITY (Guardian)

GM SCIENTISTS SCENT KEY TO FRAGRANT ROSES (Electronic Telegraph)

FRANKENSTEIN FOODS? (Newsweek International)

August 31, 1999
CONTROVERSY OVER LABELLING OR BANNING MODIFIED FOODS IS REACHING THE HOUR OF BIG DECISIONS

Jim Romahn

(from UofG AgNet - no source given - PAP) -- Critics of gene manipulation are, according to this story, beginning to pressure Canada’s food industry.

Ontario’s three largest supermarket chains are deferring to their trade association, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, and the council is looking for a safe perch on the fence.

Nick Jennery of Montreal, the council’s spokesman on the issue, was quoted as saying, "We’re not pro-biotech or anti-biotech. We’re just here to serve the public."

Jennery added that the Canadian food industry faces a "huge task to educate the consumer" and "it’s only got a few weeks to get it done. Everybody needs to get some facts," but said there’s a big debate about how that should be done, he said.

Some companies have already taken stands against GMO crops, including H.J. Heinz and Gerber who say they will stop using them in their baby foods.

Jeff Wilson, spokesman for Loblaws Cos., the largest supermarket retailer in Canada, was quoted as saying "we are monitoring the situation very closely" and referred all additional comment to the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors.

Art Stirling of Chatham, spokesman for Pioneer Hi-Bred, North America’s largest seed corn company, was cited as saying it’s ready because Pioneer has been running dual plant-breeding programs, one using biotechnology to insert genes that result in GMO (genetically-modified organisms), the other using traditional techniques that have so far drawn no public opposition.

Stirling added that Pioneer feels it’s important that farmers have a choice, and that philosophy stands the company in good stead now that consumers and others in the food chain are also insisting on choice. While the current controversy is traumatic, Stirling said it’s "a useful wakeup call to the industry" because new varieties that will be coming soon will have special traits "and we’re going to want to segregate and label" these new varieties. This is a good training exercise."

He predicted the public will be more receptive to some of the new-generation varieties and said the food industry "will market the hell out of these things."

Stirling said a lot of questions about segregation and labelling remain to be answered, including who pays the extra costs, stating, "Pioneer felt all along that the producer needs choices, and resisted intrusions that would limit producer choices." He said Pioneer will continue to offer high-yielding, superior products from its dual approaches to plant breeding.

And he said Pioneer’s experience in handling the complexities of all these different varieties and traits shows the industry how segregation and labelling can work.

John O’Brien, president of the Ontario Grain and Feed Dealers’ Association, was cited as saying that the new demands for GMO-free crops are "opening an opportunity for Ontario to tap world markets" because we already have one of the world’s best grain-segregation systems. Jennery said the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors has been involved in every forum that’s discussed genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and will continue to take an active role, including chairmanship of the Canadian biotechnology information centre. And he noted that the council has published two brochures on the issue, one a joint effort with the Consumers Association of Canada, the other on its own.

While Jennery says "there is a distinct lack of information," the authors of a recent survey that covered North America and Europe say good information is not enough.

They found that the European news media provided far more coverage, and almost all of it pro-biotech, than in North America, yet there has been far more opposition in Europe. They also found that the European public is generally more science-literate than North Americans, which indicates that educating consumers is also not a convincing approach.

Some of the strongest critics in Europe have been anti-establishment lobby organizations, such as Greenpeace, and it’s those types of critics that are now gaining heavy media exposure in Canada and beginning to spook the food industry.

The story says that the Sierra Club’s spokesmen have been quoted in almost every recent Canadian story about biotechnology, always posing questions that raise fears about possible negative side effects.

This prompted Canadian agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief to tell a recent news conference convened to discuss international trade negotiations that regulatory decisions should be based on up-to-date, peer-reviewed science, not emotions.

Vanclief said Canada will be pushing for that kind of international standard when the next round of world trade talks begins in November in Seattle.

But Europe has already shown that it’s willing to pay a price to maintain its ban on North American beef because Canada and the U.S. allow farmers to use growth promotants that have the blessing of peer-reviewed science. Europe has defied the findings of a number of scientific panels to retain its ban on those growth promotants. There has, however, been evidence of widespread cheating by European farmers, and some of it is difficult to detect at the consumer level because the hormones involved are indistinguishable from natural hormones.

The Europeans have approved some crops, but not others. This created a flurry of excitement in Ontario’s corn industry this spring when some grain-trading companies and industrial buyers said they will not buy corn from hybrids that have not received European approval.

The Ontario Corn Producers’ Association led an initiative to ensure these companies would get what they desire to maintain markets in Europe. That includes the Casco plants that extract sweeteners from corn and the Commercial Alcohols plant that distills ethanol at its new plant at Chatham.

September 03, 1999
MP SOUNDS WARNING OVER GENETICS

(The Waikato Times) -- A new kind of property ownership is driving the revolution in genetic engineering, Alliance MP Phillida Bunkle told a 60-strong Hamilton meeting last night.

She sounded a warning at the Trade Union Centre that land ownership would become largely irrelevant, with biotechnology companies and agri-chemical multinationals set to control production through genetic technology, unless restrictions were imposed.

"It is a new kind of property, with a new kind of ownership," she said. "It is privatisation of life forms."

Ms Bunkle said Maori became "dispossessed" in the 19th century because they didn’t understand European concepts of land ownership.

"I believe there is a similar danger that because we are unfamiliar with the concept of this we are losing the whole sense of common ownership of the world’s genetic heritage." Already 34 human genes have been patented.

"Food manufacturers are lining up with seed manufacturers to establish monopolies while political parties scramble to find a safe place to sit on the fence."

September 03, 1999
ACCEPTING MONSANTO MONEY NAIVE, SAYS KIRTON

(The Evening Post) -- A trust part-funded with public money to provide "authoritative" information on gene technology was compromised by accepting money from American biotechnology giant Monsanto, opposition MPs say.

The Gene Technology Information Trust, operating under the name GenePool, has revealed to Parliament’s education and science select committee it received $27,500 from Monsanto between 1997 and 1998.

The Monsanto grant was part of the trust’s income of about $154,000 - $100,000 of which was provided from the public purse via four Crown Research Institutes with interests in biotechnology and $70,000 in Government grants.

Independent MP Neil Kirton said GenePool was "naive in the extreme" to accept money from Monsanto, a company at the leading edge of genetically engineering crops.

"The public were never going to accept the message on gene technology when vested interests were clearly in play," he said.

Mr Kirton was also critical of the trust for spending $189,000 with public relations company Communications Trumps.

During the select committee hearing yesterday he asked GenePool management committee chairman Howard Bezar whether it was a concern that Communications Trumps was "also involved with defending gene technology for other clients".

Mr Bezar said he did not think there was a conflict of interests.

Communications Trumps won the tender to work for GenePool because it had "by far the best credentials" to do the job, Mr Bezar said.

Alliance science spokeswoman Liz Gordon was also concerned the Monsanto link would compromise the work of the trust to provide objective information on complex and controversial subjects such as genetically engineered food.

Mr Bezar said that was considered. "But our philosophy was that we would accept money from whatever sources it came."

GenePool has now ceased operating and is being wound up.

Mr Bezar said the trust had not achieved the success it hoped, partly because it did not have enough funding.

Some private sector groups were reluctant to provide funding because the trust deed prevented GenePool from lobbying, he said.

"Some of the potential funders were saying: ‘Well, we want you to get out there and actively challenge some of the misinformation that is appearing in the press,’ and we said: ‘Hey, sorry, that is not our role. Our role is simply to provide information’," Mr Bezar said.

Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said GenePool was a "discredited" organisation.

Friday, 3 September 1999
GENE RESEARCH "NOT ON HOLD"

(CSIRO Press Release) -- CSIRO is moving ahead with the development of better strains of wheat, barley and other crops using modern genetic technologies, the Chief of CSIRO Plant Industry, Dr Jim Peacock said today.

Dr Peacock was responding to a media report which claimed CSIRO was putting gene technology crops on hold. "CSIRO is not considering ‘holding off’ on releasing genetically modified cereals," he said.

"But we believe the commercial release of genetically modified cereals may be as much as five years away, because it will take this time to develop and test new varieties and ensure all material is rigorously assessed by Australia’s regulatory organisations.

"In the next five years, we will have better crop varieties which use the information gained from gene technology research. This technology is providing researchers with knowledge which explains how plants function, at the molecular level.

"This knowledge allows researchers to develop better varieties through traditional breeding, using new tools. It allows researchers to develop new crops more efficiently and faster and meet breeding objectives that were previously achievable."

Dr Peacock said that as public interest in gene technology increased, the five-year time frame would ensure that the public had access to balanced and accurate information about gene technology.

"CSIRO believes it is essential that Australians feel comfortable with their understanding of this technology in order to decide about the role it will play in their lives," he said.

"CSIRO believes gene technology offers great potential for Australia, its community and industries. It gives us the potential to improve our health, create a safer and more secure food supply, generate greater prosperity and attain a more sustainable environment.

"As scientists working on behalf of Australia and its industries, CSIRO is committed to making our national food supply as clean, safe, wholesome and sustainable as careful research can make it."

More information: Dr Jim Peacock, CSIRO Plant Industry 02 6246 5250

Katrina Nitschke, CSIRO Plant Industry 02 6246 5323 or 0417 240 261

September 04, 1999
MPS RELEASE FUNDING DETAILS OF TRUST

(New Zealand Press Association) -- Opposition MPs have released funding details of a trust set up to provide public information about genetic engineering, saying the figures showed private companies tried to dupe the public into favouring genetically modified foods.

The figures show taxpayers provided $100,000 during the 1997-98 financial year to the trust, called GenePool, while producer boards and private companies -- including American chemicals giant Monsanto -- provided about $40,000. The information was released by members of Parliament’s education and science committee, who said taxpayer funds had been hijacked by private companies. Independent MP Neil Kirton said the funds had been used to run a "blatantly partisan" campaign in favour of genetically modified foods.

September 04, 1999
UPTON SPEECH MAY ASSIST PROTESTERS

(The Dominion) -- OPPONENTS of genetic engineering may have found an unwitting ally in Environment Minister Simon Upton.

Giving the inaugural Robert C Barnard lecture to one of the most prestigious science bodies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in Washington this week, Mr Upton steered protesters to a possible new avenue of protest.

He likened controversy about the possible field production of genetically modified crops to the debate about the decision to keep New Zealand nuclear-free.

"The political reality is that, whatever the assurances about risk, New Zealanders not only want no connection with things nuclear, they have turned the stance to one of positive advantage in promoting New Zealand as a nuclear-free tourist destination and food producer," Mr Upton said.

"Whether that makes any rational sense, it is perceived by some businesses as a real advantage in the marketplace.

"Given the biological nature of New Zealand’s economy, it is to my mind inconceivable that New Zealand would adopt such an approach to the use of biotechnology.

"But there is no question that, given the wide provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, an argument could be mounted against the field release of genetically modified crops on the grounds that any benefits alleged in support of their release were outweighed by the costs to those who sought to maintain a GM- free growing environment."

An application that did not pose significant adverse consequences or raise a risk of undesirable self-sustaining populations would be likely to win approval from the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

"But it would be a Pyrrhic victory if, as in Britain, the result was mindless destruction of the crops once planted."

Threats of vandalism were no basis for a defensible policy, he said.

But, equally, blunt assertions by experts that the risks were acceptable were not persuasive if people felt that the environment they lived in was being exposed "irrevocably and without their consent" to a risk they did not understand.

At the same time, Mr Upton said a ban or moratorium on genetic research would lead to scientific paralysis.

September 04, 1999
PROBE EXPANDED IN CORN DESTRUCTION

Authorities explore similar occurrences of vandalism in other states

ORONO, Maine (The Bangor Daily News) -- Authorities have expanded their investigation into last month’s destruction of an experimental stand of genetically altered corn -- enlisting the assistance of law enforcement agencies where similar acts have occurred.

Detective Chris Gardner of the University of Maine’s Department of Public Safety said Friday he had contacted several state and local agencies beyond Maine borders to assist with the investigation of what university researchers are calling an act of ecoterrorism.

Hacked under the cover of darkness late last month with what appears to be a machete, the half-acre plot at the university-owned Rogers Farm was being used to study the corn’s resistance to the herbicide Round-Up. The corn had been genetically altered to tolerate the popular herbicide.

A previously unknown group calling itself "Seeds of Resistance" claimed responsibility for the damage, calling the destruction the "first in a series of actions."

On Friday, Gardner said he knew of no other similar acts in the state. He said police had questioned several people and were "confident" with the progress of the probe.

The crop’s destruction resurrected an environmentalists’ movement that questions the safety of altering the genetic makeup of the food supply. The UM crop was intended for cattle feed, not for human consumption.

The so-called "Round-Up Ready" corn being studied at the university is legal in Maine and approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Genetically engineered plants differ from conventional plants in that they contain an additional gene or genes, which are spliced into the plant’s DNA. The added genetic material may increase the plant’s size or resistance to pests.

While Gardner would not name the specific agencies with which he was working, he did cite two similar occurences -- one in California and one in Vermont -- in which genetically altered corn was destroyed.

In July, a group calling itself the Lodi Loppers destroyed about an acre of Round-Up Ready corn in California’s central valley.

Vermont State Police are investigating the recent destruction of a private stand of "Bt corn," a crop genetically altered to produce a pesticide thought to be harmful to monarch butterflies. Literature opposing the use of Bt corn was left at the scene, according to news reports.

Use of the insect-resistant corn -- which generally generates more controversy than that grown at the university farm -- has been banned in Maine.

September 04, 1999
WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT

Nancy Oden (lives in Jonesboro)

BANGOR, Maine (The Bangor Daily News) -- When the Mafia kills a rival gang member and says, "Hey, nothing personal, just business," we’re shocked. When corporations put toxic chemicals and genetic mutants into our food, air and water, harming our health and shortening our lives, they say, "Hey, nothing personal, just business so we can make lots of money at your expense, is this any different? Hands up, anyone who thinks Monsanto Chemical Company et al. should be allowed to use University of Maine facilities, at public expense, to "test" their mutant corn and mutant soybeans, which were created solely to increase use of Monsanto’s cancer-causing Roundup herbicide. (Glyphosate, the primary ingredient, is now implicated in non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Citation on request.)

Gosh, I only see three to five hands going up in support of public money being spent to fund research on genetically mutilated crops and how to increase the use of pesticides. Who decides how our money is spent by the university? I think it should be us.

Did you have any say when University of Maine researchers helped Monsanto create and push their fake potato, which contains Bt toxin and genetic material from the antibiotic neuromycin, and is now in potato chips and on store shelves with no labels? Of course not. I doubt people would have supported it, if the truth had been known. We need democratic, public control of what happens at our publicly- funded entities. Jackson Labs, for example. They’re treated like a sacred cow, but what, exactly, are they doing with our millions in grant money? We know they create genetically mutilated mice for labs around the world to buy and torture, oops, experiment on, but what else are they doing, exactly, and for whom?

We also need to know what other biotechnology corporations are doing to Earth’s life forms with our money. It may be all perfectly sane, but we don’t know that. Our rules should be: No more secrecy or no more money. No accountability, no money, No public decision- making, no money. That’s how we need to function to ensure our-the real people’s-needs are being addressed by publicly-funded researchers.

When I eat corn, I want it to really be corn, all corn, not antibiotic or virus genes (common in mutant crops) along with, as in the Roundup Ready Corn plants, potentially toxic petunia genes.

Need another reason for democratic public control? Co-operative Extension’s lead researcher on both the fake corn and fake soybeans project, when asked prior to the corn being cut down, did not know what genes Monsanto had inserted into the corn or soybeans! Therefore, he did not know what genes were in the corn pollen he so carelessly let loose into the open air, with potential to contaminate corn for miles around. He also didn’t know that corn pollen could travel far enough to contaminate other people’s corn. Help! Is this someone you trust with potentially dangerous research projects?

Maine’s taxpayers pay University researchers to work for us full- time. They get paid better than most of us. But they’re allowed to "consult" for corporations and get paid by them as well. Where is their loyalty, then, to us or to the corporations?

We need accountability: who is working for which corporations, how much of our time are they spending on their private consulting work (dock their pay if necessary), is there a possible conflict where they’re being paid by a corporation which might benefit from an experiment’s turning out a certain way, and are they using university facilities for their "consulting"?

This is in addition to public discussion, debate, and decision- making power we need over all university research, because this is how industry owns science. They buy professors, they buy politicians, they put their people into key government agencies.

The university’s experimental farm workers spend their time (our time) doing field work for pesticide and mutant plant corporations- Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, et al. Is this how you want your money spent? Or should it go towards making a better, cleaner, safer life for those of us who live here? It should be up to us to decide. We’re paying the bills. Unless we demand public accountability, we won’t get it.

We’re losing ground every day in the war to keep our water clean (and even keep our water!), our air breathable, our food and bodies free of toxic chemicals and mutant, fake foods, and to keep our children healthy. This isn’t about science; it’s about control of Earth’s resources and who makes the decisions. That’s politics.

Unless many good people start getting involved, demanding true democracy, we’re way out-numbered and out-gunned by the corporations and they will continue to poison and waste our precious Earth. We, the people, have to demand the right to make the decisions that affect our lives, and we’d better get control soon, or we won’t live to regret it.

My email is cleanmaine@nemaine.com if you have questions. If you have access to the Web, here’s an excellent site to learn more about genetic engineering: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/oro.

September 4, 1999
ORGANIC GROWERS PUSH MORATORIUM ON LICENSING GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEED

Joanne Paulson

SASKATOON (The Saskatoon StarPhoenix, from UofG AgNet) -- Canadian Organic Growers (COG) is, according to this story, asking the federal government for a moratorium on licensing genetically engineered crop varieties until a better regulatory system can be instituted.

Hart Haidn, Saskatchewan COG board member, was quoted as saying the group called for a moratorium because there is a "lack of democratic control over the entire process."

The story cites Haidn as saying serious doubts about Canada’s regulatory system emerged during the approval process of recombinant bovine growth hormone (BGH), when scientific documents showing the hormone was not safe were allegedly stolen from Canada’s Health Protection Branch.

Although BGH was eventually not approved, Haidn was quoted as saying, "it’s a classic example of how an organization which is supposed to protect Canadians can be abused."

Darryl Amey, an organic farmer near Radisson and a member of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD), was cited as saying that his group is right behind Canadian Organic Growers in calling for the moratorium, adding, "Until we can determine that segregation (of GMO crops from organic crops) is possible and that segregation can be maintained, we don’t want these crops out in the system.

Many organic farmers are not growing canola because much of the Canadian canola crop is genetically modified, he said. They are worried that certified organic fields may be contaminated through cross-pollination by wind, birds or insects, and there are no studies to prove this will not happen, he said.

While the organic canola market is fairly small, pulse crops and cereals have a large international market. Amey wants to stop the licensing of genetically modified pulses and cereals for both safety and economic reasons. Already, if Canadian canola is even suspected Darrin Qualman, executive secretary for the National Farmers Union (NFU), was cited as saying genetically engineered crops have thus far not been a financial success at the farmgate, adding, "Farmers have adopted it and we’ve been rewarded with the lowest net farm income since the 1930s."

06 September 1999
FARMERS PREFER HYBRID SEED FOR HIGHER YIELDS, FASTER GROWTH

(Monsanto Press Release) -- An overwhelming majority of cotton farmers in this country prefer hybrid seeds to conventional seeds because they see several advantages in using them. They see higher yields, faster growth, more profitability and better crop quality with less disease and less of a pest problem with hybrids.

The preference for hybrid seeds over conventional seeds cuts across farmers with holdings of all sizes - from small farms to medium-sized farms to big farms. Cropwise, 78% of farmers growing cotton said that the advantage of using hybrid seeds was higher yields.

Ninety-four per cent of those interviewed said they use hybrid seeds, with 80% citing increased production for doing so, while 38% said hybrid crops grow faster. Farmers in states like Madhya Pradesh (87%), Maharashtra (85%) and Haryana (82%) topped those who said that hybrids increase yields.

The farmers were interviewed by ORG-MARG for a study on perceptions of biotechnology in agriculture. The study covered over 1,000 farmers in seven key agricultural states. The study was commissioned by Monsanto India to determine the receptivity to genetically improved crops among farmers in India.

The study found that farmers were more keen to improve the productivity of their land than get into a discussion over the merits of hybrid and traditional seeds. It found that the usage of hybrid seeds has become the norm in some states -- 99% of farmers interviewed in Haryana, 98% in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, 97% in Punjab and 94% in Gujarat said they use hybrid seeds. Overall, more than 80% cited more yield as the reason for using hybrid seeds.

A majority of farmers strongly agreed that hybrid seeds increase yield and that they never save hybrid seeds for planting the following year.

Punjab and Haryana with 99% each, and Andhra with 95%, topped the percentage of farmers who said biotechnology had affected their lives. The overall percentage was 70%. Over 77% said biotechnology had a "good" effect on their lives, 16% said it was "both good and bad", five per cent said it was "bad" and three per cent were uncertain.

They spelt out the "good effect of biotechnology on our lives" as increased yields, more profits, new variety of seeds, better cattle, good quality crops, control of disease, saving of fuel and better soil quality.

A little over half the farmers said that they felt the need for biotechnology to improve production and yield. Of those farmers who said that they would benefit from biotechnology, (92% of all farmers), 60% said they would benefit through more production and yield while 20% saw higher profitability as the benefit. Lower incidence of disease, lower production costs, low requirement of fertiliser, prospects of good quality crop and less damage to the soil were some of the other reasons for preferring biotechnology, the survey found.

Besides farmers, ORG-MARG interviewed other segments like dealers, politicians, civil servants, media, scientists, NGOs and regulatory authorities to determine their perceptions of biotechnology and its acceptance in India. The majority of those interviewed in each segment favoured the adoption of biotechnology, while segments like politicians, NGOs and the regulatory authorities underlined the need to be cautious to safeguard the environment.

For further information please contact:

Meena Vaidyanathan, Communications Manager,

Monsanto Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

Tel: 022 824 7291/ 690 2100

Fax: 022 690 2111/ 690 2121

Email: m.meena@ap.monsanto.com

September 6, 1999
EU TO PLACE NEW CURBS ON FEED ADDITIVES

By staff reporter Brandon Mitchener, special correspondent Philip Shishkin and Martin Boer of Dow Jones Newswires

BRUSSELS (The Wall Street Journal Europe, from UofG AgNet) -- David Byrne, the EU’s Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner-designate, was cited as saying that the European Union plans to require animal feed containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such. This would extend restrictions that already exist on genetically modified foods for human consumption.

Mr. Byrne’s statement, made Friday at confirmation hearings at the European Parliament in Brussels, came, according to this story, amid a heated public debate in Europe about the safety of both animal feed and genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

This story explained that news that motor oil and even human sewage have found their way into European animal feed as "protein additives" has disgusted consumers and put pressure on politicians to strengthen rules on what is allowed into animals’ diets. Many consumers were already unsettled because of the growing presence in European grocery stores of products containing GMOs but not labeled as such.

A requirement to label not only grocery food products but also animal feed as "GM" or "GM-free" would, the story says, add impetus to EU demands that all foods be segregated at the farm before processing or shipment. Although the EU, Japan and other countries require food destined for human consumption to be labeled if it contains GMOs, the U.S. has no such requirement.

About half the soybeans and corn planted in the U.S. today are, according to this story, genetically modified, or GM. But because the U.S. considers them "substantially equivalent" to non-GM products, it does not require them to be labeled in any special way. The U.S. government was cited as saying that genetic engineering is just another form of cross-breeding. As a result, the U.S. has lost the EU as a market for corn exports and risks losing it as an export market for soybeans. Soybean meal is a key protein additive in European animal feed.

A U.S. official who heard Mr. Byrne speak on Friday was cited as saying that U.S. soybeans are the "only practical source" of protein for European livestock, adding, "There’s no realistic alternative to our soybeans right now."

Anthony Arke, secretary general of biotechnology industry group EuropaBio, was cited as saying he welcomed the thrust of Mr. Byrne’s comments, describing them as an improvement over the "one-sided approach led by (departing EU Environment Commissioner Ritt) Bjerregaard."

The story says Mrs. Bjerregaard used her role as environment commissioner to hold up EU approval for many GMOs widely used in other countries. The new commission will shift primary responsibility for biotechnology issues to Mr. Byrne, who will act in cooperation with other commissioners responsible for trade, industrial policy and the environment.

Monday, September 6, 1999 Published at 18:23 GMT 19:23 UK
ASSEMBLY PRESSURE OVER GM CROPS BAN

(BBC News) -- Friends of the Earth Cymru’s legal case outlining the Assembly’s powers to stop genetically modified crops being grown in Wales has been presented to Agriculture Secretary Christine Gwyther.

Legal opinion obtained by the environmental pressure group claims that the Assembly could ban the release of genetically-modified organisms into the Welsh environment until they are proved safe.

These powers, FoE Cymru said, came under the Environmental Protection Act.

At a meeting with Ms Gwyther and Assembly officials, representatives of the group were promised a detailed response to the legal opinion within three weeks.

The campaign to persuade the Assembly to ban the growing of GM crops in Wales was launched at the Royal Welsh Show in July.

An open letter was published signed by a wide range of interested individuals, including Assembly Members from all four parties.

The previous month, in June, the Conservative group in the Assembly succeeded in passing a motion proposing that Wales should take a lead in the control of GM foods.

Now, the leader of the Conservative Assembly group, Professor Nick Bourne, called for Wales to be GM-free for more than three years.

The Conservatives were backed by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats.

The Labour group, however, abstained, saying that the motion was too vague.

September 6, 1999
ITOCHU TO IMPORT SOYBEANS FROM US SUPPLIERS IN OCT-NIKKEI

TOKYO (Nikkei - Dow Jones, from UofG AgNet) -- The Nihon Keizai Shimbun was cited as reporting in its Tuesday morning edition that Itochu Corp. will from October import almost all of the soybeans it uses in foodstuffs from U.S. suppliers of non-genetically modified or GM crops.

The story says that the decision was made on growing demand for GM-free soybeans from tofu makers and other of Itochu’s business partners. The government has decided to require makers to label foodstuffs that contain GM ingredients from fiscal 2001.

Itochu will, the story adds, become the first major Japanese trading house to guarantee that almost all their soybeans are GM-free. The majority of soybeans consumed in Japan are imported by major trading companies such as Itochu.

Itochu will designate Quality Traders Inc. (QTI), a wholly-owned subsidiary based in Illinois, as its exclusive handler of GM-free soybeans. It will thoroughly separate GM-free soybeans from GM varieties at its storage facility in Wisconsin.

The facility, which has a capacity to store 30,000 metric tons of crops, has so far handled GM soybeans and other crops mixed with GM-free varieties.

CGB Enterprises Inc., a Louisiana-based 50-50 venture between Itochu and the National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative Associations (Zennoh), will join hands with QTI.

The story notes that Itochu imports about 150,000-200,000 tons of soybeans a year from the U.S. for use in foodstuffs, and sells them to makers of tofu, fermented soybeans, miso and other products, and that overall imports of soybeans for use in food items are estimated to total 1.2 million tons a year in Japan.

September 6, 1999
AG BIOTECHNOLOGY CONCERNS SPREAD TO ASIA

(Farm Bureau News Vol. 78, No. 32) -- Resistance to agriculture biotechnology continues to escalate in key U.S. export markets, causing some U.S producers to question their decision to plant genetically modified (GM) vs. conventional seeds for the 2000 crop year.

Environmental and consumer protests across Europe over so-called "Frankenstein foods" have fueled the destruction of GM trial fields and prompted calls for labeling of GM products, resulting in "GM-free" announcements by major European food retailers. But with similar concerns rising recently in South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, many GM supporters concede this is a growing trade concern for the United States, whose producers have readily embraced the technology.

The Asian market alone represents a significant export opportunity for the United States. In 1998, Japan and South Korea purchased over $11 billion worth of U.S. agriculture products, including over $3 billion of corn, soybeans and cotton.

One-third of corn and half the cotton and soybeans grown in the United States are genetically modified. With the United States exporting approximately $51.7 billion worth of agriculture exports, the United States stands to lose the GM debate if the resistance to the products continues.

"From a trade standpoint, we don’t want to see arbitrary decisions keep our products out of foreign markets," said Rosemarie Watkins, an American Farm Bureau Federation senior director of governmental relations. Watkins said that the Food and Drug Administration has closely monitored the technology and has determined that genetically modified foods are no different than foods processed through conventional means. However, she added, the United States cannot overlook growing consumer concerns.

But Watkins said that biotechnology offers "incredible new breakthroughs in technological advances," she said. "If we abandon the technology now, it would be a tremendous loss."

Watkins cited the proven ability of GM crops to increase yields and reduce the use of chemicals - which the public is demanding, she said. But she also added the technology has "great potential."

"Imagine being able to grow a tomato that is enhanced to prevent cancer, or growing a commodity that will be used specifically to make plastics. Right now this technology is only in its infancy."

The proven ability of GM products to increase yields also presents a tremendous opportunity to feed a growing world population, Watkins added. Studies have predicted that by the year 2050, the world’s population will swell to 9 billion from 6 billion. Biotechnology could create crops adapted to grow in certain climates so that populations could feed themselves.

"We could, for example, develop crops that would require less water for developing countries who struggle with persistent droughts," Watkins said.

September 6, 1999
COALITION LAUNCHING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CAMPAIGN THIS FALL

(Health and Environment NEWSWIRE) -- Household and institutional chemical products and treatments will be among the targets of an expanded environmental campaign to be launched by the Coalition on the Environment & Jewish Life (COEJL).

The initiative is titled, "L ‘Dor v ‘Dor: Protecting Creation, Generation to Generation." It has two components, "Healthy Homes, Schools and Shuls," and "Healthy Hospitals."

Resource materials for the "Healthy Homes, Schools and Shuls" project asserts that "many of the common products we use . . . are toxic." The materials emphasize potential health effects of chemical products on children and fetuses, who "are more likely than adults to be harmed by toxic chemicals."

COEJL will provide materials to assist Jewish families and institutions in removing chemicals such as pesticides, cleaners and paints from homes, synagogues, schools and other facilities.

The "Healthy Hospitals" project focuses on health care facilities, which are "a leading source of dioxin and mercury pollution from the incineration of medical waste." COEJL will work to encourage hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities to adopt pollution prevents practices that can save money and lives."

For more information, contact COEJL at (212) 684-6950, Ext. 210; fax: (212) 686-1353; e-mail: coejl@aol.com.

Monday, 6 September, 1999

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY 2-3 SEPTEMBER 1999

WWW site for this meeting can be found at: http://www.iisd.ca/sd/har/index.html

(Sustainable Developments - Volume 30, Number 01) -- The International Conference on Biotechnology in the Global Economy took place in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, from 2-3 September 1999. Organized and hosted by the Center for International Development (CID) and the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, the conference attracted over 200 participants from academic institutions, civil society, industry, government departments and international organizations, including the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility Secretariat(GEF). The conference aimed to broaden the debate on biotechnology beyond the narrow confines of the biosafety question and to foster dialogue between researchers, entrepreneurs, political leaders, policy makers and practitioners.

Participants met in four plenary sessions to hear keynote speeches on science and economy in the new millennium; science, technology and international development; biotechnology in the global economy; and the way ahead. They also met in nine break-out sessions to discuss: the evolution of the biotechnology industry; biotechnology in international trade; intellectual property rights (IPRs) in biotechnology; biotechnology and international relations; bioprospecting; biotechnology in developing countries; environmental aspects of biotechnology; biotechnology and human health; and ethics, social values and biotechnology.

The output of the conference will be a brief summary of the discussions which Calestous Juma will prepare, focusing on solutions rather than on concerns. This conference material is expected to feed into research agendas, policy discussions, and training and educational material on biotechnology and public policy. The Harvard CID will set up a task force to keep open the emerging dialogue among participants on the continually evolving issues in the biotechnology field.

BACKGROUND

Although humans have cross-pollinated plants and cross-bred animals for centuries to suit their own needs, recent technological advances that permit manipulation to extend to the genetic level have provoked differing reactions from different sectors of the society, ranging from optimism to cautiousness to moral outrage. While Europe has witnessed a strong public outcry against genetically modified foods, elsewhere in the developed world concern has been centered on the possible trade restrictions on agricultural exports and consequent loss of profits. While some have focused on the possible negative health, safety and socio- economic repercussions of biotechnology, others have stressed its enormous potential to feed the burgeoning populations of the developing world with pest-free and nutrient-enriched food.

Consensus on this controversial issue has thus far eluded policy makers, resulting in conflict and dissension in the various international fora that are currently considering differing aspects of biotechnology - the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the FAO Commission on Access to Genetic Resources, Codex Alimentarius, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Earlier this year an Extraordinary Meeting of the CBD Conference of the Parties failed to reach agreement on the biosafety protocol as scheduled, and informal consultations of the CBD’s Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety to resume the extraordinary meeting of the COP are scheduled for mid-September. It is against this background of controversy that Harvard’s International Conference on Biotechnology is set.

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE

OPENING SESSION: SCIENCE AND ECONOMY IN THE NEW MILLENIUM

Jeffrey Sachs, CID, opened the conference, noting intense controversy over biotechnology in the last few months. He contrasted the remarkable potential of biotechnology in areas such as health and agriculture with the great challenge of making it safe and publicly acceptable.

David Sandalow, White House Council on Environmental Quality/National Security Council, highlighted seven questions the Conference should aim to address:

* What are the potential benefits of biotechnology?

* What are the risks of biotechnology?

* What processes and principles should national governments use to regulate this technology?

* How can national governments better understand this technology?

* What international mechanisms can best help manage this technology?

* How should we balance private and public sector roles?

* How can we improve public discourse on this topic? How can the public be better informed on this issue?

Peter Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden, began his presentation by discussing the global transformations within which biotechnology has emerged in this century, notably: the advent of crop and animal domestication; agricultural expansion into wilderness areas; increasing human population densities; rising disparities in wealth and consumption patterns; global climate change; and the rapid loss of stratospheric ozone and biodiversity. He asserted that the CBD ought to focus on biodiversity conservation, biospheric sustainability and wealth sharing rather than on trade battles over genetically modified crops. He stated that sustainability implies living on the earth’s interest rather than its capital and that biodiversity, as an intrinsically regional and national good, requires local actions and initiatives.

On the organization of the biotechnology industry, Raven emphasized the importance of scientific knowledge networks. He traced the history of research on DNA and genetic transfers, contending that 1990s "hype" regarding genetic modification and transgenics has not recognized that genetically modified crops are biologically similar to other kinds of crops. However, Raven expressed support for: sustainable agriculture; the labeling of bio-engineered foods; and the examination of their properties and potential environmental impacts through publicly trusted institutions. He recommended making the 21st Century an "age of biology", with more transparent and frequent consultations between the stakeholders involved in biotechnology, and establishing new socially-oriented institutions able to handle the rapid advances and impacts of biotechnology.

DINNER ADDRESS: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

In his dinner address, Mohamed Hassan, Third World Academy of Sciences, highlighted growing disparities in scientific development between developed and developing nations as one of the major challenges currently being faced by the global scientific community. He said that while 90% of research on science and technology is based in developed countries, only a few developing countries have experienced significant scientific or technological progress in recent years. He asserted that efforts by international organizations to overcome these disparities have not been successful and emphasized the importance of scientific knowledge and research and development (R&D) as a means to bridge the gap between developed and developing countries. Hassan underscored the need to enhance developing countries’ research capacities in areas of concern to them, including information technology and biotechnology. He called for the creation of centers of excellence in developing countries and establishment of information-sharing networks on the internet that link scientists, academies, centers of excellence and R&D institutions throughout the world.

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES: BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

Jeffrey Sachs, CID, asked participants to consider how biotechnology and global science might be mobilized for economic development in poor countries and whether institutions that reflect the health and food system needs of developing countries can be established which also reflect global market realities.

In describing the "ecology of economic development," Sachs suggested that two ecological gradients determine the geographic distribution of poverty and wealth: latitudinal climate and access to sea navigability. Sachs also claimed that economic models of convergence, which assume that open trade flows and markets narrow the gap between rich and poor, operate within rather than across regional ecological zones. Hence, biotechnology sciences are both ecologically specific and driven by market forces. Sachs recommended:

* establishment of contingent funds for scientific R&D pertinent to developing countries, such as a contingent fund for the malaria vaccine;

* long-term nutrition cohort studies in developing countries;

* expansion of the private sector-university nexus through centers of scientific excellence in the tropics for biotechology R&D;

* incentives to expatriate developing country scientists to pursue biotechnology-related work in their own countries;

* university networks between developed and developing countries with joint training centers and degrees in tropical food and health systems;

* roundtables on biotechnology to enable communication between political and business leaders; and

* a task force on biotechnology as an outcome of this conference.

Stefan Moraveck, United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development, described the Commission as an advisory body to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) which examines and makes recommendations to the UN regarding science and technological matters. He expressed the Commission’s interest in interacting with academia, the private sector and R&D institutions.

Moraveck noted frequent political friction within the Commission on the relationship between R&D and market forces. He stated that the Commission had recently concluded that partnerships and networks are a means to achieve national and regional capacity- building for biotechnology. He said the Commission had also addressed critical issues on biotechnology for food production not currently addressed in other fora. He recommended:

* improvements in the dissemination of balanced information on biotechnology;

* further research on intellectual property rights in developing countries;

* support for networks between public and private sectors

* capacity-building in developing countries for biotechnology R&D; and

* identification of areas for the establishment of centers of excellence and investments by the private sector in these countries.

EVOLUTION OF THE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

Fernando Quezada, Biotechnology Center of Excellence Corporation, facilitated this session that traced the evolution and structure of the biotechnology industry in relation to national competitiveness and globalization. Quezada proposed that a distinction be made between the geographic distribution of biotechnology companies and their numbers, as well as between cyclical changes and changes that present completely novel and hence risky transformations. He asserted that globalization has led to the establishment of a few, large global biotechnology companies that maintain entry thresholds too high for smaller, later arriving competitors. Quezada recommended consideration of how to balance public and private sector involvement and better understand recent reconfigurations of relationships between government, industry, academic and public actors.

Panelists: Richard Lewontin, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, focused on the key problems and gradual evolutionary changes in the agro-biotechnology industry. He emphasized the dominance of rich country innovations and their increasing protection and control through intellectual property rights. He highlighted the shift from hybrid crops, identifiable through gene markers for the purpose of detecting replanting of seeds without contractual permission, to the new terminator technology, which produces plants with infertile seeds, that he considered useless to farmers and consumers.

Lewontin further highlighted recent agribusiness activities, particularly the genetic domestication of tropical specialty crop traits (caffeine and palmytic oils) into temperate crops such as soy beans and rape, which may harm unique agro-ecological systems and export economies in the developing world. He encouraged reflection on the implications of public sector involvement in the creation of terminator technology and its protection through property rights, referring specifically to contributions by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Lynn Mytelka, UNCTAD, discussed a number of ruptures associated with the evolution of the biotechnology and life sciences industry, which she said was not restricted to agrotechnology and pharmaceuticals. She particularly highlighted the roles of new genetic technology, market saturation, patent expiration and ecological impacts as driving the changes in this dynamic industry, characterized by inter-firm alliances, mergers and acquisitions and rapid R&D investments. She said that new dedicated biotechnology oligopolies are increasingly knowledge-based, global and dependent on patents and licensing.

Michael Malinowski, Center for the Study of Law, Science and Technology, Arizona State University, highlighted US accomplishments in promoting biotechnology applications, especially new pharmaceuticals. He noted the rapid transformation of life science research platforms into biotechnology tools and commercial products since 1988. He attributed this "success story" of drug discovery to: the recognition of industry-academic alliances; regulatory responsiveness regarding the patentability of living matter; the US product- rather than process-oriented approach; the creation of incentives for small business; state agency reform; and the initiation of the Human Genome Project. Malinowski also pointed to emerging needs, including standards of care, funding for clinical research, and the harmonization and removal of impediments to global market access.

Discussion: In ensuing discussion, numerous participants questioned whether and how to balance public and private sector involvement in biotechnology R&D. One participant suggested that the private-public boundary has become blurred. Another participant asked if the emergence of knowledge-based oligopolies was different from international biotechnology research networks such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system.

Lewontin argued that public investments in science ultimately serve to subsidize private interests and outcomes. Mytelka stressed that the public and private sectors are distinct, adding that oligopolies are closed structures motivated to acquire private gain and exclude others. Although the CGIAR system, like earlier public sector biotechnology, was not designed to be a closed system, its need for economic survival makes patents and closer collaboration with industry increasingly attractive.

Malinowski said that increasing the number and diversity of biotechnology transfer agreements would be beneficial, as would centralizing standardized reporting through technology transfer institutions open to public scrutiny and full disclosure. During remaining deliberations, panelists and participants offered a number of possible solutions to current dilemmas, such as:

* increased public debate on biotechnology;

* the creation of systematic channels for regional information exchange on competition policies;

* the establishment of mechanisms to regulate and monitor bio-industry oligopolies; and

* the promotion of responsible linkages between public and private sector biotechnology R&D through measures such as joint research between universities, co-patenting between companies and researchers, and technology transfer agreements.

BIOTECHNOLOGY IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Scott Stern, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, facilitated debate on the linkages between the health and environmental risks of biotechnology and international trade relations between nations and economic blocs.

Panelists: Per Pinstrup-Andersen, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C., predicted biotechnology would be an important aspect of the next trade round at the WTO, particularly on labeling and the precautionary principle. He added that the Codex Alimentarius Committee would likely be drawn into the WTO.

Pinstrup-Andersen attributed opposition to GMOs in Europe to the fact that Europeans generally do not perceive a need for GMOs. He highlighted the issue of trade restrictions on seed, referring to India’s recent ban on terminator technology. He stressed the significance of biotechnology to developing countries, stating that developing countries, slated to double their net import of grain by 2020, will have difficulty reducing their imports without increasing food productivity through GMOs.

Les Levidow, Center for Technology Strategy, Open University, posed a series of strategic questions: How can the dichotomy between science and politics created by terms such as "science-based regulation" be breached? What is the relevance of market stage precautions and criteria, such as those associated with the WTO-Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary agreement, to potential trade barriers and disputes?

Since the precautionary approach involves taking political responsibility for scientific and normative uncertainties regarding possible undesirable effects of biotechnology, how can it be refined in practice on a case-by-case basis? How might international trade be linked to precautionary practices devised by regulators to ensure the safe use of genetically-modified crops with respect to their non-genetically-modified counterparts?

Peter Pauker, Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, categorized concerns about GMOs as related to socio-ethical and religious factors, safety, and environmental damage. He said that socio-ethical and religious concerns were driving the debate and needed to be addressed. In identifying the reasons for vehement opposition to GMOs, he said that GMOs had become a lightening rod for past and present regulatory failures. Pauker called for the establishment of credible, balanced and transparent processes to deal with the issues raised by biotechnology. He stressed that the WTO, Codex Alimentarius and CBD should each focus on their respective areas of competence. He highlighted the need for the WTO to determine whether existing trade provisions apply to biotechnology and whether new provisions are required. Pauker recommended public engagement in a dialogue to enable people to determine the real risks and benefits of biotechnology.

Discussion: The ensuing discussion focused on the precautionary principle, the role the WTO with respect to biotechnology, and the anatomy of current public opposition to GMOs. One participant, identifying reasons for such opposition to GMOs in the UK, said GMOs are believed to be unnatural, unnecessary and without benefit. Another participant responded that all agricultural modifications are unnatural, and today agricultural innovations are tested with unprecedented levels of precision, predictability and safety. While one participant said that people make irrational choices and need more information on biotechnology, another said that the public today is more scientifically literate than ever before and stressed the need to examine why the public is opposed to the idea of GMOs.

Several participants highlighted the important role of improving dissemination of biotechnology-related information to the public. Noting that food security problems in Africa were not due to production shortfalls but, rather, to mismanagement and corruption, one participant questioned the use of biotechnology to solve hunger and food production problems. He critiqued the discussion of the biotechnology issue in the WTO, which is perceived by developing countries to be lacking in transparency. Pinstrup-Andersen responded that since the genetically modified nature of a product can be used to create a non-tariff barrier to trade this issue belongs within the WTO forum. He claimed that biotechnology does not belong within Codex Alimentarius discussions or ongoing negotiations of the CBD.

One participant underscored the role of risk assessment and management in determining the dimensions of doubt. He said the debate on biotechnology is not an ideological one but one on the strategic use of doubt. Stern concluded the session by identifying one area requiring further discussion: the diffusion patterns of biotechnology products.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

Deborah Hurley, Harvard Information Infrastructure Project, facilitated the session on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). She introduced the members of the panel and said they would present perspectives on IPR regulation in the US, Europe and other countries.

Panelists: Terry Fisher, Harvard Law School, outlined the intellectual property protection system in the US and referred to the requirements for patent protection under it. In comparing US patent requirements to those established in international agreements such as the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement and European directives, he described patent protection in the US as being "generous" in allowing patents on genetically altered microorganisms, multicellular plants, animals and certain types of single genes. He pointed to disadvantages of patent protection, including: rent dissipation; impediment of secondary innovations; concentration of ownership of genetic information in developed countries; and exacerbation of inequalities in wealth distribution. Among advantages he noted incentives for innovation and acceleration of the pace of biotechnology applications. Fisher recommended requiring stricter construction of patent claims, allowing compulsory licenses, permitting price discrimination and regulating the uses of "patent substitutes" such as contracts and technological protections, as possible ways of retaining the advantages while mitigating the disadvantages of patent protection.

John Barton, School of Law, Stanford University, referred to the pharmaceutical sector in the US as the "child" of patent protection. He noted that technological innovations in the pharmaceutical sector can be easily replicated, and without adequate patent protection companies would be unwilling to invest in R&D. He indicated that in recent years disputes over patent rights have driven pharmaceutical companies to merge instead of litigating against each other. He expressed concern that, as a consequence of this, control of the world’s pharmaceutical markets is in the hands of 5 or 6 multinational companies. He predicted the continuation of this trend thanks to the TRIPs agreement extending IPR protection to the rest of the world. He said that within five years 75% of the pharmaceutical companies in the world will be owned by bigger companies from developed nations. Barton therefore suggested balancing patent protection regulations with new laws and regulations on anti-trust and competition.

Johnson Ekpere, Scientific, Technical and Research Commission, of the Organization of African Unity, called for enhanced scientific knowledge tailored to the specific circumstances of African countries. He noted that while biotechnology has been promoted as a panacea for African food security, the skill and capacity related to this new technology resides in industrialized nations. Ekpere drew attention to the potential risks posed by biotechnology and recommended capacity-building in the areas of assessment, management and monitoring of risks before biotechnology is commercially introduced into Africa.

Discussion: Several participants referred to the differences between patent protection laws and regulations in the US and other parts of the world. One participant noted that in many countries plant and animal varieties are not subject to patents. Another participant indicated the EU requirement to disclose patents within a certain period of time to make them part of the public domain is not present in US patent law. Other participants highlighted their lack of understanding on how patents would act as an incentive for inventions and development of technological innovations in developing countries. Some participants referred to the benefits associated with investment by multinational companies in developing countries. Others argued that investment by multinational companies is not necessarily geared towards creating benefits for developing countries. One participant cautioned that biotechnology might be used to create food supply monopolies. Several participants questioned the relationship between the CBD and the TRIPs agreement, particularly with respect to the protection of traditional knowledge through sui generis systems. Another participant cautioned against the potential creation of monopolies in food supplies through the use of biotechnology.

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Cristián Samper, Chair of the CBD Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), facilitated the session on biotechnology in international relations. He spoke of the links between biological research and international processes such as FAO and the CBD and noted the increasing tension between environmental regimes and the international trade system. He invited panelists and participants to think about the impact of biotechnology on international relations and vice versa.

Panelists: Patrice Laget, European Commission, outlined the complex institutional scheme for R&D for biotechnology development in Europe. He explained the role of the European Commission within the European Union. He noted a recent increase in resources allocated to R&D in the life sciences, including research on food, nutrition health and the environment. He stressed the Commission’s interest in seeking the involvement of scientists from developing countries through, inter alia, fellowship programmes.

Michael Oborne, OECD, highlighted the contributions of the OECD to the harmonization of international regulations on biotechnology, including the elaboration of common scientific concepts, principles and data requirements to underpin regulation. He gave a brief overview of the work of the OECD Group on Harmonization and Regulatory Oversight, the Committee for Scientific Work on recombinant DNA Safety and the Group of National Experts on Biotechnology and GMOs. He recalled the recent G-8 (Group of Seven highly industrialized nations plus Russia) mandate on the need to undertake further research on the implications of biotechnology for food safety.

Edward Hammond, Consultant in Genetic Resources, presented a brief overview of how indigenous peoples’ rights are being addressed in international fora, including the CBD, World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources. He expressed concern over the lack of an international system to protect communities’ traditional knowledge and said that IPRs pose an additional threat. He stated that IPRs prey on traditional knowledge and said that attempts to protect traditional knowledge through sui generis systems would improve indigenous peoples’ situation. He recalled WIPO’s work in this regard but noted that it has come under increasing pressure from the WTO. He said that the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources work on farmers’ rights over seeds used in their own land is a ray of hope against the use of "terminator technology" which renders seeds sterile.

Discussion: On terminator technology, one participant questioned why society would want to deprive companies of the necessary incentives to develop new technologies through R&D that may benefit many people. Hammonds responded that sufficient incentives exist for profit generation and added that terminator technology does not render agronomic nor socio-economic benefits.

Another participant suggested broadening the scope of the discussion and called for consideration of how technology is affecting international relations and why people are reacting so strongly to biotechnology. On the first question, one participant noted the difficulties countries face in trying to adapt to provisions under international agreements. On the second question, many participants referred to the uneasiness caused by the uncertainties inherent in the use of biotechnology and stressed the need for scientific, social, cultural and ethical input. Others countered that scientific knowledge is the only way to resolve uncertainties and reach consensus.

Samper concluded the session by drawing attention to the fragmented state of the debate and suggested that increased transparency, dissemination of information and participation in decision-making processes would be useful for bridging differences of opinion among peoples, countries and sectors regarding biotechnology and its use.

BIOPROSPECTING

This session was facilitated by Theadore Panayotou, Environment and Natural Resources, CID. Panayotou opened the discussion by emphasizing that while bioprospecting represents a direct link between biodiversity and technology, benefit sharing is not a simple exchange of technology for biological resources between developed and developing countries. He highlighted the North’s patented technology and capacity to produce chemical synthetics in contradistinction to the unprotected status of Southern and tropical biodiversity. He added that fair benefit sharing depends on how biodiversity is valued and what is being valued - an entire ecosystem habitat, a protected area or species, genetic material or associated patented properties or products.

Panelists: Timothy Swanson, School of Public Policy, University College, London, spoke on estimating the informational and use value of genetic resources. He emphasized that such biological resources are not without economic value and described three approaches to economic valuation of biodiversity: the factorial approach that allocates shares of total revenues at the end of pharmaceutical production to numerous factors such as royalties for biological specimens and the value of land allocated for plant collection and screening; the search approach to valuation that estimates the marginal value of probability of genetic resources providing a medical solution; and the production function approach that enables measurement of the contribution of genetic resources to the production of final outputs in agricultural contexts.

Anil Gupta, Indian Institute of Management, spoke on biopiracy, bio-partnership and bio-grassroots ventures. He said that the burden of fairness should not only be placed on biotechnology producers but also on all pertinent social institutions, and that sustainable extraction should not be isolated from in situ biodiversity conservation. He noted that: two-thirds of plant-derived human drugs are used for the same purposes for which native peoples discovered and used them; innovation, investment and enterprise need to be linked in bioprospecting and such linkages cannot emerge from the state alone; indigenous peoples and their knowledge systems and experts cannot be simply seen as "traditional" or "communal"; and bioprospecting can be pursued by local as well as global industries. In conclusion he called for:

* global disclosure by corporations of their sources of genetic materials;

* a global registry of biodiversity-derived innovations;

* prior informed consent and fair practices in accessing and exploiting biodiversity;

* monetary and non-monetary incentives to learn about and implement sustainable use and restoration of biodiversity in multi-species ecosystems;

* implementation of creative benefit sharing models; and

* the development of methods to inspire younger generations to learn about biodiversity.

Katy Moran, Healing Forest Conservancy, spoke about sharing benefits arising from plant-based drug discovery and commercialization. She described her institution’s strategy and experience in returning long-term benefits to all countries and culture groups that choose to contribute plants and knowledge to Shaman Pharmaceuticals. No matter where a plant sample or knowledge originates, she emphasized that benefit sharing requires: diverse models; different time frames; prior informed consent; the recognition of local knowledge and experimentation; long-term profit; and risk sharing. Benefit-sharing activities supported by Healing Forest Conservancy include: community development projects such as water irrigation and airfield construction during drug development; training in plant collection and the preparation of herbaria specimens; and, in the case of drug commercialization, trust funds and legal constitutions for allocating financial resources equitably for the purposes of integrated rural development and traditional medicine.

Discussion: In ensuing discussion, facilitator Panayotou asked participants to reflect upon shifting biodiversity values and the interdependence that may exist between biotechnology, patents and biodiversity knowledge. Many participants noted the challenge of developing national policies for access to genetic resources to ensure biodiversity conservation and the partitioning of benefits.

One participant noted that pharmaceutical companies place economic value on phytochemical extracts rather than on genetic or living material, adding that attaching dollar values to a hectare of forest may ignore the existence values not captured by quantifying genetic material. Another participant questioned the distinction being made between contemporary and traditional knowledge, while yet another noted that biodiversity is treated economically as an open access resource but legally as patentable private property. A few participants highlighted the issue of academic, research or botanical institutions acting as intermediary spokespersons for diverse local communities and disadvantaged groups, while other participants called for increasing collaboration with commercial actors. Also mentioned was the need to obtain prior informed consent, recognize the heterogeneity of local communities, and bring together diverse stakeholders to discuss ways to resolve bioprospecting conflicts and devise alternative strategies.

BIOTECHNOLOGY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

As facilitator, Sudha Nair, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, requested participants to examine the institutional factors affecting the ability of developing countries to use biotechnology to meet their needs, and to focus on devising strategies to optimize the benefits of the biotechnology revolution.

Panelists: Manfred Kern, Biological Research, AgroEvo GmbH, Germany, characterized biotechnology as a tool to deal with food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa which is due, inter alia, to: poor marketing and processing systems; low investment capacity; poor administration; lack of funding for research; and poor management of natural resources. He stressed the need for developing countries to draw up a catalogue of unsolved technical problems for presentation to big companies. He affirmed that although AgroEvo GmbH would not expect to make a profit when approached by developing countries for assistance, it would not expect to lose money in the endeavor. In addition to biotechnology, Kern identified several potential measures for feeding the world, including: facilitating access to developed country technology; cooperation/partnerships/pilot projects in R&D; enhancing R&D on neglected crops; support for safety research; promotion of private local seed companies; and promotion of patents in developing countries.

Hans Herren, International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology, Kenya, asked whether developing country farmers needed GMOs. He said biotechnology could do little to address the problems of soil infertility, difficult credit and market access, lack of storage facilities and inadequate infrastructure that plague developing country agriculture. Herren highlighted issues such as gene flow and genetic pollution risks in the deployment of new GM varieties. He recommended training to enable people to understand what happens when GMOs are deployed. He cautioned that GMOs are not a "silver bullet" solution and concluded that there is a need for a comprehensive strategy to address food insecurity in the developing world.

Robert Herdt, Rockefeller Foundation, said that solving Africa’s food problems necessitates addressing food productivity. He stressed the need for better education for women, well-functioning markets and higher farm productivity. He said higher farm productivity would depend on broader use of currently available improved technology, the importation of well-adapted technology and local adaptive research. He identified a potential role for biotechnology but cautioned that because farmers reuse seed the market is very small. On the situation of developing countries vis-à-vis biotechnology, Herren stressed that multinational seed companies are not focused on their needs; the CBD and TRIPs are forcing the pace of change; and there is little biotechnology that merits IPR protection. He said developing countries get very little help from the US to address their needs in agriculture. Major companies focus on profitable hybrid maizes and hybrid cottons rather than on the rice, yam and cassava that are staple foods in the developing world. He called for strategies to harness biotechnology to improve living conditions in the developing world.

Discussion: Several participants expressed concern for the recent decrease in agricultural development assistance. Some identified a need for political will at the national and international level. One participant asked how to initiate a dialogue with political leaders in developing countries to get them to take the lead. Another participant stressed that the focus be on helping developing countries develop local capacity to address their problems.

Herren cautioned those seeking a "quick fix" that the potential of biotechnology should be used "in harmony" with other social, cultural, economic and ethical aspects. One participant highlighted the need for institutions and processes to include women’s views, considering women’s significant involvement in farming. One participant queried the value added by biotechnology. In response, Kern said biotechnology could contribute higher yields and lower pesticide use.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

Facilitator Victor Buxton, Environment Canada, introduced the topic by saying that countries now face the challenging prospect of developing institutional arrangements to identify and manage the risks associated with biotechnology. He queried whether biotechnology is likely to offer the next generation of environmental remediation technology.

Panelists: William Clark, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, identified structural questions to help provide a framework for analysis:

* What is the biotechnology issue and who gets to say?

* How do the risks and benefits of biotechnology compare to their alternatives?

* Who bears the risks and who reaps the benefits of biotechnology?

* How should the inconclusiveness of risk assessments be handled?

He proposed that: the imbalance of benefit takers and risk takers be addressed, especially for the developing world; collaborative networks for research, monitoring and assessment be developed; adaptive management strategies with provision for outside evaluation be designed; and precautionary values be taken seriously.

René von Schomberg, European Commission, sought to focus discussions on three questions:

* Is the precautionary principle designed to restrict trade?

* Does the precautionary principle conflict with risk assessment?

* Does the precautionary principle lead to more restrictive environmental measures?

He asserted that the precautionary principle is neither designed to restrict trade nor to conflict with risk assessment. He referred to the European Directive 90/220/EC concerning the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. This Directive translates the precautionary principle into precautionary regulation that incorporates flexible regulatory standards and proportionate regulatory requirements.

Luther Val Giddings, Biotechnology Industry Organization, said that biotechnology applied to agriculture is critical to meet the challenges of food production. He added that many aspects of biotechnology are fundamentally "green" in their application. He stressed that biotechnology could alleviate pressures on wild lands and biodiversity and suggested applying the standard of "relative risk" rather than absolute risk to biotechnology. He stressed that transgenic food crops have been subjected to more safety reviews and a priori scrutiny than any other crop in history. He lamented the fact that biotechnology had become a lightening rod for many issues with the ironic consequence of delaying the influx of more environmentally safe technologies. On information dissemination, Giddings said that while there were several facts that would be "nice to know," there are only some facts that regulators "need to know."

Discussion: One participant termed the efforts to justify biotechnology on grounds of food insecurity as "disingenuous", since current efforts at biotechnology have not been targeted towards the South, and recommended examination of the consumption patterns of the North. Val Giddings responded that biotechnology is not the sole solution to food insecurity in the developing world, but pointed out that a few companies have targeted research and technology towards developing countries.

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN HEALTH

The session on biotechnology and human health was facilitated by Alexander Golikov, Inter-Agency Commission on Genetic Engineering Activity, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Panelists: Sheldon Krimsky, Department of Urban and Environmental Policy, Tufts University, said there had never been such a global debate over an issue about which so little is known. He noted that there were no standard tests for health hazards in crops as there are for chemicals. He said there are two prevalent views on testing for health risks associated with genetically modified food. According to the first, food is considered to be safe when it does not cause or contribute to disease. The second view is broader and more complex because it involves the nutritional components of food to determine food safety. He noted the US Food and Drug Administration’s voluntary consultative process to test transgenic food products for safety.

Elettra Ronchi, OECD, referred to her institution’s contribution to science-based approaches to risk regulation, referring to the "Blue Book" of principles and guidelines developed in 1982 by a group of OECD national experts. Work on food safety was later undertaken and the principle of "substantial equivalence" was developed. The science-based approach to risk regulation refers to the fact that guidelines, rules and regulations are to be based on the best available scientific knowledge and should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to new technology. According to the principle of "substantial equivalence," the most practical approach to the determination of safety is to consider whether food components from organisms developed by the application of modern biotechnology are substantially equivalent to analogous conventional food.

Julian Kinderlerer, Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Sheffield University, elaborated on the effects of information on public opinion and consumer behavior. He recounted that until 1991 the only genetically modified food on the market in the UK was a certain brand of tomato paste. Once the highest-selling brand in the market, it was ultimately removed from counters due to adverse publicity about genetically modified foods. He noted, however, that in many instances public opinions are shaped by misconceptions due to inadequate information, citing reports that the vast majority of Europeans believe only transgenic foods contain genes.

Discussion: Referring to the impact of GMOs on human health, one participant questioned why public perception of genetically modified crops as an alternative to use of hazardous pesticides has recently shifted to a view that they represent a threat. Krimsky pointed to the role played by NGOs and other segments of civil society regarding biotechnology. One participant noted that sometimes activism discredits the veracity of scientifically-based facts. Other participants argued that NGOs play an important role in asserting the right of consumers to know whether they are purchasing a genetically modified good or not. Most participants agreed that better public understanding of GMOs is important and called for better communication strategies and dissemination of information about genetically modified organisms, goods and products by the companies or institutions that research and produce them.

ETHICS, SOCIAL VALUES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

Facilitator Timothy Weiskel, Environmental Ethics and Public Policy Program, Harvard University, introduced the session on the ethical dimensions and social values attached to biotechnology.

Panelists: Sheila Jasanoff, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, began by noting how a sense of crisis permeates many presentations. She suggested seeing such perspectives as an outcome of the success of reason and values of the 18th Century Enlightenment, particularly: the wide diffusion and accessibility of technical knowledge; the institutionalization of complex governance structures; and the enhanced capacities of people to be reflective and critical about the technologies we produce.

Jasanoff proposed that biotechnology debates take into consideration three well-established critiques of technology: the notion that technologies lead to unintended consequences; an understanding of technology systems as political, rather than value-free, channels for reaffirming inequalities and structural problems out of which technologies emerge; and, finally, recognition that rationality and progress must be seen differently by different social and cultural actors. She concluded by asking whether biotechnology rests on competing visions of progress and what institutional mechanisms can assist in resolving and negotiating around these differences.

Harriet Strimpel, Bromberg and Sunstein Attorneys at Law, discussed the role of patents in biotechnology. She said that the value of a patent depends on the "terrain of patentability," that is, the actual use of patents, the national jurisdiction and legal infrastructure within which they are legalized, and whether mechanisms for effective exclusion of others exist. She pointed out differences between the US, where no moral legal provision exists in the patent system, and Europe, where moral concerns for not disrupting l’ordre public (the public order) can justify non-patentability. She concluded by asking participants to reflect upon whether there is a distinction to be made between real property and intellectual property or between human organs and plant materials.

Tony La Viña, Biological Resources Programme, World Resources Institute, linked the issues of ethics and social values to the current paralysis of negotiations associated with the CBD and its pending biosafety protocol. He portended a crisis of failure given the ease with which ethical and social issues are recognized but not seriously addressed. He noted three factors that make current biotechnology especially difficult to grapple with: its rapid pace of development; its pervasiveness; and its profound implications for equity and the basic human concerns of life, food security, livelihoods, and human and ecosystem health.

La Viña called for adoption of a precautionary approach to the potential unintended consequences of the terminator technology and other biotechnologies; participatory social and ethical debates on the issue; risk assessments and implementation of labeling schemes; and adherence to the principle of prior informed consent.

Discussion: As facilitator, Weiskel questioned: how scientific agendas are being set in relation to social agendas; whether ethics concerned with the "oughtness of things" and self-restraint are related to the power relations involved in politics; and whether ethical concerns need to go beyond generational human matters to include interspecies, ecosystemic and intergenerational ethical concerns. Given that genetic material is both a real sequence and informational, he noted the challenges posed by making a distinction between real versus intellectual property. He also noted that urgent issues, such as biosafety, may not yet be the most important ones for current policy-making.

Participants debated whether the wealth of a society and disadvantaged groups afford different ethical sensibilities; what constitutes precaution if risks are not clear in the case of new biotechnologies; and to what extent social values, ethics and institutions get transferred with particular technological systems.

Participants generally agreed that cultural and social structures cannot be separated from technical and scientific developments. La Viña objected to the idea of terminator technology given the risks associated with farmer inability to plant future crops and potential impacts on the environment.

One participant wondered if new biotechnologies are exporting Western ethics like no other technology before them, particularly the ethics of exclusive ownership and control of nature through patents and acceptability of recombinant DNA practices. Another participant said that if the manipulative nature of biotechnology was the main concern it should have been raised 10,000 years ago when the first crops and animals were domesticated.

CLOSING SESSION

In his concluding remarks, Calestous Juma, provided an initial outline of his forthcoming summary, which will include a section on the background to the biotechnology debates, an insight into key issues and suggestions on ways to move forward. He said he will avoid focusing on concerns in order to shift focus onto plausible solutions. Juma drew attention to the tensions between globalization and biotechnology, and to linkages between discussions on biotechnology and discussions on trade. He highlighted the differing uses of the term "biotechnology," ranging from clusters of techniques to products resulting from the application of such techniques or, in some cases, even the biotechnology industry itself. He asserted that the question of what national governments should regulate would depend on cultural values.

Juma elaborated on possible next steps. On research, he said various theoretical issues needed to be sorted out such as the precautionary principle and substantial equivalences between organisms. He recommended training policy makers and fostering consultation between people with different views. He advocated more communication with the public regarding governance systems and questions of transparency. On conference follow-up, he said a biotechnology task force would be set up by the CID, in consultation with conference participants and other interested parties in order to address issues such as institutions, research and training pertinent to biotechnology and the global economy.

Jeffrey Sachs closed the conference at 5 p.m. on September 3.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR

BIOTECHNOLOGY 2000-11TH INTERNATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY SYMPOSIUM: 3-8 September 1999, Berlin, Germany. Contact: USDA; Internet: http://www.agnic.org/mtg/2000.html.

3RD TRONDHEIM CONFERENCE ON THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH: 6-10 September 1999 Trondheim, Norway. Contact: NINA NIKU, Odd Terja Sansdlund; Tel: +47-73-80-15-48; Fax: +47-73-80-14-01; E-mail: odd.t.sanslund@ninatrd.ninaniku.no; Internet: http://www.ninaniku.no.

GLOBAL CHANGE AND PROTECTED AREAS: 8-16 September 1999, L’Aquila, Italy. Contact: Guido Visconti, Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita degli Studi di L’Aquila, Via Vetoio, Coppito, 67010 L’Aguila, Italy; E-mail: guido.visconti@aquila.infn.it; Internet:http://www.aquila.infn.it/glbch

DISPLACEMENT, FORCED SETTLEMENT AND CONSERVATION: 9-11 September 1999, Oxford, UK. Contact: Dominique Attala, Refugee Studies Programme, Queen Elizabeth House, 21 St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LA, UK; Tel: +44-1865-270-722; Fax: +44-1865-270-721; Email: rspedu@ermine.ox.ac.uk.

INFORMAL CONSULTATION ON THE PROCESS TO RESUME THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE COP TO ADOPT THE PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY: 15-19 September 1999, Vienna, Austria. Contact: CBD Secretariat; World Trade Center, 393 St. Jacques Street, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec, Canada H2Y 1N9; Tel: +1-514-288-2220; Fax: +1-514-288-6588; E-mail: chm@biodiv.org; Internet: http://www.biodiv.org.

COLLOQUIUM ON THE RISKS AND REGULATIONS ON GMO FOOD PRODUCTS: 1-2 October 1999, New York University School of Law, New York, NY, USA. Contact: Bobbie Glover, NY School of Law; Tel: 1-212-998-6415, 998-6417; Fax: 1-212-995-4037.

REGIONAL SESSION OF THE GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FORUM (SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA): 24-26 October 1999, Colombo, Sir Lanka. Contact: P. Balakrishna, IUCN - The World Conservation Union, 48, Vajira Road, Colombo 5, Sri Lanka; Tel: + 94-74-510-517; Fax: +94-1-580-202; E-mail: pbala@sltnet.lk.

CGIAR INTERNATIONAL CENTERS WEEK 1999: 25-29 October 1999, Washington, DC. Contact: CGIAR Secretariat; Tel: +1-202-473-8951; Fax: +1-202-473-8110.

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION MEETING ON BIODIVERSITY AND THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: 8-10 November 1999, Geneva, Switzerland. Contact: Internet: http://www.wipo.org.

3RD ANNUAL EUROPEAN BIOTECHNOLOGY BUSINESS CONGRESS-BIOTECHNOLOGY FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE: 16-19 November 1999, Munich, Germany. Contact: EuropaBio ‘99; Tel: +32-2-735-0313; Fax: +32-2-735-4960; E-mail: mail@europa-bio.be; Internet: http://www.europa-bio.be.

RECOMBINANT GENE PRODUCTS: EXPRESSION TECHNOLOGIES: New Delhi, India, 22 November-3 December 1999. Contact: ICGEB; Tel: +91-11-616-7356; Fax: +91-11-616-2316; E-mail:chatterj@icgeb.res.in.

FIFTH MEETING OF THE CBD COP: 15-26 May 2000, Nairobi, Kenya. Contact: CBD Secretariat; World Trade Center, 393 St. Jacques Street, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec, Canada H2Y 1N9; Tel: +1-514-288-2220; Fax: +1-514-288-6588; E-mail: chm@biodiv.org; Internet: http://www.biodiv.org.

Sustainable Developments is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) <info@iisd.ca>, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ©. This issue is written and edited by Paola Bettelli <pbettelli@iisd.org, Nabiha Megateli <nmegateli@igc.apc.org> and Lavanya Rajamani <lavanya.rajamani@hertford.ox.ac.uk> (Team Leader). The Editor for this issue is Deborah Davenport <ddavenp@emory.edu>. Digital content by Leila Mead <leila@interport.net>. The Managing Editor of Sustainable Developments is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by theCenter for International Development at Harvard University. The authors can be contacted at their electronic mail addresses and at tel: +1-212-644-0204 and by fax: +1-212-644-0206. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700. The opinions expressed in the Sustainable Developments are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from Sustainable Developments may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation.

Electronic versions of Sustainable Developments are sent to e-mail distribution lists (ASCII and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at <http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/>. For further information on Sustainable Developments, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Managing Editor at <kimo@iisd.org>.

Tuesday, 7 September 1999
GOVERNMENT GRANTS $1 MILLION FOR BETTER PESTICIDES

(CSIRO Press Release) -- Researchers are using the very molecules in pests’ own hormones to develop more environmentally friendly ways to defeat them.

The world leading research uses a totally new approach to the development of crop protection agents. It is similar to that used for the development of the world’s first effective ‘flu drug, Relenza™, and could open a new era for insect pest control, says project leader, CSIRO’s Dr Paul Savage.

"CSIRO used the approach of looking at the molecular structure of the ‘flu virus to find a way to block it from working and thus create the ‘flu drug. We’re now looking at using the same technique to beat insect pests," Dr Savage says.

The project has just been awarded a $1 million AusIndustry Start Grant by the Commonwealth Government.

The new research is based on ecdysone, an insect hormone that regulates the moulting process. The hard carapace or shell cannot grow as the insect grows, so it has to be shed at certain stages during the normal life cycle.

Once the scientists have described the structure of receptors on the hormone for certain insect pests they will be able to design molecules to block the hormone from working. This will mean that the insect fails to moult and dies.

"Because the structure of the receptors varies from one insect species to another, the new agents can be targeted to specific pests such as flies or plant sucking bugs," Dr Savage says.

"This will have considerable safety and environmental benefits because the new products will not affect anything other than the target insects. Humans, mammals, birds or most other insect groups will not be affected."

The new agents will be more efficient and therefore will require lower applications of pesticide. It will also be quicker to develop and register the new agents.

"These new agents will also overcome resistance problems - pests become resistant to chemical pesticides over time. It will be very difficult for insects to develop a resistance to these new agents as the target site is fundamental to their lifecycle," Dr Savage says.

Dr Savage says that the issue of controlling pests is extremely important for Australia and the world. Over the last 40 years the total area of land under crops has not changed much, but the output has trebled. Much of this has been accomplished by the use of chemical pesticides.

"If we are to maintain the high crop yields we need to constantly keep ahead of pests," he says.

"Our work will not only benefit us, with crop pests a worldwide problem there is a strong potential for foreign earnings from our discoveries," he says.

Both the markets for crop and animal protection are worth billions of dollars a year, with some products commanding sales exceeding $100 million.

The project is a collaboration between CSIRO Molecular Science, Dunlena Pty Ltd and the Biomolecular Research Institute.

For more information: Dr Paul Savage, 03 9545 2523 / Doug Gale 03 9662 7332 / or Warrick Glynn 03 9662 7344

Tuesday, 7 September 1999
GENE TECHNOLOGY: PICKING WINNERS SAFELY

(CSIRO Press Release) -- Gene technology is delivering benefits to Australian agriculture that do not always involve moving genes from one species to another, the Chief of CSIRO Plant Industry, Dr Jim Peacock said today.

"Global food production systems are changing at an enormous pace, and these changes will affect us all. The principle reason for these changes is gene technology," Dr Peacock told the Royal Society of Tasmania in Hobart.

"The public widely regard gene technology as the insertion of a new gene into a plant or an animal to develop a genetically modified organism. While this is certainly one part of it, the technology is much broader than that."

Gene technology was giving researchers an unprecedented understanding of how plants grow and function. It truly was revolutionising modern biology, Dr Peacock said.

"We are already using this knowledge to speed up traditional plant breeding and develop better crop varieties more rapidly.

"For example, cereal cyst nematode is a devastating pest in the Australian wheat belt. Using a DNA marker - a kind of ‘flag’ that marks a particular characteristic - we have been able to knock months off the time needed to select wheat plants that resist the nematode, and so speed up the normal breeding process."

This use of gene technology did not involve transferring genes from any other species. It meant farmers could have better crop varieties much sooner, helping to keep them world competitive.

"In the same way, we have also been able to use the tools of gene technology to develop wheats with higher yields," Dr Peacock said.

It was clear from the recent debate about gene technology in Australia that the community wanted more information about gene technology and its safety.

"Products of gene technology are tested extensively before release," he said. "Far from being an overnight process, it can take up to 15 years of research and testing for a product to make it from a scientist’s idea to a commercial product.

"When we develop a novel plant, we start testing in the lab. Once we are satisfied with the results of these tests, we then run glasshouse trials.

"Again, once we are satisfied that everything is proceeding as it should, we move to small field trials (about the size of a suburban backyard) to larger field trials.

"Aside from the precautions we take within CSIRO - and there are many - several Government bodies are involved in the regulation of genetically modified organisms:

The Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee, which oversees the release of GMOs.

The Australia New Zealand Food Authority regulates food safety and is responsible for labelling.

The Federal Government’s new Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, which will sit in the Department of Health.

An example of this process was the INGARD®, or Bt, cotton developed by CSIRO and its commercial partners. This cotton contains a new gene, which protects it against insect attack.

"Using INGARD, growers have been able to cut pesticide use by up to 70 per cent," Dr Peacock said. "This is a major environmental benefit to the community, and is critical for the cotton industry.

"But we didn’t just have the idea one day and plant acres the next. First, we went through many regulatory and testing stages, assessing possible risks.

"One of the things we had to prove was that the modified cotton couldn’t breed with any of the Australian native plants which are related to cotton, so the gene couldn’t ‘escape’.

"We also had to show that we had strategies in place to prevent insects developing resistance to Bt, the protein that protects the plants."

Dr Peacock said the oil from the seeds of the modified cotton is used in cooking and to make margarine. People had naturally asked whether it was safe.

"The oil made from this cotton contains no new material - it doesn’t contain any genes or protein. It is identical in every way to oil from other cotton. But because people have concerns about the products of gene technology, the Food Authority tested it to make sure that there was absolutely no health risk."

Dr Peacock said that gene technology was the most important and revolutionary development in modern biology, and it was vital Australia not lose its place at the world forefront.

At the same time it was essential for scientists to tell the public what they were doing, and why, and give them the information they needed to make good decisions about the role of gene technology in Australia’s future.

More information: Dr Jim Peacock, CSIRO Plant Industry 0419 621 397

Katrina Nitschke, CSIRO Plant Industry 02 6246 5323 or 0417 240 261

Tuesday September 7 1999
AXIS: FIRST BIOTECH GROUP GOES INTO ADMINISTRATION

By Clive Cookson, Science Editor

LONDON (The Financial Times) -- Axis Genetics, a leading unquoted biotechnology company, has been placed in administration after running out of money. It is the first significant UK biotech company to enter insolvency proceedings.

Axis, which makes vaccines in genetically modified plants, may also be the first corporate victim of public antipathy to genetic engineering.

Iain Cubitt, chief executive, said his Cambridge-based company could not raise the minimum £10m in new funds it needed to keep going because some potential investors were scared off by adverse publicity about GM crops.

"We got to £8.2m but the deal ran out of time," said Dr Cubitt.

"We are in the business of developing pharmaceutical products in plants, not foods, and we are just working in enclosed greenhouses, but some investors were still wary of getting close to GM plants."

Attempts to merge Axis with other biotechnology companies were not successful.

The administrators appointed last week by the High Court, Andrew Wollaston and Alan Bloom of Ernst & Young, want to sell Axis’s business and assets as a going concern. But half of the 50 employees were laid off last week and more are leaving.

John Sime, chief executive of the BioIndustry Association, said: "It is a tragedy that a company with such excellent technology has reached this point because key investors were scared off.

"This is one of the first times a piece of medical technology has suffered because of its connection with GM crops, and it shows that you cannot fence off the pharmaceutical side of biotechnology."

Although exceptional factors might have driven Axis into administration, Mr Sime said the reluctance of UK financial institutions to put money into biotech companies was likely to claim more victims.

Axis has a strong patent portfolio, controlling two key technologies for producing vaccines in fruits and plants. Its oral vaccine against hepatitis B, made in GM potatoes, began clinical trials in the US just six weeks ago.

The company is also developing vaccines against cancer and other infectious diseases, including diarrhoea.

It is collaborating with two academic centres in New York, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute and Cornell University’s Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research. The future of those collaborations is uncertain.

Mr Sime feared the Axis technology would be "bought up at bargain basement prices and commercialised outside the UK".

Dr Cubitt said he hoped to organise a new group of investors to buy the company’s assets from the administrators.

September 7, 1999
GM FOOD EXPERT: WE NEED TOUGHER TESTS

By DAVID DERBYSHIRE, Science Correspondent

("most of front page Daily Mail article (few lines missing due to scanning probs!). In an editorial the Mail calls on the Government again to recognise the urgent need for a GM moratorium" - from an activist mailing list - Daily Mail is not available on the Internet - PAP) -- A LEADING supporter of GM technology yesterday raised new fears over the

hazards of ‘Frankenstein Food’.

Respected scientist Dr Andrew Chesson admitted that some current safety tests may be badly flawed.

He warned that without a radical revamp harmful chemicals and allergens could enter the human food chain with potentially disastrous results.

Dr Chesson’s intervention, echoing fears by environmental campaigners, is a major blow to the GM industry and the Government.

His alert will be taken seriously because of his reputation and his backing for the technology.

He is a senior researcher at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen where last year Dr Arpad Pusztai publicised a study suggesting that GM potatoes could damage the immune system of rats.

Dr Chesson was one of the scientists who tried to calm fears about the safety of GM foods after news of the study broke.

Campaigners have long argued that they could pose long-term health risks, affecting immune systems and triggering allergies and that GM crops could spread genetic pollution across the countryside. Government scientists insist there is no evidence for~ these claims and many point to health tests carried out on all new foods by independent scientists.

Now Dr Chesson, vice chairman of P European Commission committee on animal nutrition, says those tests could be flawed for some new crops being developed by biotechnology firms.

‘We are talking about a very important technology which is capable of improving human life,’ he told the Daily Mail. ‘But you would be foolish not to acknowledge there’s a potential for introducing a hazard.’

Dr Chesson warned that genetic engineering could create potentially dangerous changes to the plant’s metabolism which go unnoticed in existing tests.

‘We will undoubtedly use novel genes that haven’t faced the regulatory system before,’ he said. ‘There are tens of thousands of potential genes that could potentially be used. Thought should be given now to new procedures that will have to be adopted for better safety scrutiny.’

He called for more flexible tests that do not rely on previous assumptions about what is dangerous.

Dr Chesson also voiced fears about GM plants grown for industry, ending up in the food chain.

Scientists are developing strains of oilseed rape which produce high amounts of useful chemicals, such as jojoba wax for cosmetics. Once the crop has been crushed and drained it is usually fed to animals.

If there were hazardous chemicals in the feed they could be introduced into the human food chain, said Dr Chesson, adding: ‘If we choose to go down that road there could be a number of serious consequences.’

Pro-GM scientists say altering the DNA of plants to create strains resistant to insects or disease is little different from traditional farming. Over centuries, farmers have created new strains by cross-breeding, shuffling together hundreds of thousands of different genes in the process.

GM scientists say they do something similar by tinkering with just one or two genes with precision, and insist their creations are safer and less likely to have harmful side effects. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods, which is responsible for approving GM food in Britain claims they are ‘safe, if not safer’ than traditional foods - many of which have never faced any tests.

But critics insist that because so much of a plant’s genetic make up is still a mystery, altering just one gene could still have unforeseen side effects, creating chemicals which could damage the immune system or provoke allergic reactions.

The quality of safety tests have long been criticised by groups such as Friends of the Earth. They say many of the GM ingredients have gone through only basic checks.

One of the longest, on GM soya which is found in around 70 per cent of supermarket packaged food, lasted just ten weeks. It was fed to catfish who suffered no ill effects.

FOE campaigner Adrian Bebb, said of Dr Chesson’s warning: ‘At last a reputable scientist has echoed these concerns which are shared by many consumers. This an extremely welcome admission. These foods are being welcomed into the food chain without proper tests.’

Greenpeace’s Director Sarah Burton said: ‘GMOs are being released into the environment and the food chain despite those unspecified risks. GM ingredients should be taken out of food immediately and there should be a ban on any further releases into the environment.’

Dr Chesson’s Rowett Institute is known to have the ear of the Government. Its’ just retired head Professor Phillip James is close to Tony Blair...

Tuesday, September 7, 1999 Published at 08:11 GMT 09:11 UK
GM BACKLASH HITS BIOTECH COMPANY

LONDON (BBC News) -- A Cambridge-based biotechnology company has called in the administrators after it was hit by a public backlash against genetically-modified crops.

Chief executive of Axis Genetics Mr Iain Cubitt said his company could not raise the £10m funds it needed to keep going as investors were scared off by the adverse publicity surrounding genetically-modified (GM) food. Axis makes vaccines in GM plants.

"Some investors were still wary of getting close to GM plants," Mr Cubitt said.

Axis Genetics has laid off half of its 50 workers, while accountancy firm Ernst & Young continue the search for a new group of investors.

Start-up difficulties

The problem faced by Axis is one not just faced by biotechnology companies, but by many start-up companies in the UK, Dr Malcolm Vanderberg, an independent consultant to the biotechnology industry, said.

"In general the biotechnology industry finds it very hard to raise funds in the United Kingdom, as do a lot of companies who need venture capital," he said.

"They are trying to sell the investor a dream, that they can create something out of nothing and anything that dents that dream has to be bad news," Dr Vanderberg added.

He said that Axis problems were compounded by the "scare of GM food and that would have put some of the investors off because it was something that was going to dent the dream."

The cost of developing an idea from conception to the market place is estimated to be around £300m and many start- up companies underestimate the cost.

"In general, they are going for newer diseases where, not only do they have to discover whether their product works they have to discover how to do research in that particular area," Dr Vanderberg said.

September 7,1999
GM STUDY SCIENTIST BACKS TESTS CALL

Charis Owen

LONDON (PA News, from UofG AgNet) -- Dr Arpad Pusztai, who caused controversy last year when he questioned the safety of genetically modified food, today was cited as welcoming calls from a former colleague, Dr Andrew Chesson, a senior researcher at the Rowett Institute in Aberdee, for a radical overhaul of safety tests for GM produce.

The story says that Dr Chesson was one of the scientists who tried to calm fears about the safety of GM foods after news of the study provoked controversy.

He headed an investigation into the safety of Dr Pusztai’s work which found his findings were based on bad science and was backed by the Royal Society.

But yesterday, Dr Chesson warned that without a change in testing methods harmful chemicals and allergens could enter the human food chain with potentially serious results.

Dr Pusztai, who left the Rowett Institute in January, said at the time of his controversial study Dr Chesson was one of his "chief inquisitors" and was also one of the scientists who tried to calm fears about the safety of GM foods.

Pusztai was quoted as saying from his Aberdeen home that, "His conversion is late though it is still pretty welcome. About a year later he seems to have come around to the view that after all I was right. The fact of the matter is that without future testing we have to regard these things as unsafe. It is a simple as that."

Later, a statement from the Cabinet Office was cited as saying that Dr Chesson was referring to changes which may be necessary in the future, an issue already being addressed by the Government, adding, "The Government’s primary duty is to protect human health and the environment and that is why we have a comprehensive and transparent regulatory framework in place to deal with GM crops and food. The Government is satisfied as to the safety of all GM foods approved for sale in the UK."

Tuesday, September 07, 1999
MEMO TO MONSANTO

The enemies of genetically engineered foods are set to launch a new campaign, and their weapons are predictable, says Douglas Powell: shaky science, scare stories and pressure on corporations

Douglas Powell (Douglas Powell is an assistant professor in the department of plant agriculture at the University of Guelph, and the co-author of Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk. His next book, Reclaiming Dinner, will be published next year)

To: Monsanto Canada and other agricultural biotechnology companies.

From: Douglas Powell, assistant professor, University of Guelph

Re: Campaign against genetically engineered foods

TORONTO (The National Post) -- As you may have heard, the Sierra Club of Canada, the Council of Canadians, Greenpeace Canada, Friends of the Earth and others are gearing up for a fall campaign against genetically engineered foods, aimed at arousing what they say are complacent Canadians. These groups are convinced that if the citizenry only knew about the "dangers," they would reject the new foodstuffs as Europeans have.

Based on previous tactics and public musings, the groups are likely to follow a standard script.

First, they will attack the science, playing up any obscure scientific study that suggests an unacceptable level of risk, even if the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence declares the products in question safe. They will continue to make much of a researcher with the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, who reported to television cameras on Aug. 10, 1998, that, after feeding genetically engineered potatoes to five rats for 110 days, some suffered harmful effects. No matter that an independent review by the Royal Society soundly refuted his results.

These groups will partially embrace studies indicating potential environmental risks -- partially in that they will conveniently ignore any caveats or questions about applicability to the real world. They will brush aside attempts at explanation or scientific debate as just so much mumbo jumbo, or as the product of an allegedly corrupt funding system.

For example, the journal Nature reported on Aug. 26 that researchers at an independent, publicly funded institute in the U.K. found that genetically engineered canola containing a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to repel pests was potentially more beneficial to wildlife than conventional spraying with pesticides. The response? A Friends of the Earth spokeswoman argued, "the tests compared the GM [genetically modified] crops to normal farming methods -- organic crops do everything shown in this test, but without the risk. All the biotechnology companies are doing is creating a market for their products."

The argument really isn’t about science; it’s about control, and groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club know it. So while the scientists are responding in cool, technical language, the activists will demand labelling, because consumer choice, after all, is the North American mantra. Of course, the aligned groups will fail to mention that they are imposing their version of choice, in the absence of any detrimental health effects, on all consumers, and at a cost to all consumers.

Next, having sidestepped the science and cloaked themselves as defenders of all that is natural and pure, these groups will spout lies, ranging from blatant admissions of fact to conspiracy theories woven from tidbits drawn from wherever is convenient. With these lies, they will target the most vulnerable. (Parents, prepare to have your concerns for your children exploited.) Ignoring 10 years of public discussion and media coverage in North America, they will talk about how these crops are hidden and sneaking onto breakfast tables.

They will say Europeans are onto something, offering up the advice of Paul McCartney and Prince Charles. But Canada is not Europe, not Belgium, with its dioxin-tainted animal feed, and especially not Britain, a country whose main culinary exports have been mushy peas and mad cow disease.

They will target companies, who tend to crumble. Friends of the Earth, for example, is sending letters to 100 of the largest food companies in the U.S., asking them to pledge not to use gene-altered crops in their products. The group will post the replies on its Web site. Gerber, the target of an earlier Greenpeace letter, completely capitulated rather than face a discussion dominated by babies. Who can afford to buy the non-genetically engineered, all-organic baby food remains an open question.

And many journalists will believe these groups’ claims and endorse the campaign; reporters at many of the major dailies already have. If, for example, the discussion happens to return to science, journalists will dispatch so much messy detail by saying the scientific community is split, without bothering to check the specialties of the various PhD-ordained "experts" (policy and pasture grazing seem to dominate).

To date, the industry and government response has been based on inertia-through-more-research. Focus groups, expert interviews and consumer surveys seem to be the preferred tools.

Monsanto, save your money. The science is sound. Why not make it easy to track down? Why not post a bibliography on a Web site, with links, to all the peer-reviewed research that exists, answering basic questions, such as: Is this food safe? It may not sway consumers, but it will influence that black-box known as public discussion, and will let many see the research for themselves.

But the more fundamental problem is this: As technologies become increasingly embedded in daily routines, many in affluent North America reach for a connection to the past -- a past routinely described as better, safer, purer and, most importantly, more natural. Tampering with that image -- even if largely the creation of advertising gurus -- is to tamper with the soul itself, a soul seeking nourishment and purity from the foods of nature. A soul seeking reassurance and trust.

Past research has demonstrated that the strongest indicator of trust is whether someone or some agency is proven right over time. The public soon tires of rants about risk in the absence of viable solutions. And that is, as the Brits would say, the rub of the matter.

The solution, according to Sierra et al., is to move agriculture in an organic and sustainable direction. Sounds nice, but ignores the knowledge and efficiency that science can bring to food production. Think of the extra diesel expended to cultivate organic soybeans. (Doesn’t the Sierra Club care about greenhouse gases?) Think of the unnecessary pesticides that will be required. Think of the extra tillage and subsequent soil erosion -- a problem that gripped the Canadian Senate in the early 1980s.

If critics of genetically engineered foods were really concerned with the health of Canadians and safe food, they would launch a campaign to inform consumers about the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who get sick each year -- and the few who die -- from micro-organisms in the food and water they consume, not one of which has anything to do with genetic engineering.

Food safety is serious business. The social magnification of theoretical risks may trivialize significant and well-characterized risks in food, such as microbial contamination, as it belittles attempts by producers, processors, retailers and regulators to provide safe, inexpensive and nutritious foods.

Perhaps, beyond the shrill sound bites there is a way to extract whatever benefits genetic engineering can bring to food production and minimize the unknowns that come along with any new technology, while at the same time establishing trust. After all, most food purchasing decisions are overwhelmingly based on trust.

Tuesday 7 September 1999
NEW RULES THREATEN NATURAL FOOD INDUSTRY

Ottawa may call for prescriptions for herbal remedies, supplements

Derek Sankey

CALGARY (The Calgary Herald) -- The growing market in the natural- foods industry is showing no signs of slowing in Calgary, as retailer stores expand despite the uncertainty over the classification of food supplements.

This segment of the grocery industry has an annual sales growth of 20 to 40 per cent, according to some local natural foods retailers.

However, plans by Ottawa to create a third food category, "neutraceuticals," is stirring controversy for retailers such as Community Natural Foods on 10th Avenue S.W.

Michael Collens, general manager of Community Foods, said that move could open the doors for domination by the drug industry and larger companies. "If that happens, there will be a massive revolt, and most of the small stores will close."

Many people go to natural-food stores for supplements when traditional therapies don’t work, said Collens, adding people are becoming more sensitive to the "bombardment of chemicals."

Under Ottawa’s plan, alternative medicines such as herbal remedies and natural vitamins would be regulated and require a doctor’s prescription to buy them.

Two groups recently united to fight the government’s plan. The Progressive Group for Independent Business and the B.C.-based Citizen’s Voice announced their national campaign in Calgary last month.

The scheduled changes to this $3.2-billion industry come at a time when natural food retailers are enjoying significant growth. Collens said sales have doubled since he came to Community Foods four years ago.

"It’s going to continue to grow, and the larger companies will get involved as volumes continue to grow," predicted Community Foods owner Garry Wilkes.

The 16,000-square-foot natural-foods store, which has operated in Calgary since 1977 in different locations, gets 60 per cent of its sales from natural-food products and nutritional supplements. The rest comes from organic produce, bulk sales and a natural-foods cafe.

Debaji’s Fresh Market owner Mazen Debaji, who brought his natural-foods market to northwest Calgary’s Northland Village Shoppers in March, said Ottawa’s plan would affect his business.

"It’s going to restrict how we sell it" and could include taxes on those items, leading to increased costs to the consumer, said Debaji.

However, he said the natural-foods market is growing strong in Calgary.

The chain, with a store in Edmonton and one in Calgary, plans to open another location in south Calgary on Dec. 1.

Similarly, Community Foods eyes expansion of its location as demand grows, Collens said.

He said a major trend in the industry is a move to large-scale natural-food grocery stores, like Capers Community Market in Vancouver.

Even smaller retailers are cashing in on the growing popularity of natural foods and supplements.

Scott Clements, owner of the 1,350-square-foot Sunnyside Market in Kensington, said his sales are growing about 25-per-cent annually, due to increased public awareness of alternatives in the food industry.

Clements said the industry is more market-driven, now that competition has increased and bigger companies see the financial gains.

"I’d say there will be a mainstreaming of it," he said.

September 7, 1999
WORK IN PROGRESS

Vaccines May Soon Have Punch but No Ouch

By ANNE EISENBERG

(The New York Times) -- Vaccinations may one day be simply a matter of a quick shower -- or maybe just a shampoo.

Scientists at Stanford University have found that a simple solution of DNA and water applied to the skin of mice can induce an immune response against the hepatitis B virus. The response is comparable to that from traditional injection into the muscle, the research shows.

The DNA vaccine was apparently taken up through the hair follicles of the mice; the mice without hair (what scientists call nude mice) did not show the same reaction.

"In principle, the DNA solution could be put on a Band-Aid, or in a spray, or even in shampoo" said Dr. Paul A. Khavari, leader of the group reporting the study, which was written by Dr. Hongran Fan and appears in the September issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology. "Anyone could apply it," Dr. Khavari added.

In the study, the DNA, which sets off the body’s immune response against hepatitis B, was applied directly to the mouse skin with no preliminary scraping or chemical hair removal.

It induced an immune response comparable to that of muscular injection of commercially available hepatitis B vaccine, the researchers said.

"It’s an exciting development because it shows that DNA vaccination will get simpler and simpler," said Dr. Stephen Albert Johnston, the director of the Center for Biomedical Inventions at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a pioneer in genetic vaccination.

Dr. Johnston, who was not connected with the research at Stanford, said: "We’ve been injecting common vaccines into the muscle. This work says that we’ve been administering vaccines in the wrong place. Soaking it into the skin is a lot simpler and less painful."

Scientists in the rapidly growing field of DNA vaccines are experimenting with a variety of needle-free methods -- including nasal sprays, subcutaneous patches and edible vaccines -- to deliver the genetic material.

DNA vaccines offer many practical advantages.

"DNA is so stable that you can walk around with it in your pocket for months at room temperature," said Dr. Khavari, who in addition to leading the research effort at Stanford is chief of the dermatology service at the Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Palo Alto, Calif., and a professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

"The lack of need for refrigeration or special medical personnel makes it very attractive, especially in developing countries," he added.

Another advantage of DNA vaccinations is that in the future a single DNA cocktail might provide immunity against a number of diseases.

"The nice thing about DNA vaccines is that the technology to generate them against multiple different organisms is very promising," said Dr. Dennis Klinman of the Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration in Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Klinman, an expert on DNA vaccines, cautioned that much research still had to be done.

"We can’t know in advance that the same immune response will be equally protective in different species, or that different species will mount precisely the same immune response," he said.

But Dr. Klinman predicted that once significant progress was made toward understanding how DNA vaccines induced immune responses in humans, this technology would be "harnessed to develop vaccines against a large number of different pathogens."

Dr. Khavari emphasized the preliminary nature of his findings. "So many things work in animal models that don’t work in humans," he said. "We’ll have to see if it transfers to human skin, which has different characteristics than mouse skin in its thickness and hair follicle density. We are hopeful that it will find some application in producing inexpensive, painless, effective vaccines."

Stanford University has a licensing agreement with Maxygen, a biotechnology company in Northern California, to develop the topical genetic vaccine technology for commercial use.

September 7, 1999
HUNGER CAN BE A POLITICAL ISSUE

(The New York Times - Letters To the Editor: Re "Why Genetically Altered Food Won’t Conquer Hunger" (Op-Ed, Sept. 1): A key mistake often made in the debate over genetically altered food is to confuse current problems of world hunger with the long-term need to keep agricultural production ahead of environmental change, population growth, pests and diseases.

To date, genetic modification, mainly brought about by cross- breeding, has just about helped us outpace environmental change. Moreover, modern advances in genetic modification will provide us with additional tools to remain ahead of change for generations to come, and may even prove to be more precise than in the past, thereby leading to fewer side effects.

The question of hunger is a totally different issue, the answers to which lie in politics and economics, not in science.

PHILIP STOTT, London; The writer is a professor of biogeography at the University of London.

ENGINEERING THAT HELPS

To the Editor: Peter Rosset (Op-Ed, Sept. 1) argues that genetically engineered food won’t conquer hunger. However, Mr. Rosset ignores the reality that such food is already helping.

Today, much of the world’s cheese supply depends on an engineered enzyme that allows cheaper, cleaner and more efficient production.

Gene enzymes are also used elsewhere in food production, bringing down costs for everyone, including the poor.

Moreover, there are gene crops that have allowed planting where disease, drought or soil conditions previously prevented farming, which could solve distribution problems and alleviate hunger.

DAN SPILLANE, Seattle

September 7, 1999
CROP-SEPARATION ORDER COMES UNDER FIRE

Archer Daniels Midland asks suppliers to segregate genetically modified crops; suppliers resist move

DECATUR, Ill. (The Spokesman Review (Spokane) - The Associated Press) -- Agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland Co. is asking corn and soybean suppliers to keep their genetically modified crops separate from traditionally grown grains.

The move, which could discourage farmers from buying genetically engineered seed, was the latest setback in attempts to promote seed that is developed to resist insect damage and disease.

In a statement released last week, ADM said the move is in response to demands by customers who are "requesting and making purchases based on the genetic origin of the crops."

"If we are unable to satisfy their requests, they do have alternative sources for their ingredients," the statement said.

The request to grain elevators just before the fall harvest is a sign of growing concern about export markets such as Europe and Japan, which favor products made from crops that have not been genetically altered.

But meeting ADM’s request may not be possible.

In central Illinois, more than half of the local corn and soybean crops are believed to be genetically modified. The most common kinds are Roundup Ready soybeans by Monsanto and "Bt" corn varieties distributed by several companies.

And suppliers contend that keeping genetic crop varieties separate is impossible at most grain elevators.

Jerry Rowe, president of Farmers Grain Co. in Dalton City, Ill., said the grain elevators he manages are not currently equipped to segregate large amounts of corn and soybeans.

Row said trying to keep the crop varieties separate could significantly slow this year’s harvest, because grain elevators would likely be forced to assign certain days of the week for delivery of genetically modified crops.

Moreover, the shortest test to assure genetic origin takes 15 to 20 minutes for large grain loads, which would further cause delays.

John McMillin, a stock market analyst for Prudential Securities in New York, said the issue puts ADM in a difficult position, saying the company is "caught in the middle of this controversy, between farmers that like to grow the genetic crops and markets where the stuff can’t be sold."

The statement follows an announcement earlier this year that ADM will no longer accept genetically modified crops that are not approved for import in Europe.

September 7, 1999
ARS ELECTRONICA TRIES ON GENES

by Steve Kettmann

LINZ, Austria (The Wired News) -- Prognostications of gene wars. Angry debates between scientists. Morality as perceived by a genome lawyer.

Could this be Ars Electronica? Indeed, after 20 years of emphasizing computer arts, organizers of the festival boldly decided to branch out into the area of life science.

Only in Europe would an arts festival dive right into the heart of such thorny issues as the propriety of patenting genes or the inevitability of future parents shopping for offspring like consumers at a Coke vending machine (one of the art projects on display).

And only in Europe would the whole exhilarating, contentious mess come off so well. Post-symposium conversations buzzed with the energy and excitement of new ideas, and old ideas freshly updated.

Even under the weight of such dire topics as the extinction of the species, perspective and humor remained part of the mix as speakers addressed the Ars Electronica 99 theme, Life Sciences.

Europe may trail the United States in many aspects of the technological revolution, especially access to the Internet. But Europe has considerably more experience with epic historical changes. And that could make it the world leader in the biotechnology revolution.

"What most impresses me is the understanding here that novelty is not necessarily progress," said Lori Andrews, a cloning expert who was one of the star speakers.

Andrews, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law who has worked on the Human Genome Project, has a book out this year, The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology.

"In the United States, we have the idea that the market is the best distributor of a commodity, even values, so we can’t have really rich conversations about values," Andrews said. "It’s different in Europe. In part it’s a difference in how quality of life is defined. It may not be defined in Europe as having more toys."

Sparks have flown at previous Ars Electronica festivals in Linz, a picturesque little burg on the Danube River. Last year, the theme was Infowar, and there was just that.

And the split between biotechnology enthusiasts and their opponents made for sizzling confrontations at this year’s conference - of ideas and among individuals.

In a lecture Sunday, Dean Hamer, a National Institute of Health gene specialist, raised troubling issues about a world in which psychiatrists routinely map DNA for inclinations for depression or other treatable conditions.

"Within a few years, I suggest that the doctor will take a little blood, or maybe a nose hair, and come back with a DNA analysis," he said. "If your doctor can get this information, what’s to stop your insurance company from getting this information? Or your potential employer?"

Hamer was in the crowd later for Jeremy Rifkin’s crowd-pleasing speech, which offered a vision of why people need to resist the march forward in the application of biotechnology.

Described by Wired Magazine last year as "the global village’s town crier," Rifkin reiterated many of the arguments presented in his 14th book, The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World.

According to Rifkin, the issue of genetic rights will loom over the biotech century like civil and human rights did in the 20th century.

Rifkin talked about genes as the crucial natural resource of the 21st century. He assured the young people in the crowd that they would live to see "gene wars." He talked about the possibility of extinction of our species if genetic engineering weakens the gene pool. And he warned against turning genetic engineering into an accepted tool of parenthood.

It was all too much for Hamer, who used the question-and-answer session after Rifkin’s talk to grab a mike and, voice trembling somewhat, announce: "I was surprised to find that you are really a closet eugenicist. What gives you the right to say whether I have the right to have a child (free of certain genetically programmed illnesses)?"

Rifkin and Hamer went at each other after that, trading cutting remarks. Rifkin blasted the US scientific establishment for conflict of interest, given the many scientists who sit on corporate boards. He called on Hamer to lead the charge against such conflict of interest, vowing to write him a long letter.

"I’ll await the letter," Hamer said, sounding conciliatory.

"And I guarantee you won’t follow up on it," Rifkin said, turning away in a huff.

As Lori Andrews, the one panelist who sat front and center for every talk, put it later: "It got kind of brutal."

Over against the wall, Honor Harger of Australia was taking in the whole thing and giggling with delight. She came to Linz as part of an interactive art project and found the whole biotechnology debate startling new ground.

"It has been a real education for me when you see who the major players are and how they feel about each other," she said. "I just find this really fascinating. It’s exciting, and unusual, to see such a high-level exchange of views."

That was what the event was all about. Also during Rifkin’s time with the mike, someone in the crowd asked for a representative from Ars Electronica sponsor Novartis, a pharmaceutical company, to comment on Rifkin’s charges of the havoc genetically altered crops can wreak.

Martin Halama, a spokesman for Novartis Austria, ended up leaning against a wall uneasily, mike in hand.

"New technologies create opportunities, but there are also concerns and it is wise to take these concerns seriously. I don’t know if you (in the crowd) are scientists or normal people. I am not a scientist, I am a communicator," Halama said.

"And not a very good one" commented someone in the crowd.

Passions run deep on such issues, which was where the influence of artists came into play.

Even with tense standoffs such as Rifkin’s and Hamer’s, the mood in the auditorium was not oppressive. Having artists around can do that for a gathering. They were not just listening, they were turning ideas over in their heads, and maybe planting the seeds for coming projects.

"It has been great," said Margarita Zinets, a video artist who came from Kiev, Ukraine, for the event.

"I like that artists and scientists are here together to try to find solutions together. I am very interested in such types of communication. I wouldn’t say it works for sure, but I think there will be some convergence from the event.

"From my point of view as an artist, some themes were discussed here that will be the basis for new works of art. I think this shows that art can balance science. Art has a heart, and when you see a project you know right away if you like it, because you feel it by your intuition."

September 7, 1999

SCIENTIST RAISES HACKLES AT ARS

by Steve Kettmann

LINZ, Austria (The Wired News) -- Even after Jeremy Rifkin returned to Washington DC, the mostly European assemblage here at the Ars Electronica festival was still not sure what to make of him and his message. But he definitely got their attention.

"Ah, the preacher," joked one winner of an Ars Electronica award when the video at Monday night’s gala showed footage of Rifkin working the conference hall on Sunday.

But as much ambivalence as people here felt over Rifkin’s talk-show-host ease with a crowd, his occasional twisting of fact, and his Clinton-esque skill with a timely hand gesture, many were also intrigued by his cautionary table-thumping.

"I think it was a very bold risk for Ars Electronica to make life sciences the theme this year," he said. "People will look back on this, I think, and not only in Europe. It’s innovative and will be looked back on as a defining moment for art as we move into the biotech century.

"This didn’t need to happen in Europe, rather than the United States, but it was inevitable that it would. In Europe there is an understanding that culture matters. The marketplace is considered necessary but not sufficient to define life. The marketplace has a place, but culture has a primordial place."

Taken as a whole, Rifkin’s message could be summed up as a call to Americans to think a little more like Europeans. Cloning humans is illegal in Europe, as opposed to the United States, where different states take different positions. And Europe has erected trade barriers against genetically engineered crops.

As Rifkin told a woman who paid her respects after his address ("You are a genius," she said), "Austria is the mouse that roared," specifically, for raising the red flag on genetically altered corn.

Rifkin speaks with such easy authority and works a crowd so well, it is easy to see him as a politician, a man for whom the need to lead comes before any cause. But like Ralph Nader, he seems to get a lot more done than most politicians.

He is part of a challenge to the controversial idea of patenting genes: He wants to shake up the system by applying for a patent on genetic material that is part human and part animal. He is working with a large team of antitrust lawyers to challenge corporate and government patents on genes. And of course, he has another book in the chute.

Still, there was dark muttering about his charismatic style. Charisma, it can be said, still has a bad name in Germany. Also, some found him slippery at times.

Klaus Ammann, another panelist from Bern, Switzerland, bore a distracting resemblance to Santa Claus. His manner was so self-effacing, he referred to himself as "just a simple botanist." But he confronted Rifkin before the crowd.

"It’s just brilliant scare tactics what you are doing," he said.

Rifkin slipped into his hyper-reasonable mode to counter the charge.

"I am not scared to death, I am saying there are legitimate concerns," he said.

This from the man who earlier in his talk guaranteed that the young people in the crowd would live to see massive gene wars, and talked about the possibility that genetic engineering could lead to the extinction of the species.

Rifkin made the tactical blunder of asking Ammann if he was aware of particular research in his field. Ammann promptly cited, chapter-and-verse, the exact research that demonstrated Rifkin was on shaky ground in his contention that a single genetically altered gene could escape a field, via pollen, and lead to mutations.

Even so, there was no question that Rifkin offered a rare combination of scientific insight and humanistic concerns. Many participants were especially moved by his vision of what life would be like if babies were genetically engineered.

"Once we begin to see our children as programmable, it becomes the ultimate shopping experience in a postmodern world," he said. "The most important casualty of designer babies is we lose empathy. In a world where we come to think of life as subject to quality controls, how empathetic are we going to be?"

Tuesday September 7, 5:20 am Eastern Time
HEMP FOODS GIVING SOY HEADY COMPETITION IN NUTRITION, VERSATILITY

SANTA ROSA, Calif. /PRNewswire/ -- No, you can’t get high from it, and yes, it’s one of the most nutritious plant foods in the world. Hempseed-based foods, according to the Hemp Food Association (www.HempFood.com) are functional foods or nutraceuticals, and are projected to be one of the fastest-growing segments in the food industry. Santa Rosa, CA-based HempNut(TM), Inc. is the leader in sales of hempseed-based food products. HempNut(TM) contains 36% Omega-3 and -6 Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs), and 31% highly digestible complete edistin protein, making it second only to soybeans as the best plant protein food available. In fact, HempNut is higher in protein than beef, fish, and poultry. The amino acid profile of HempNut is superior to soybean, human milk and cow’s milk, and similar to egg white.

"Before HempNut, for millenia people were eating hempseed just like birds do, that is, with the outer shell," says Richard Rose, founder and president of HempNut, Inc. "Not only is the outer shell dirty and not very tasty, it contains microscopic amounts of THC, which is not enough to get "high" on, but just enough to flunk a drug test. But since we removed the shell, HempNut is actually 40% more nutritious than whole hempseed. And, it’s very high in Essential Fatty Acids ("good fat") and protein, and also vitamins and minerals. We find it tastier and easier to work with than soy, and it’s more nutritious. It’s so nutritious, we call it the "Soybean of the New Millennium."

Using a patent-pending shelling process, the hard outer shell of the hempseed is removed, yielding a delicious seed similar to sesame seed in appearance, and pine nuts or sunflower in taste. Removing the seed coat improves shelf life, digestibility and palatability, and reduces darkening of foods. It also eliminates any minute amount of THC residue, which sticks to the outside of the shell, not inside the seed.

HempNut Inc. introduced shelled hempseed in 12-ounce cans, and HempNut Butter, which contains hempseed and organic dry roasted valencia peanuts and sea salt. It is creamy in texture and tastes very similar to almond butter. HempNut products are available nationally in better natural food and grocery stores, restaurants, direct on-line at www.TheHempNut.com, or from the company at (707) 527-8113.

One of the outstanding benefits of HempNut hempseed is its versatility: it’s excellent blended in a smoothie or shake, or in a variety of recipes such as baked goods and bread, crunchy seasoning, or roasted and sprinkled on salads. It can be used in any recipe using nuts, sesame or soybean.

Rose projects at least 50% growth annually for HempNut, Inc. His first company, Rella Good Cheese Co. (formerly Sharon’s Finest), hit the Inc. 500 list in 1993 with 950% growth over five years. Rose says he expects even greater growth for HempNut, Inc., and is planning to launch 14 new HempNut(TM) products by the end of 1999, including cheese, veggie burgers, chocolate, snack chips, energy bars, and drinks.

HempNut, Inc. was founded by soyfoods pioneer Richard Rose. With 20 years of natural food experience product development and marketing experience, he has won four awards for his work with hemp foods since 1994. He recently appeared as a guest chef on the "Roseanne Show" on CBS. For more information, call 707/571-1330.

SOURCE: HempNut, Inc.

Tuesday September 7 5:46 AM ET
GROUP WANTS DIOXIN LEVELS CHECKED

NITRO (ABC NewsWire) -- The West Virginia Research Group wants state and federal agencies to look at dioxin pollution on the banks of the Kanawha River.

Last week the group released a study on dioxin contamination in the river near Nitro. The group says a Monsanto plant poisoned the area with the chemical over three decades ago.

Monsanto officials claim their studies they didn’t show any long term health effects to people who came in contact with dioxin. But the U-S E-P-A says eating fish caught in the river near Nitro is one-thousand times more likely to cause cancer than eating fish classified as safe.

Tuesday September 7, 7:55 am Eastern Time
ISP TO ACQUIRE MONSANTO’S ALGINS BUSINESS

WAYNE, N.J. /PRNewswire/ -- International Specialty Products Inc. announced today that it has entered into a definitive agreement to purchase the assets of Monsanto Company’s algins business. As part of the transaction, ISP will acquire substantially all of the assets of Monsanto’s Kelco Alginates division, including manufacturing facilities in San Diego, California and Girvan, Scotland and a research facility in Tadworth, England. The transaction is subject to certain customary conditions and is expected to close in the fourth quarter.

Monsanto’s algins business is a world leader in algin manufacturing and application technology. Recently celebrating its 70th anniversary, it was the first company to successfully commercialize algin. Algin is a naturally occurring hydrocolloid, derived from brown seaweeds, and is used in food, pharmaceutical and industrial applications.

Sunil Kumar, President and Chief Executive Officer of ISP, stated, "The acquisition of Monsanto’s algins business is consistent with ISP’s growth strategy, is complementary to our pharmaceutical excipients business, and expands ISP’s strategic emphasis on high value-added specialty chemicals to food ingredients." ISP currently serves the pharmaceutical market with its PLASDONE® and POLYPLASDONE® family of polymers, and the beverage industry with its POLYCLAR® family of polymers.

Mr. Kumar continued, "I wish to welcome the Kelco Alginates employees to the ISP family, and am pleased to have Steve Post and his team continue in their management roles. We think that the algins business is a great platform for growth. ISP’s first task will be to assure customers that they will continue to receive the highest quality products and services that they have received from the algins business in the past. Next, we will turn to improving the efficiency and productivity of manufacturing operations." Mr. Kumar added: "We hope to continue to make additional acquisitions that complement our existing businesses and are accretive to earnings."

Steve Post, who will remain as President of the algins business, stated "I am very pleased that Kelco Alginates is joining International Specialty Products, which is a well established leader in providing key enabling ingredients to major companies around the world. ISP’s commitment to meet customer needs with innovative products and their focus on growth aligns perfectly with our algin business. I am confident that joining ISP will strengthen our capabilities and help us continue to build a bright future."

Monsanto’s algins business, which Monsanto has owned since 1995, employs approximately 370 employees and will become part of ISP’s Pharmaceutical, Agricultural and Beverage business unit. The business unit will be renamed Pharmaceutical, Agricultural and Food Ingredients.

International Specialty Products Inc. is a leading multinational manufacturer of specialty chemicals, mineral products and filter products.

Monsanto is a global leader in life sciences with core businesses in agriculture, food and pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: International Specialty Products Inc.

Tuesday September 7, 8:34 am Eastern Time
MONSANTO SELLS ALGINS OPERATION TO INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS

ST. LOUIS /PRNewswire/ -- Monsanto Company today announced the sale of its algins operation to International Specialty Products (ISP) for an undisclosed amount.

"The sale of the algins operation is another step forward in our divestiture process to focus our resources on agriculture, pharmaceuticals and the nutritional links between the two," said Gary L. Crittenden, Monsanto’s chief financial officer.

Monsanto will use the proceeds from the sale to pay down debt. Both companies will work together to ensure a quick and efficient transition of the algins business, which includes manufacturing facilities located in San Diego, California, and Girvan, Scotland, and a laboratory/sales facility located in Tadworth, England. Approximately 400 employees support the business operations worldwide.

"We’re pleased to have found a strong buyer like ISP, a company committed to maintaining existing facilities and to continuing the algins business’ long-standing industry leadership. ISP is acquiring a highly committed organization characterized by continuous improvement across all areas," said Arnold Donald, co-president of Monsanto’s nutrition and consumer business unit.

Monsanto announced its intent to divest its algins operation in January 1999. Alginates are extracted from brown seaweeds and are useful for their stabilizing, suspending and gelling properties in food, pharmaceutical and industrial applications.

Based in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto is a global leader in life sciences with core businesses in agriculture, food and pharmaceuticals, and is dedicated to improving the quality of food, nutrition and health for the world’s growing population.

ISP is a worldwide supplier of performance-enhancing products for a variety of industries. ISP produces more than 300 specialty chemicals extending into personal care, pharmaceuticals, agricultural, beverage and industrial products. The company’s world headquarters is located in Wayne, N.J.

SOURCE: Monsanto

Tuesday September 7, 10:18 am Eastern Time
FRENCH FARMER RELEASED, BIG MAC TURNS ON THE CHARM

TOULOUSE, France (Reuters) -- A French farm union leader arrested last month for ransacking the site of a new McDonald’s restaurant was released from prison on Tuesday after his supporters paid a 105,000 franc ($17,100) bail.

Jose Bove, the standard bearer of French farmers’ fury against U.S. retaliatory tariffs on European Union foodstuffs, pledged to keep up the fight at world trade talks in Seattle in December.

"We’ll go to Seattle," he said outside the prison. "We want quality agriculture. We reject dirty food."

Washington introduced punitive tariffs on a number of luxury goods, including French Roquefort cheese and foie gras, after the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled that a European Union ban on American hormone-treated beef was illegal.

Bove said cheques were mailed from all over the world to help pay his bail. French media have reported that donors included U.S. farmers.

He said he would request meetings with French President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin to "prepare for Seattle and say clearly that we reject the WTO as it stands."

Jospin, on a visit to the Mediterranean island of Corsica, welcomed Bove’s release. He told reporters that defending French quality farming was just -- "on condition that the need for a world trade organisation to regulate world trade is understood."

Meanwhile, the McDonald’s fast food chain, the symbolic target of angry farmers who dumped manure and rotting fruit at outlets across France, launched an advertising campaign to highlight its role in France’s economy.

"Born in the USA but made in France," read a full-page ad in the popular daily Le Parisien.

It said the U.S. burger chain, widely popular with the younger generation, was feeding a million people a day in France. It employed 30,000 people in 750 outlets and provided a market for 45,000 French cattle breeders.

In a bid to defuse tension, McDonald’s has dropped civil suits against farmers who trashed the nearly-finished restaurant in Millau on August 12. But criminal proceedings are continuing against Bove and five other farmers in connection with the attack.

In Agen, in the gastronomic southwestern region, McDonald’s on Monday substituted duck breast and foie gras pate for beef and offered blue-veined Roquefort cheese and plums rather than processed cheddar in cheeseburgers to woo the local farm union.

Tuesday September 7, 12:20 pm Eastern Time
EU CONSIDERS TARIFF APPROACH TO END BANANA ROW

By David Evans

BRUSSELS (Reuters) -- The European Union is considering changes to its banana import policy in a bid to end U.S. trade sanctions worth nearly $200 million a year.

The signs are that a "tariff only" approach is gaining ground, EU officials said on Tuesday.

The World Trade Organisation ruled in April that the EU’s current system, with a complex mix of tariffs, quotas and distribution licences, favoured the EU’s former colonies in the Caribbean over Latin American growers and U.S. marketing giants such as Chiquita and Dole Foods.

The European Commission has since opened a dialogue with all parties concerned to try to solve the transatlantic trade row, a precursor to the dispute over imports of hormone-treated beef which also resulted in a WTO case and hefty U.S. sanctions.

EU officials said the last meeting of the outgoing Commission will on Wednesday examine an internal document which concludes that an import system for bananas based on tariffs alone would be the best way to satisfy all parties.

"It suggests that a tariff-only option could be the way forward. It’s the option likely to receive most support, within and outside the EU," one official said.

CARIBBEAN GROWERS AT RISK

However, depending on where the tariff was pitched, an approach with no quota protection could leave the more vulnerable Caribbean growers open to fiercer competition from their more efficient Latin American rivals, analysts say.

"If the tariff was pitched low enough not to do any damage to the Caribbean growers, it would give more market access to Latin American producers," independent analyst Brian Gardner said.

The EU detailed its main options in May, and said then that one of the disadvantages of a tariff-only policy was the uncertainty of its effects on trade from the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) suppliers.

EU officials said the paper under discussion was not intended as a legislative draft, but was designed to give a pointer to Romano’s Prodi’s new executive, due to take office following a European Parliament vote on September 15.

It would be passed on to EU foreign ministers when they met in Brussels next week.

Ministers are under pressure to bring an end to the $191.4 million of 100 percent punitive duties the United States imposed on a range of EU imports including British batteries, French handbags and Italian coffee machines after the WTO ruling.

But the Commission remains divided, with countries such as France and Spain looking for protection for their own banana growers and with others like Germany and Netherlands pushing for a more liberalised market.

And EU officials have warned that locking Caribbean banana growers out of the EU’s lucrative banana market could drive some into producing drugs instead.

Tuesday September 7, 12:20 pm Eastern Time
HEALTH SOURCE(TM) SHAKES UP NUTRITION AND MAKES SOY PROTEIN CONVENIENT FOR CONSUMERS

Health Shake Poised to be a Hit with Heart Health-Conscious Consumers Now Available Nationwide

ABBOTT PARK, Ill. /PRNewswire/ -- This fall, it will be easier than ever to reap the many health benefits of soy protein as Health Source(TM) isolated soy protein powder shake is available at selected food, drug and discount stores nationwide, including CVS, Rite Aid, Wal-Mart, Longs Drugs, Walgreens and Drug Emporium, as well as Albertsons and H.E. Butt.

Health Source delivers many important health benefits in a convenient, great-tasting product. One serving of Health Source provides 55 mg of soy isoflavones, and 20 grams of soy protein. Health Source also is an excellent source of calcium (70 percent daily value) and vitamin D (25 percent daily value), both of which are important for bone health, making it even more appealing to an increasingly health-conscious consumer.

"We believe Health Source will be a convenient, healthy product for consumers concerned with good health and nutrition," says Jay Martin, Health Source product manager, Ross products division, Abbott Laboratories. "In light of the considerable attention soy protein has been receiving from the media, consumers are looking for just this sort of product, and we are pleased to be able to provide it to them."

In November 1998, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a proposed ruling in which it provided an example of a health claim on the association between soy protein and coronary heart disease. If approved, this would allow the use of the following statement on food and in food labeling: "25 grams of soy protein a day, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease." A decision on whether to allow the health claim will be made by FDA by October 1999.

Studies show that soy protein is an important dietary component for maintaining good heart-health. The soy protein in Health Source also contains naturally-occurring isoflavones. Isoflavones are phytonutrients, and recent human clinical research suggests that isoflavones may play a role as one of the bioactive compounds that work in conjunction with soy protein to help maintain healthy cholesterol levels. Important leading health authorities suggest increasing the amount of plant-based proteins (such as soy protein) in your diet while decreasing the amount of animal-based proteins (such as from beef or chicken) as a means of achieving the dietary guidelines for Americans. Health Source provides a simple way to meet both of these health goals.

Health Source will be available to consumers in all four varieties in 9.2 ounce cans. Each can contains enough Health Source isolated soy protein powder for nine servings at a cost of about one dollar per serving. Consumers will find Health Source in the nutritional supplement section of the store, with a suggested retail price of $9.99 per 9.2 oz can.

Lactose and dairy-free, and containing only 1 gram of fat per serving, Health Source can be added to milk, juice, water, yogurt or blended with fruit, and is available in vanilla, strawberry and chocolate flavors, as well as in an unflavored version. Health Source is made with Supro XG Brand Isolated Soy Protein manufactured by Protein Technologies International, a DuPont Business. Supro XG provides consumers with a high quality, concentrated form of soy protein. Moreover, Supro XG is made from soybeans specially processed to preserve the naturally-occurring isoflavone content, unlike many brands of soy protein that are made from processes that deplete isoflavones.

The Ross products division of Abbott Laboratories, makers of Health Source, is a long-time leader in the United States and international nutritionals marketplace, well-known for the manufacturing and marketing of leading brands such as Similac infant formula and Ensure adult nutritional products. Abbott Laboratories is a global, diversified health care company devoted to the discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical, diagnostic, nutritional and hospital products. The company employs 56,000 people and markets its products in more than 130 countries. Abbott’s news releases and other information are available on the company’s Web site at www.abbott.com.

For more information or to order Health Source, visit the Health Source Web site at www.healthsource.com

SOURCE: Abbott Laboratories

Tuesday September 7, 2:15 pm Eastern Time
U.S. FIRMS IN EUROPE BACK NEW TRADE ROUND

By Adrian Croft

BRUSSELS (Reuters) -- U.S. businesses in Europe said on Tuesday they backed a broad new round of global trade liberalisation talks covering goods and services but oppose the inclusion of competition policy and investment.

The EU Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce in Belgium noted that multilateral talks on agriculture and services are already set to begin at the end of this year.

But for the talks to bear fruit, they had to be placed in a broader context, it said in a position paper released before a November World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial meeting in Seattle which will decide the future shape of trade talks.

"Consequently, a global round of negotiations must take place encompassing other key issues such as for example electronic commerce," it said.

Leading trading powers, including the European Union, the United States and Japan, are calling for a far-reaching new trade round to be launched in Seattle, but some developing countries are not keen on expanding the talks.

The EU Committee, which has about 140 multinational companies as members, said it backed the reduction or elimination of tariff barriers on industrial goods.

In the agriculture sector, it urged WTO members to sharply reduce or eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers on processed foods. It also backed the elimination of all price supports to allow commodities to trade at world market prices.

The EU’s agricultural policies are expected to come under fire in the new talks from major agricultural exporters such as Australia, Canada and the United States.

In services, the EU Committee said significant market access liberalisation was needed in government procurement, express delivery services, financial services, information technology services, professional and business-related services and telecommunications.

The EU Committee said it believed the WTO was the most effective body to ensure that electronic commerce was as free as possible.

For electronic commerce to thrive, services must be provided across borders, it said. "The EU Committee encourages the WTO and national governments to refrain from introducing new tariffs on Internet and electronic transmissions, which may erect trade barriers and hinder liberalisation," it said.

However, the EU Committee differed from the EU’s executive Commission which has called for the inclusion of competition and investment policy in the new talks, which it has baptised the "Millennium" round.

The EU Committee said it was premature to launch negotiations on a WTO competition policy framework in the Millennium Round and it was not in favour of including negotiations on a WTO investment agreement in the round.

It also doubted it was appropriate to use the WTO framework to set and enforce labour standards.

Rufus Yerxa, a former deputy U.S. Trade Representative who chairs the EU Committee’s trade subcommitee, said it would be difficult for WTO members to agree on an agenda in Seattle.

"I am not absolutely convinced that they will launch a new round in Seattle. I think companies like ours strongly support that but the multitude of problems is such that it’s going to be very hard to find a balance and consensus," said Yerxa, who is a lawyer with U.S. biotechnology company Monsanto.

"That’s why I think those groups that have a real interest in seeing it go forward have to speak up," he told Reuters.

Tuesday, September 7, 1999 02:48 PM
COURT REVIVES NOVARTIS BREACH-OF-CONTRACT SUIT VS MONSANTO

Patti Dennis

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones) -- Novartis Seeds Inc. will get a chance to argue that Monsanto Co. broke development and license agreements involving genetically engineered, insect-resistant seed corn, now that a federal appeals court reversed a lower court decision that threw out the suit.

According to a Federal Filings Business News report, Monsanto had earlier gotten the suit dismissed by claiming that Novartis Seeds lacked "standing" because it violated assignment and transfer restrictions under a 1995 license pact when its parent company merged with another corporation. According to Monsanto, this breach terminated the contract and deprived Novartis Seeds of its standing to sue. The district court agreed, finding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Sandoz AG, with whom Monsanto originally entered into the agreement in 1988, merged with Ciba-Geigy AG in 1996 to form Novartis AG. Under the agreement, Sandoz and its affiliates got the right to use a certain kind of gene that Monsanto developed to create commercially viable corn that is resistant to the European corn borer, a common pest.

In an opinion Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis reversed the lower court decision that threw out Novartis’ suit, finding that whether or not a transfer assignment in violation of the license agreement took place has "nothing to do with subject-matter jurisdiction."

Even if Monsanto is correct in asserting that the merger terminated Novartis Seeds’ rights, this establishes no more than a defense on the merits and doesn’t deprive Novartis of standing to bring the suit, the appellate court concluded.

Monsanto couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

Signaling that Monsanto’s theory may have a tough time succeeding in further motions to dismiss the suit, the court included with its opinion "comments that may be helpful to the parties and the District Court." The appeals court noted that the Novartis unit at issue was not new, but simply that a name change had occurred.

The court also noted that Novartis Seeds’ suit alleges other things, such as breach of the original 1988 development agreement and breach of fiduciary duty, that may survive even if Monsanto is successful in its argument that the merger violated the license agreement.

Novartis Seeds isn’t entitled to recover for any breach of that agreement.

Tuesday September 7, 3:05 pm Eastern Time
CONSUMER ALERT: ADM -- SPECIALTY MARKET TO THE RICH

WASHINGTON /PRNewswire/ -- The following op-ed piece is by Frances B. Smith, Executive Director of Consumer Alert:

Archer Daniels Midland Co. -- fond of touting itself as "Supermarket to the World" -- should change its slogan to "Specialty Market to the Rich of the World." ADM recently warned its grain suppliers they would have to segregate crops produced from biotechnology from those produced conventionally. Not only would this redundancy cause prices to rise significantly for consumers on a whole range of food products, but reactions like ADM’s could spread and grind to a halt the potential benefits that biotechnology could bring to millions of starving and malnourished people in developing countries.

ADM’s action came in the wake of hysteria in Europe fueled by anti- biotechnology activists and fanned by tabloid-type media coverage. The anti- biotech campaigns have moved quickly to the U.S. and Canada. Leading the charge was Greenpeace, whose first targets were baby food producers -- Gerber, for one -- whom they scared into promising "never ever to do it again, mommy," that is, to use food produced through biotechnology in its baby foods. Gerber is going to use "organic" food instead, even though there is no scientific evidence that organically grown food is safer, purer, or more healthful than conventionally grown or bio-engineered food. Indeed, agronomists point to Centers for Disease Control data showing fresh, unprocessed organic foodstuffs may have a higher incidence of food-borne pathogens.

Some large companies before Gerber had already caved in to the fear- mongering campaigns against foods produced through biotechnology, even though they know and have stated publicly that there is no scientific justification for their actions. As ADM said in its statement, the company "remains supportive of the science and safety" of bioengineered crops, but it was worried about customers abroad who are concerned about gene-altered crops. ADM’s buckling under, however, speaks more loudly than its "supportive" words to customers and consumers and is likely to provide fertile ground for activists to make further inroads. Indeed, Reuters quotes European activists as declaring "victory" in response to ADM’s cave-in.

Critical public health benefits that biotechnology can offer could be set back through companies’ playing into the hands of Greenpeace, et al. If biotechnology research proceeds at its current pace, the human and environmental benefits of agricultural biotechnology could be dramatic and widespread in the near future. That would mean higher crop yields and a likely reduction in pesticide usage. Biotechnology is the best hope we have of meeting the growing food demands of a world population that will increase by at least 50 percent in the next several years. If we don’t increase yields on the land already being farmed, the alternative is to put more land into production -- lands that now represent forests and wildlife areas.

Among the possibilities of biotechnology are drought resistant crops and plants resistant to aluminum toxicity, which cuts crop yields in vast regions of the world, primarily in developing countries. Enhanced nutritional levels of staple crops can prevent diseases that are life-threatening or debilitating. In just one example, gene-altered rice has been enhanced with Vitamin A and could help eradicate blindness, caused by a deficiency of that vitamin, in millions of children.

Currently, consumers know little about those benefits. Activist groups that are campaigning against this new technology in countries across the world ignore the positive and instead promote images of fear and dread to depict the products of biotechnology. It is not a food safety issue, however. It is an issue of a new technology that rubs against the values and tastes of some, who, in satisfying their own preferences, would deny biotechnology’s benefits to the world.

SOURCE: Consumer Alert

Tuesday September 7, 3:16 pm Eastern Time

UK FOOD AGENCY MUST WIN CONFIDENCE ON GM - EXPERTS

GLASGOW (Reuters) -- Britain’s planned Food Standards Agency needs to win over a sceptical public if it is going to referee debate on genetically modified foods, industry officials and consumer groups said on Tuesday.

This view emerged on Tuesday during a discussion sponsored by Glasgow University and entitled "There’s a gene in my soup, waiter."

Groups normally on opposite sides in the GM foods debate agreed public confidence in the new agency would be vital. "The British public had their faith in food undermined by the mad cow disease scare," Martyn Evans, director of the government-funded Scottish Consumer Council, told Reuters.

"The mentality now is ‘why should we trust people like the government, big business and scientists when they reassured us for years our food was safe,"’ he said.

The Food Standards Agency -- a response to the scare over tainted British beef which in some cases led to a rare but fatal human brain disease -- is due to begin work early next year.

It will include regulators, scientists and consumer rights’ groups.

Ann Foster, director of public and government affairs in Britain for U.S. -based biotechnology giant Monsanto, said she hoped the introduction of the agency would make for more intelligent debate about GM foods.

Monsanto says genetic modification can raise yields, cut the need for pesticides and lead to industrial uses for new crops. But the British press has dubbed them "Frankenstein foods."

"If people in Britain can begin to have faith in the regulatory decisions about food, then so much the better," Foster told Reuters. "(Monsanto) has to face the fact that we are not the most popular messenger about GM foods. But there needs to be an impartial body -- with scientists -- that has credibility with the public," said Foster, head of the Scottish Consumer Council until early 1998.

GM foods have caused much greater debate in Britain than in the United States, which leads the world in growing genetically modified crops.

British supermarkets are stripping their shelves of GM foods and environmental groups have been destroying crop test sites.

Foster and Evans agreed that one reason U.S. consumers did not have as many fears about GM foods as their British counterparts was because of general consumer confidence in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"We can’t underestimate the damage that the mad cow scare did to British consumers. It was this incredible shock to people who lived in cities for 30 years and had no idea this was happening to their food," Evans said.

Tuesday September 7, 6:47 pm Eastern Time
U.S. GRAIN MERCHANTS PAYING UP FOR NON-GMO CROPS

By Doris Frankel

CHICAGO (Reuters) -- Grain merchants in the U.S. Midwestern Corn Belt said on Tuesday they have started paying a premium for xport-bound soybeans and corn that have not been genetically altered, despite the higher storage and handling costs involved.

"We are in the process of working on it right now," said one grain merchandiser in the northern Midwest. "Bids for non-GMO (genetically modified organism) cash soybeans are generally structured at about a 10-cent premium. It would be new-crop beans," from this year’s harvest.

"We are trying to keep up with end-user demands," said the merchant, who like others declined to be identified.

The value of GMO food crops is a sensitive issue as harvest approaches in the Midwest. Plantings of the crops have expanded rapidly in the past three years. About 35 percent of this year’s U.S. corn crop and 55 percent of U.S. soybeans are genetically modified, industry sources estimate.

But a rising storm of protests from European consumers about potential health and environmental effects of GMO foods and crops has prompted caution by many grain exporters.

Although more than 30 GMO crops have been approved for use in the United States, the U.S. grain industry was shaken last week when Archer Daniels Midland Co., a top exporter and processor, formally warned its grain suppliers to keep GMO crops separate from conventional ones.

"I have heard anywhere from 8 to 15 cents (a bushel) premium on corn and 20 to 30 cents for non-GMO soybeans," a grain merchandiser in the western Corn Belt said.

"We are not sure what we are going to pay yet," he said. "We hear the end-user is paying 12 to 15 cents or more on corn and 30 cents on soybeans," he said.

The merchandiser noted that foodmakers overseas now appeared to want to label their finished products as non-GMO.

"Consumers in Europe and in some parts of Asia, particularly Japan, are willing to pay more for those type of crops," the merchandiser said.

In the eastern Corn Belt, one Indiana merchandiser said he was posting a 10-cent premium for non-GMO corn and soybeans. "The beans are for harvest period and the corn is for January through April," the merchandiser said.

One type of soybeans known as Synchrony Tolerant Soybeans (STS), produced by DuPont Co., is already earning from 20 to 30 cents per bushel premium at Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. over the genetically engineered soybeans such as the "Roundup Ready" variety produced by Monsanto Co., said John Haas, a merchandiser at CGB Market Development.

STS soybeans are bred to resist the Synchrony herbicide also produced by DuPont, while Roundup Ready soybeans were engineered with a gene to resist Monsanto’s popular Roundup herbicide.

Haas said his company has been paying a premium of 20 to 30 cents a bushel for STS IP (Identity Preserve) soybeans and that last year CGB paid more than $3 million in farmer premiums for specialty grains.

"We will be paying premiums for various types of non-GMO beans. But the premiums are determined by the local elevators and in accordance with regular supply and demand and location. There are a lot of variables," Haas said.

With the harvest coming up, the biggest problem many elevators face now is how to certify soybeans and corn that are not genetically altered.

"How do you test it?" a merchandiser said. "The machines are not available yet. You need to test genetic traits on the soybean or corn. You can’t take some guy’s word for it."

September 7, 1999

DEUTSCHE BANK REPORT

(activist e-mail) -- I am pleased to announce that the Deutsche Bank has given permission to Ag Biotech InfoNet <www.biotech-info.net> to post the full text of its provocative July 12, 1999 report "Ag Biotech: Thanks, But No Thanks?"

This 26 page report analyzes the Dupont-Pioneer merger and sets forth the Bank’s assessment of the financial prospects for life science companies that have invested heavily in seed industry mergers and biotechnology. Excerpts of the report are circulating on various lists and have, in some instances, been misquoted or taken out of context. A careful read of the report, its tables and the appendices is well worth the time for anyone interested in the economics of the emerging agricultural biotech industry.

The full report is being made available in PDF format and is accessible at: http://www.biotech-info.net/Deutsche.html

September 8 1999
PROGRESS, OR CRIMES AGAINST NATURE?

An exclusive poll suggests scientists are losing to pressure groups in the battle for public support. Anjana Ahuja reports

LONDON (The Times) -- Sunday sees the start of Britain’s biggest science festival, the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science BAAS). Held at Sheffield University, it should be a celebration of scientific achievement with lectures and demonstrations designed for a public that is becoming ever more curious about technological advances.

But can scientists afford to be triumphalist? The furore over genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially when they began creeping quietly on to supermarket shelves, was a public relations disaster and engendered a deep suspicion of science and its practitioners. So it is no wonder that a MORI poll commissioned by Novartis, a leading company in the testing of GM crops, shows widespread opposition to such technology. Among 991 respondents, 62 per cent opposed the genetic modification of plants for crops. The results will be debated at a seminar to round off the BAAS meeting.

Opposition was even more widespread to the cloning of animals (74 per cent) and to the genetic modification of animals for medical research (71 per cent). However, when people were presented with the hypothesis that without these practices, a cure for Alzheimer’s would not be possible, 15 per cent changed their minds on the genetic modification of crops. To Bill Fullagar, the president of Novartis UK, this shows a worrying breakdown of communication between scientists and the public.

"The results are unsurprising," Fullagar says. "Very little about the potential benefits of scientific research has been discussed in the press. Instead, with GM crops, for example, we are riding on a tide of emotion and fear. But once you relate technology to the benefits, then in intelligent people you get a shift of opinion.

"If you say you are testing GM crops, people think only of the risk. But if you say ‘I’m trying to produce a plant that has a minor genetic variation and can be grown using fewer pesticides so there is less contamination of ground-water’, they get interested.

"To look at your local supermarket, you would think there was no problem with food supply. But in two or three decades there will be eight billion people on this planet instead of six billion. How are we going to feed them? I doubt if spraying pesticides is the answer. A very real answer is GM foods, and we have to argue that case through." Novartis, along with giants such as Monsanto, has a vested interest in highlighting the benevolent side of research, as Fullagar acknowledges: "We survive or disappear according to our ability to bring useful products to market. But the public has not been given a fair chance to make its mind up on these issues. So far it has been a dialogue of the deaf, with everybody shouting and nobody listening. If people don’t want our science, all well and good. But let them be informed."

One unexpected finding of the poll is that, offered the prospect of nutritionally improved food that tastes and costs the same as food today, only 45 per cent of people would welcome it. Yet millions, perhaps billions, of pounds are spent each year on developing "nutraceuticals" - foods with supposed added health benefits. This, Fullagar says, could be because of a backlash against people being told what to eat, or against food being tampered with, which would tally with the burgeoning demand for organic food.

The poll also exposes what Fullagar labels "risk aversion" - governments, politicians and regulatory authorities being scared away from funding or approving controversial studies because of the threat of a public outcry. "Personally speaking, I think aversion to risk is a serious threat to science," he says. "People want zero risk but that means society stagnates instead of progressing. What happens if you don’t get permission for scientific studies here? You go to North America, where they do give permission. So scientists leave and this translates into a loss of wealth."

The view that people cannot deal with risk is rubbished by the Rev Dr Michael Reiss, a bioethicist at Cambridge University and a part-time priest, who will take part in the seminar next week. "Most people handle risk extremely well," he asserts. "They are good at weighing up the benefits against the risks. For example, they are not scared off using mobile phones by Panorama programmes because their lives are made so much easier by having mobile phones." Reiss supports studies into GM crops but is sceptical about much animal testing, and is totally against testing on primates because of the debate about their similarity to human beings. "I found the survey results extremely encouraging," he says. "Here is a group of sensible people who are listening to the debates, who are sceptical of things such as animal testing unless the benefits are substantial. For example, people were divided on the issue of xenotransplantation [transplanting animal organs into human beings]. Here is a technique that could save thousands of lives but there is a danger that we could get viruses being transferred from pigs to people. After HIV and BSE, people are right to see this as a real worry."

However, Reiss does feel that campaigning organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (he is a member of the latter) have shouted too loudly in the debate. "GM crops are the greenest thing to hit agriculture," he says, "yet pressure groups have decided that they are wrong, full stop.

"To vandalise GM crops is nothing more than unnecessary destruction."

Wednesday September 8, 1999
FAILED GM FIRM PAYS PRICE OF BAD PUBLICITY

James Meikle

LONDON (The Guardian) -- The first significant biotech company to run out of money yesterday blamed its demise on bad publicity surrounding genetic engineering.

Axis Genetics, which is using genetically modified plants for drug research, has begun insolvency proceedings having failed to raise sufficient funds to keep going.

Its difficulties became public just weeks after Deutsche Bank advised big investors to sell shares in multinationals developing GM crops because of "growing negative sentiment".

Scimac, the GM crop industry body, also warned last month that companies might begin to lose interest in crop trials in Britain if the campaign against them continued.

But its secretary, Daniel Pearsall, said yesterday: "The industry is committed to the programme. That is there to take technology forward on the basis of good science."

Iain Cubitt, of Axis Genetics, based in Cambridge, said his firm’s problems might have been caused by bad publicity surrounding the performance of businesses such as British Biotech, whose shares plunged amid doubts over the efficacy of a new anti-cancer drug.

"We are dealing with GM plants for pharmaceuticals, not food. The performance of publicly-quoted companies has affected the private biotechnology companies [such as Axis Genetics]," said Mr Cubitt.

One of the four farmers due to plant large scale trials of GM oil seed rape this month has pulled out, it emerged yesterday, writes Paul Brown.

David Rose, who farms near Bingham, Nottinghamshire, made his decision after meeting local residents who voted by 80 to three against the trial.

Plantings in different parts of the country are considered essential by the government to assess the impact of the crops on the countryside.

Wednesday 8 September 1999
GM SCIENTISTS SCENT KEY TO FRAGRANT ROSES

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

LONDON (The Electronic Telegraph) -- GENETIC modification could put the scent back into popular varieties of rose and endow other unglamorous flowers with exotic new designer fragrances, said scientists at a conference in Oxford yesterday.

Roses no longer seem to smell as sweet as once they did because modern breeders have placed a greater premium on looks and long life than on fragrance.

Experts in a range of fields, from perfumery to evolutionary theory, gathered at the conference on the biology, chemistry and evolution of floral scent, in Queen’s College, to discuss among other subjects the "physiology and anatomy of floral emissions" and the "genetics and biosynthesis of floral volatiles". Dr Michael Dobres, of the Philadelphia-based company NovaFlora, has studied how to insert genes into roses that would enable their petals to produce lemon fragrance molecules.

The gene encodes an enzyme called limonene synthase, which citrus plants use to synthesise scent molecules known as monoterpenes. Researchers have already inserted the gene into petunias to produce lemon-scented flowers.

Limonene synthase is one of many ways to put the smell back into scentless plants. There are hundreds of different monoterpenes, each made by a different enzymes. In future, genetic engineers will be able to create finely-honed fragrances to order in almost any plant, from lemon-scented lawns to roses with designer fragrances, said Dr Dobres.

Dr Efraim Lewinsohn, of the Newe Ya’ar Research Centre, north Israel, who has studied the flavour enzymes in basil, is now turning his attention to rose scents. "Many of the volatile chemicals in spices and other foodstuffs are the same," he said. "Many of the chemicals present in basil are present in tomatoes, for example. Some components of rose products are present in tomatoes."

He will be searching for fragrance genes that enable rose petals to exude fragrant chemicals such as monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, phenyl derivatives and other volatile compounds.

"Like any other trait, scent is caused by genes," he said. The aim is to isolate genes in fragrant varieties and reintroduce them to scent-free roses by genetic engineering within "a few years".

Several GM applications have been suggested, from blue roses and orchids that glow when they need watering to Leylandii hedges that stop growing at a reasonable height and lawns that need little mowing.

September 13, 1999
FRANKENSTEIN FOODS?

That’s what Europeans are calling genetically modified crops that abound in America. Exporters have been forced to listen.

By Kenneth Klee; with John Barry in Washington, Scott Johnson in Montpellier, Jay Wagner in Des Moines, William Underhill in London and Elizabeth Angell in New York

(Newsweek International) -- Don’t look for the southern French town of Montredon on your globe. It isn’t even on local road maps, perhaps because it has only 20 inhabitants. But one of them, a Parisian intellectual turned activist-farmer named José Bové, may change that. He’s the leader of the mobs of farmers who’ve trashed several McDonald’s in France lately. Last week, with 200 supporters chanting outside the jail, Bové declined a Montpellier court’s offer of bail and remained behind bars, the better to spotlight his cause. And that would be? "To fight against globalization and advance the right of people to eat as they see fit," he explained. Grievance No. 1: the U.S. desire to export genetically modified crops and foods. So far, so French, right? But spin that same globe to Peoria, Ill., home of U.S. agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland. There, even as Bové’s judges readied their decision, the self-styled "supermarket to the world" was demonstrating that the customer is, indeed, always right. In a fax to grain elevators throughout the Midwest, ADM told its suppliers that they should start segregating their genetically modified crops from conventional ones, because that’s what foreign buyers want. It didn’t matter that GM crops are widely grown by U.S. farmers, and that there’s no evidence that the taco chips and soda you’re enjoying right now are anything worse than fattening. ADM had noticed something new sprouting under the bright, warm sun of economic interdependence: a strange hybrid of cultural and economic fears. So it decided to act before the problem got any bigger.

Public opposition to GM foods in Europe has been mounting for more than two years, especially in Britain and France. Both Prince Charles and Paul McCartney have come out against the stuff. Now the protests and the tabloid headlines about "Frankenstein Foods" have reached such a pitch that they’re reverberating across the Atlantic. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, a longtime backer of biotechnology, admitted as much in a key speech in July. So did Heinz and Gerber when they announced the same month that they’ll go to the considerable trouble of making their baby foods free of genetically modified organisms. Groups such as Greenpeace, which have long fought biotech on both continents, are crowing. U.S. trade officials, who face a tough fight keeping markets open for American agricultural products, are worrying. And U.S. consumers, who have never really thought much about genetically modified foods, are just plain confused.

As well they might be, given the vastly different experiences the United States and Europe have had. In the United States, the FDA issued a key ruling in 1992 that brought foods containing GM ingredients to market quickly, and without labels. Companies such as Monsanto introduced herbicide-resistant soybeans and corn that makes its own insecticide. U.S. farmers loved the products; by 1998, 40 percent of America’s corn crop and 45 percent of its soybeans were genetically modified. In Europe, meanwhile, there was no real central regulator to green-light the technology and allay public concerns, and many more small farmers for whom biotech represented not an opportunity but a threat. Leaders have tried to steer a course between encouraging a new industry and giving the voters what they want, including labeling rules.

So, to each his own, right? Not in 1999. If Europe is selling America Chanel perfume and Land Rovers, America will want to sell Europe its soybeans and corn - and maybe even its fervent faith in progress. While European biotech companies such as Novartis avoided the limelight, St. Louis-based Monsanto decided to press its case. The timing was terrible. GM fears were already running high last summer when Monsanto ran an informational campaign; Britain’s 1996 bout with mad-cow disease, though unrelated, had weakened European confidence in regulators and industrial-strength agriculture. Monsanto’s PR effort only made the mood worse, as have a string of bad-news food headlines since then: dioxin-contaminated chicken in Belgium last spring; tainted Coke in Belgium and France this summer, and a punitive U.S. tariff on imports of foie gras and other products, imposed in July because Europe won’t accept American hormone-fed beef.

That last, also nongenetic, dispute actually triggered the vandalism at McDonald’s last month. But to many of France’s famously irascible small farmers, it’s all of a piece. Even among the broader public in France and Britain, the GM-foods issue seems to be intersecting with second thoughts about globalization. French farmers protest American imperialism. But just last week their biggest customers, grocery giants Carrefour and Promodes, announced a $16.5 billion merger that will position them well in a global battle with America’s Wal-Mart - and put further cost pressures on farmers. Britain is a hotbed for Internet start-ups. But Brits still tune in to the BBC radio soap "The Archers" to see if young Tommy will go to jail for helping a group of eco-warriors wreck a GM-crop trial site on his uncle’s land.

Would an American jury let Tommy go? Probably not. Consumers Union, whose Consumer Reports magazine features a big piece on GM foods this month, has put together an array of poll data suggesting Americans would like to see GM food labeled, but remain interested in its benefits. Of course, if Tommy’s trial were held in Berkeley, Calif., where the school board has announced a ban on GM foods, he might walk.

U.S. activists, encouraged by the successes of their European brethren, hope to build on such sentiments. Some of the rhetoric is extreme, and one group - or perhaps it’s just one person - has resorted to vandalism, trashing a test-bed of GM corn at the University of Maine last month and crediting the act to "Seeds of Resistance." But there’s science going on, too. A Cornell University study published in the journal Nature in May found that half of a group of monarch-butterfly caterpillars that ate the pollen of insecticide-producing Bt corn died after four days. What if the pollen spreads to the milkweed the monarchs lay their eggs in? "The arguments aren’t enough to say we shouldn’t have any biotechnology," says Rebecca Goldburg of the Environmental Defense Fund. "But they are enough to say we should be looking before we leap."

Of course we should, says Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation and an agricultural ecologist. Invited to speak to the Monsanto board in June, he used the forum to talk about the need to go a little slower. But, he adds, don’t worry about the monarch. Bioengineers can stop the pesticide (which is supposed to kill caterpillars; they eat the corn) from being expressed in pollen. "There are always problems in the first generation of a new technology," he says. And, he adds, successes. The foundation just unveiled a genetically modified rice grain it funded to improve nutrition in the developing world. If a shouting match over GM foods should derail such not-for-profit efforts, he says, "that would be a tragedy."

Agriculture Secretary Glickman doesn’t see Americans growing as fearful as Europeans, mainly because he thinks Americans have more faith in their regulators. He also thinks that labeling of GM foods is a big part of the answer - not mandatory labeling, which industry opposes and activists demand, but voluntary labeling. "I’m not going to mandate this from national government level," he told News-week, "but I believe that more and more companies are going to find that some sort of labeling is in their own best interest." Especially companies that want to export.

Because, as ADM showed with its heartland-stopping announcement on Thursday, it isn’t only up to Americans anymore. Brian Kemp, a Sibley, Iowa, farmer, made an urgent call to his elevator on Thursday to see if it would still buy his GM corn. It will - this year. "Europe is so important to the industry that it could mean we’ll really have to pull back on growing GM crops in this country," says Walt Fehr, head of Iowa State University’s biotech department. "Given the choice, who wants to grow GM?"

Glickman says the trade issue - which is sure to generate plenty of heat at the November World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle - will be a tough one to resolve. "But I think over the next five years or so we can get it done." That’s a mighty slow pace, considering how quickly the industry came along in the previous half decade. But then, you generally do travel faster when you travel alone.