MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:09:21 +0000 From:
jim@niall7.demon.co.uk (jim mcnulty) To: Ban-GEF@lists.greenbuilder.com
X-Processed-By: HSKT 1.0 by Joshua Baer Subject: B-GE: BIOSAFETY
PROTOCOL' RULES COULD HINDER GLOBAL TRADE
MOST PROPOSALS BAD FOR INDUSTRY SAYS BIO `BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL' RULES COULD
HINDER GLOBAL TRADE
February 12, 1999
BioWorld via NewsEdge Corporation : WASHINGTON - Starting this weekend,
more than 160 nations will enter final negotiations on a Biosafety Protocol
in Cartagena, Columbia, that could severely restrict the trade of a wide
swath of products exported by U.S. manufacturers, including foodstuffs,
textiles and pharmaceuticals.
With global trade opportunities hanging in the balance, the U.S. has no
seat at the negotiating table. Nevertheless, a contingent of State
Department officials and representatives from a number of potentially
affected industries will make the trip to Cartagena, in an attempt to sway
the voting delegations into adopting more trade friendly policies.
"For the key issues in this protocol, there are a number of proposals, "
said Val Giddings, vice president for food and agriculture at the
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). "And [although] most of those
proposals are bad, a few may be palatable. We really don't know what will
happen."
The protocol is a part of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity,
and was originally aimed at ensuring that genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) do not overwhelm native organisms, inhibit their ecological niche
and cause their extinction. In other words, the convention wanted to ensure
that genetically modified seed crops capable of reproduction do not wreak
havoc on native species of plants by "out-competing" them.
Negotiations Ongoing Since 1992
Negotiations on the protocol have been ongoing in some fashion since
1992, but formally began in 1996. As the negotiations proceeded, some
countries lobbied to expand the protocol to include all products that are
derived from GMOs. This proposal risks putting in place an entirely new set
of regulations that would require additional permits for any product that
fits this description, including products such as recombinant insulin,
garments and textiles made from genetically modified cotton, detergents
using enzymes as cleaning agents, and a host of raw and processed food
products.
Karil Kochenderfer, director of international trade and environmental
affairs at the Grocery Manufactures of America, said cotton is "one of the
crops where biotechnology has made the largest penetration. By expanding
the scope of the treaty, [officials] have lost sight of the fact that
biotechnology is an area where sound environmental policy and sound trade
policy go hand in hand."
President Clinton has signed the Convention on Biodiversity, but Congress
has not ratified it. In fact, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has never placed the item on the
committee's agenda - in effect, tabling the treaty. As a result, the U.S.,
the country with the world's largest biotechnology industry, has no vote in
the proceedings in Cartagena.
Instead, the U.S. must rely on nations with similar interests to ensure
the protocol doesn't include all products derived from GMOs. Giddings said
environmental groups opposed to biotechnology (such as Greenpeace) and
several developing nations - India and Malaysia among them - have lobbied
for strict regulations. They argue that little is known about the effects
of releasing GMOs into the environment. In addition, some nations are
proposing strict regulations in an effort to trigger technology transfer.
Many members of the European Union, Australia and New Zealand are
lobbying for a much narrower definition of products covered under the
treaty.
"The definition of the products covered under this treaty is critical, "
Giddings said. "If the scope includes pharmaceuticals, we have a train
wreck on our hands. If it is expanded beyond the original intent of the
convention, we have serious problems with it."
Sara Radcliffe, research manager of biologics and biotechnology at the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), said her
group is lobbying to ensure the protocol doesn't include human
pharmaceuticals or research materials.
The Biosafety Protocol could take several different turns. At its most
innocuous, the protocol could simply ratify current biotechnology
regulation methods, which are left to individual countries, and could
ensure countries do not use those regulatory barriers to unfairly block
trade. Or, the countries could elect a new regulatory regime - one that
covers the totality of biotechnology, and places strict limits on transfers
of products derived from GMOs.
Kochendorfer said that, usually in such negotiations, "people meet and
meet and meet, and a consensus begins to build. This protocol seems to be
building more and more dissonance. The outcome is really uncertain."
Giddings noted that the entire argument over the protocol has obscured a
basic fact about biotechnology, which is that it serves to protect rather
than hinder biodiversity.
"The greatest threat to biodiversity is not biotechnology," he said.
"It's razing the rainforest to plant crops to feed an expanding population.
What biotechnology offers is the opportunity to plant on existing
agricultural land more-sustainable, higher-yielding crops." *
<<BioWorld -- 02/11/99>>
[Copyright 1999, American Health Consultants]
..........
Thanks to: jim@niall7.demon.co.uk (jim mcnulty) for posting this:
Friday February 12 11:59 AM ET
Monsanto GM Cotton Fails To Win EU Backing
BRUSSELS, Belgium (Reuters) - Two varieties of genetically modified cotton
marketed by U.S. biotechnology firm Monsanto Co (NYSE:MCT - news) have
failed to win enough support from European Union governments to be approved
for sale in the bloc, the EU said Friday.
The EU's executive Commission also said that the Netherlands, on behalf of
Dutch company Avebe, had retracted a request for a genetically modified
potato variety to be approved for sale on the 15-nation EU market.
The developments come at a time of intense debate in many EU countries
about the safety of genetically modified food.
Although the Monsanto cotton varieties did not receive enough backing in a
regulatory committee, the European Commission said a final decision on
whether to approve them for the EU market must still be taken by
environment ministers.
Monsanto is seeking approval to commercially grow and sell genetically
modified cotton seeds in the EU, particularly in Spain and Greece. Its
request was submitted to the EU through Spain in 1996.
An EU scientific committee concluded last year that there was no evidence
that the cotton lines would be harmful to humans or the environment.
Commission spokesman Peter Jorgensen said that Thursday midnight was the
deadline for the 15 EU member governments to send in their responses on
whether they favored the release.
Tom McDermott, a spokesman for Monsanto Europe, said the company was
disappointed with the decision. ``There is no scientific evidence that
would justify this, in our opinion,'' he told Reuters.
He said one of the cotton varieties concerned, Bollgard, was
insect-protected and could reduce the use of chemical insecticides by up to
50 percent. The other variety is herbicide-resistant.
``These two products are bringing well documented benefits to growers, as
well as the environment, around the world,'' McDermott said, adding that
both varieties were used in the United States.
............
Thanks to: Paul Davis <devatalk@mcmail.com> for posting this: Leader from
the UK Guardian
Flaws in the food chain We need a moratorium Friday February 12, 1999
The pressure for a moratorium on genetically modified food - at least
until more rigorous testing has been done - is beginning to look like a
tidal wave. It has produced an unholy alliance of William Hague, John
Redwood, leftward-leaning lobbies and the European Parliament (which
yesterday voted for legislation that could make biotech companies legally
responsible for the adverse effects of releasing organisms). Yesterday,
the Consumers Association urged the Government to block further GM products
pending overhaul of the regulatory system - the first call for a ban in
its 40 year history.
There is a case for calling a halt if only to allow time for the fog to
lift. Let's be clear: genetically modified food may turn out to be one of
the great achievements of the twentieth century that will enrich our lives
and bring cheaper, pesticide-free produce. Talk of Frankenstein foods is
completely misleading. In the much longer run it may help to feed the
poorer parts of the world by producing crops that grow in conditions of
drought or salt (though no one yet knows how to do such things). But
because of its very nature - manipulating the life process itself - it
involves a huge leap into the unknown that could have truly fearsome
consequences.
It is for this reason that new products must be tested in a far more
rigorous and independent way even than other food products. The
understandable desire of pioneering corporations to get an early return on
the vast sums they have invested must not stand in the way of protecting
the consumer. Memories of BSE are still too strong for new risks to be
taken with the food chain when doubts remain.
There are several lessons to be drawn from the disturbing reports we
published today of how suppressed research by Dr Arpad Pusztai linking
genetically modified potatoes to health risks led an international group of
22 scientists to express their concern to the Guardian. The first is that
if the safety of GM foods is a real issue - and it is then the research on
which it is based must be open and beyond contention. The results of
studies on rats of the kind Dr Pusztai has conducted are notoriously
difficult to transfer to humans. If they had been we would have cured
cancer ages ago. But that's not the point. Animal studies are our first
line of defence and if research fails that test there is no point in
pursuing it for humans unless proved otherwise.
Second, we should be doubly on alert when an issue like this is
complicated by the spectre of business, science and government forcing
through an unwelcome and uninvited extension of the run of foods on the
public when the question how dangerous they could be is unanswered.
Protagonists of GM foods would argue that it is a bit ironic that a public
addicted to synthetic or junk foods should start worrying about tiny
genetic alterations to staple crops that have been undergoing genetic
alterations by random mutation, accident and natural selection for
thousands of years. But, again, that's not the point. We can't rewrite the
past, we can affect the future. And we simply don't know. The third lesson
is to underline the necessity of labelling every food product that
currently contains GM constituents in a clear way so people at least know
what they are buying.
Tony Blair may feel that he is a victim of another media bandwagon - on
to which Mr Hague was quick to jump. But that is not true. There is a
growing consensus of people and experts of all persuasion deeply concerned
about this leap into the unknown. Mr Blair should seize the initiative and
declare a moratorium until further research can satisfy the burgeoning band
of doubters.
..........
DR. PUSZTAI VINDICATED!
The Guardian newspaper.
2/12/99 UK: INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS BACK SHOCK FINDINGS OF SUPPRESSED
RESEARCH
INTO MODIFIED FOOD.
By Michael Sean Gillard, Laurie Flynn and Andy Rowell.
TWENTY international scientists have signed an unprecedented memorandum
supporting the controversial findings of suppressed research which found
that rats fed on genetically modified pototoes suffered a weakened immune
system and damage to vital organs.
In a report published for the first time today, the scientists from 13
countries also demand the immediate professional rehabilitation of the
British scientist, Dr Arpad Pusztai, who discovered these preliminary
findings last year and was forced to retire after speaking out about his
concerns. Dr Pusztai's pioneering research into the effects of GM crops on
animal nutrition and the environment included feeding genetically modified
(GM) potatoes to rats to determine for the first time whether they had any
harmful effects on their guts, bodies, metabolism and immune system. The
unexpected results of the #1.6m Scottish Office-funded research project
showed that after 10 days of feeding trials the development of the kidney,
thymus, spleen and gut were adversely affected. The research also showed
the rats' immune systems were weakened. The Guardian can also reveal that
the rats' brain size decreased. Dr Pusztai did not publish this at the
time because he judged the political repercussions would be too severe.
A more recent piece of research on the same rats by senior pathologist, Dr
Stanley Ewen, of Aberdeen University Medical School, is understood to
validate Dr Pusztai's preliminary findings and points towards new potential
health risks.
Dr Ewen found that rats fed the GM potatoes used in Dr Pusztai's
experiments suffered from an enlarged stomach wall after 10 days of feeding
trials.
The implications for the biotech industry, already suffering from a public
backlash against GM foods, could be severe, says Dr Vyvyan Howard, a foetal
and infant toxico-pathologist at Liverpool University, who also signed the
memorandum.
"What this means for the industry is that they will have to do rigorous
hazard assessment and do it repeatedly and monitor it." Jonathan Rhodes,
Professor of Medicine at Liverpool University, said: "One key problem that
keeps coming back time and again is that regulation of food is nothing like
as strict as the regulation for drugs. And when you start tinkering around
with the genetic structure of food you have to move towards thinking
of food products as pharmaceuticals."
The memorandum demands an immediate funding programme to research the
effects further and determine the causes. If it can be shown that the
lectin, a naturally occuring insect resistant protein inserted into the
potato, was responsible, this could implicate GM crops containing other
lectins, namely Bt toxin. Last year there were approximately 7.7m hectares
of these crops, such as maize, planted worldwide. The maize is found in
various forms, such as corn flour and tortilla chips, in British
supermarkets. However, some scientists believe that the problem may lie
with one of the key genes that forms part of the genetic engineering
process itself. The so-called cauliflower mosiac promoter is used in most
GM foods available in the UK, such as soya, present in an estimated 60% of
processed foodstuffs. It was these far reaching implications for one of
the world's most aggressively expanding industries, that put Dr Pusztai in
the eye of the storm since last August when he spoke out on ITV's World In
Action. He said he would not eat GM potatoes and found it "very unfair to
use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs."
Some of the scientists who have viewed the evidence believe that the
circumstances surrounding Dr Pusztai's removal and the closing down of his
research team cannot be understood outside of political and commericial
parameters.
The Aberdeen-based Rowett Institute, where the research was done, said at
the time of his removal that they were unhappy with his having made public
the results of preliminary research which had not been subject to peer
review. He was subsequently exonerated by an internal inquiry. GUARDIAN
12/02/1999 P1
2/12/99 UK: FLAWS IN THE FOOD CHAIN - WE NEED A MORATORIUM.
THE PRESSURE for a moratorium on genetically modified food - at least until
more rigorous testing has been done - is beginning to look like a tidal
wave. It has produced an unholy alliance of William Hague, John Redwood,
leftward-leaning lobbies and the European Parliament (which yesterday voted
forlegislation
that could make biotech companies legally responsible for the adverse
effects of releasing organisms).
Yesterday, the Consumers Association urged the Government to block further
GM products pending overhaul of the regulatory system - the first call for
a ban in its 40 year history. There is a case for calling a halt if only
to allow time for the fog to lift. Let's be clear: genetically modified
food may turn out to be one of the great achievements of the twentieth
century that will enrich our lives and bring cheaper, pesticide-free
produce. Talk of Frankenstein foods is completely misleading. In the much
longer run it may help to feed the poorer parts of the world by producing
crops that grow in conditions of drought or salt (though no one yet knows
how to do such things). But because of its very nature - manipulating the
life process itself - it involves a huge leap into the unknown that could
have truly fearsome consequences. It is for this reason that new products
must be tested in a far more rigorous and independent way even than other
food products. The understandable desire of pioneering corporations to get
an early return on the vast sums they have invested must not stand in the
way of protecting the consumer. Memories of BSE are still too strong for
new risks to be taken with the food chain when doubts remain.
There are several lessons to be drawn from the disturbing reports we
published today of how suppressed research by Dr Arpad Pusztai linking
genetically modified potatoes to health risks led an international group of
22 scientists to express their concern to the Guardian. The first is that
if the safety of GM foods is a real issue - and it is then the research on
which it is based must be open and beyond contention. The results of
studies on rats of the kind Dr Pusztai has conducted are notoriously
difficult to transfer to humans. If they had been we would have cured
cancer ages ago. But that's not the point. Animal studies are our first
line of defence and if research fails that test there is no point in
pursuing it for humans unless proved otherwise.
Second, we should be doubly on alert when an issue like this is complicated
by the spectre of business, science and government forcing through an
unwelcome and uninvited extension of the run of foods on the public when
the question how dangerous they could be is unanswered. Protagonists of GM
foods would argue that it is a bit ironic that a public addicted to
synthetic or junk foods should start worrying about tiny genetic
alterations to staple crops that have been undergoing genetic alterations
by random mutation, accident and natural selection for thousands of years.
But, again, that's not the point. We can't rewrite the past, we can affect
the future. And we simply don't know.
Thethird lesson is to underline the necessity of labelling every food
product that currently contains GM constituents in a clear way so people at
least know what they are buying.
Tony Blair may feel that he is a victim of another media bandwagon - on to
which re is a growing consensus of people and experts of all persuasion
deeply concerned about this leap into the unknown. Mr Blair should seize
the initiative and declare a moratorium until further research can satisfy
the burgeoning band of doubters.
GUARDIAN 12/02/1999 P23
2/12/99 UK: RESEARCH INTO FOOD SAFETY - QUOTES. There was no expectation
that the research findings would produce controversial results that could
threaten the scientific foundations of the biotech
industry The Pusztai camp claim there was industry and political pressure
on the institute to silence him In his final paragraph Dr Putszai asked
for proper experiment with GM plants and added: 'Do not leave it to
chance'. GUARDIAN 12/02/1999 P6
2/12/99 UK: RESEARCH INTO FOOD SAFETY - CHRONOLOGY. November 1995:
Pusztai/ Rowett research begins December 1996: Dr Pusztai warns Ministry of
Agriculture in writing to "have proper experiments" on GM maize. "Do not
leave it to chance."
March 1997: Tony Blair asks Prof James to draw up FSA blueprint.
January 1998: Dr Pusztai expresses concern on BBC about weakened immune
systems in rats fed GM potatoes.
April 1998: World in Action asks Pusztai/Rowett for interview on GM potato
research.
April 1998: Dr Pusztai tells government inspectors about preliminary
findings.
April 1998: Annual Rowett staff meeting; senior management told of
preliminary results
May 1998: World in Action informs Monsanto of intended programme. Company
seeks
more information on content of Pusztai interview.
June 1998: Government inspectors' report criticises Rowett Institute but
praises Dr Pusztai's department.
June 1998: Additional funding to continue Pusztai research denied by Scottish
Office and by Rowett Institute (CHK).
August 10, 1998: World in Action film broadcast. Dr Pusztai says he would
not eat GM potatoes. Prof James issues press release praising Dr Pusztai.
August 11, 1998: Demand in Commons for moratorium on GM food sales. Prof
James issues second press release backing Dr Pusztai.
August 12, 1998: Prof James suspends Dr Pusztai, announces emergency audit
of his research and regrets release of "misleading information".
August 14, 1998: Monsanto attacks World in Action and Dr Pusztai.
August 21, 1998: Audit report completed by Rowett.
October 21, 1998: Government announces one year moratorium. Government sets
up cabinet committee on bio-techonology and GM foods.(CHK)
October 1998: Stanley Ewen completes rat stomach analysis. Identifies
further organ damage in rats.
October 1998: Dr Pusztai reconfirms original findings in reply to audit
report.
October 28, 1998: Audit report released. Clears Dr Pusztai of fraud but
says his findings are not supported by the data. Prof James tells Lords
that Dr Pusztai "exonerated".
February 4, 1999: Government food safety committee asks Dr Ewen for
research details.
February 14, 1999: Bio-safety convention begins in Cartagena, Colombia.
GUARDIAN 12/02/1999 P6
--Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico--
dan.worley@mindless.com
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail