http://www.smh.com.au/news/0002/05/world/world13.html

-- panic trap (save@the.seeds), February 05, 2000

Answers

Farmer puzzled by weed killer's surprise crop

By CATHRYN ATKINSON in Bruno, Saskatchewan

It all began with a few stubborn weeds in a ditch. Percy Schmeiser, a 68-year-old Canadian farmer, was puzzled by the poor result of his annual herbicide spraying in the spring of 1997. As in previous years, he used Roundup, Monsanto's weed killer, along the outskirts of his 570-hectare farm near the hamlet of Bruno, in Saskatchewan.

Despite saturating the area with herbicide, he found rogue oilseed rape plants thriving in ditches and around telephone poles. Having crossbred his own seed for 35 years, he wondered if he had accidentally created some kind of mutant.

So he sprayed Roundup from the edge of his field into his own flourishing crop of oilseed rape. It should have killed everything but, to his alarm, more than 60 per cent of the plants survived. Only Roundup Ready oilseed rape - genetically modified by Monsanto to create a mutually exclusive relationship between its seeds and its herbicide - can survive.

Some time later, Monsanto was tipped off that Mr Schmeiser was, allegedly, growing Roundup Ready GM oilseed rape, and asked Robinson Investigations to take samples from the Schmeiser farm.

Mr Schmeiser's crop possessed Monsanto's gene. Although Mr Schmeiser says he had never bought seed from Monsanto or signed a contract, the corporation sued him for cultivating its gene, demanding all profits from the crop and unspecified punitive damages.

Mr Schmeiser argued that any number of potential contaminants could have infiltrated his seed - such as blow-offs from passing trucks laden with Roundup Ready oilseed rape, insects, wind or cross-germination - and that further contamination could have occurred when he kept back seed to plant.

Last August, the two parties met to resolve the dispute. They failed, so Monsanto's case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada in June.

Meanwhile, a furious Mr Schmeiser has brought suit against them, for allegedly contaminating his seed stock, for defamation and trespass, and the theft of seeds and plants. He is asking for punitive damages of $US6.7 million ($10.6 million).

Mr Schmeiser is one of more than 1,000 Canadian farmers investigated by Monsanto in the past three years for allegedly growing its patented GM crops and breaking the conditions of the company's technology use agreement (TUA).

This gives the farmers the right, for a price of $US10 an acre, to grow GM crops, and allows Monsanto unlimited access to their fields, seed stores and crops for up to three years.

Farmers must also agree to destroy any leftover seed each year in order to protect Monsanto's patent. If they wish to buy the seed the following year, they must sign the TUA and again pay the fee. Monsanto says that 400,000 North American farmers have signed the TUA (20,000 in Canada).

Mr Schmeiser's case is gaining worldwide attention, but it is, perhaps, most closely watched by those farmers who fear Monsanto's legal wrath for violations of the TUA.

The Guardian

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), February 05, 2000.

I'm betting the guy swiped the seeds and thinks a good offense is the best defense.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 05, 2000.

From the Electronic Telegraph, 18 Feb 1999

Crop firms fined over safety lapse By Sally Pook

IN the first prosecution of its kind brought in Britain, two companies were yesterday fined for flouting guidelines designed to stop the spread of experimental genetically-modified crops into the countryside.

Monsanto, the American-based biotechnology giant, was ordered to pay #17,000 for failing to maintain a proper "barrier" around a field of genetically modified oilseed rape at a trial site in Rothwell, Lincs. The criminal offence, which comes at a time of intense debate over so-called "Frankenstein foods", was discovered after Government inspectors made an impromptu visit to the site.

In failing to prevent pollen from the GM crops being released into the environment, the Health and Safety Executive, which prosecuted the companies, said they had increased the risk of contamination with neighbouring plants. Environmentalists fear that such mistakes could lead to the creation of indestructible "superweeds" within the British countryside and that once out, they could never be recaptured.

Perryfields Holdings, a small British company based in Worcestershire which was testing another type of GM oilseed rape at the same site, was fined #14,000 for the same offence. Environmentalists, who staged a demonstration outside Caistor magistrates' court, in Lincs, yesterday condemned the fines as "pathetic."

Pete Riley, spokesman for Friends of the Earth, said: "What this reveals is how the regulatory system has lost control of the biotechnology industry. No one knows whether pollen from the genetically modified crop escaped from the site, although it is quite likely that it could have been carried by the wind or by bees.

"These fines are simply lunch money for the companies and we are disappointed that the HSE did not push for this case to be heard at a higher court where the companies would have faced unlimited fines."

Simon Parrington, for the HSE, told the court how an employee of Joseph Nickersons Farms, at Rothwell, where the trial was taking place, partially removed the six-metre barrier of ordinary oilseed rape to make way for access roads and "to improve the appearance of the trial". The barrier of non-GM oilseed rape was a legal requirement of the trial and designed to prevent cross-fertilisation with nearby plants, he told the court.

In some places, the barrier was found to be only four or two metres wide. However, no representatives from Monsanto visited the site to check safeguards were in place. Mr Parrington said: "Monsanto made no contact with the trial officer at Nickersons and no one from Monsanto bothered to visit the site at any time."

Rhodri Price Lewis, for the two companies, which pleaded guilty to breaches of the Environmental Protection Act, said they were "most regretful" for the offence. He explained how an employee unaware of the legal requirements, "mowed down and removed" parts of the barrier to make access easier. He told the court: "Something did go wrong here, but this was not a deliberate flouting of the law."

The breach came to light following an investigation by Andy Tommey, a specialist inspector with the HSE last June. Both Monsanto and Perryfields had applied for permission to grow the GM crops under trial conditions at Rothwell. Neither company had direct control of the trials, which were carried out by contractors Nickersons Seeds, appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods, although they remained legally liable for their conduct.

Monsanto was testing oilseed rape genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup, a weedkiller. Perryfields was doing the same with a crop designed to be resistant to a herbicide called Challenge. Dr Tommey discovered that the six-metre pollen barrier had been partially removed prior to the GM crop flowering, which could have led to cross-pollinisation of the GM crop with neighbouring plants.

This could have led to the establishment of herbicide-tolerant plants outside the trial area, or as environmentalists fear, the spread of indestructible "superweeds", although there is no evidence this occurred. Following the inspection, all GM plants were destroyed along with any plants within a 50 metre radius.

Welcoming the fines, a spokesman for the HSE said: "We recognise the public concern about the release of genetically modified organisms into the wider environment. The public should be reassured by this prosecution, which shows that the legislation is being effectively enforced. It should also send a clear message to those engaged in work involving the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms, particularly where 'third party' growers are involved."

Monsanto said it had taken steps to avoid a repetition of the incident. A spokesman said: "We regret the breach of consent at the trial in Lincolnshire. In co-operation with the DETR and MAFF we took immediate steps to limit any potential environmental impact."

Monsanto was ordered to pay costs of #6,159 and Perryfield to pay #5,000 in costs.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 05, 2000.

From the Electronic Telegraph, Thursday 10 June 1999

Heartfelt fears of the whistleblower who spilled the beans over GM foods By Charles Clover and Aisling Irwin

IS the whistleblower who claimed that public health was being compromised by the use of genetically modified food a victim of the establishment or charlatan? That is the question asked of Dr Arpad Pusztai, the scientist whose advice the Prince of Wales has sought on the safety of GM food.

The furore started on Aug 12 last year after Dr Pusztai said in a BBC documentary that the public were being used as "guinea pigs" for the safety of GM food. Following those remarks, his employers, the Rowett Research Institute, immediately suspended him. His data was confiscated; the potatoes on which he had been carrying out tests were seized and his team of 18, which included his wife, Dr Susan Bardocz, and which he had spent 30 years building up, was disbanded.

There then followed seven months during which Dr Pusztai was "gagged" or prevented from commenting on criticism by the Rowett under threat of forfeiting his pension. A day spent at his home in a suburb of Aberdeen provides ample evidence for the Prince's view that Dr Pusztai, 68, who has 276 scientific papers to his name and is still regarded as a world expert on lectins (poisonous substances produced by beans and bulbs), has been cruelly treated by the scientific establishment.

Talking to Dr Pusztai is to be left with the impression that many of those who have sought to discredit his findings - from Jack Cunningham, the Cabinet Office Minister, to Sir Robert May, the Prime Minister's scientific adviser - have made mistakes of fact and have played down genuine, unanswered concerns about deficiencies in the testing of GM food.

The door was opened by his wife, who is not allowed to talk to reporters, or be photographed, without the permission of the Rowett. But sitting on his sofa, Dr Pusztai allows himself to be gently drawn on his interview with the Prince, with whom he spent one hour and 35 minutes at the Prince's invitation last week. "It was a very thorough discussion. I never approached him myself. I don't like to approach people. When he offered - he said, after about an hour, 'how can I help?' - that was really tremendous."

He is careful not to claim too much of the Prince's backing for his views. Referring to the fact that Prince Charles has also talked to Robert Shapiro, head of the GM company Monsanto, Dr Pusztai said: "It is very commendable that he listens to people who are taking up different positions."

The scientist, who came to Britain after the Hungarian revolution failed, sees his treatment by politicians and his peers as a commentary on modern manners. He remains baffled by what he sees at the rudeness with which he has been treated, often by people who have never met him and who are not familiar with his work.

He contrasts his treatment by the scientific world with that of one of his earlier mentors, Dr Fred Sanger, double Nobel prizewinner and a pioneer of the gene revolution, who "would never tell you what to do". He refers, with some satisfaction, to an editorial in the Lancet that accused a panel of the Royal Society, who acted without Dr Pusztai's permission, of "breathtaking impertinence" in writing off his research when it did not have access to all the data. He hopes to rectify that.

What Dr Pusztai revealed last August was that tests on rats given GM and non-GM potatoes showed that some of the former had developed alarming ill-effects, including differences in organ size and damage to the immune system, which he ascribed to the process of genetic modification.

The experiment, funded by the Scottish Office and won by the Rowett against 27 other tenders, was completed by July 23 last year. His findings, said Dr Pusztai, challenged the assertion that GM and non-GM foods were "substantially equivalent" and that therefore GM foods were as safe as conventional foodstuffs.

So what were the most important things he felt he needed to get through to the Prince? "The most important thing to tell him was that these experiments have been conducted. That we have obtained factual information. We had to tell the Prince that according to our studies we wouldn't have recommended these particular potatoes to be released for human or even animal consumption."

The introduction of a whole new technology, he said, was being justified on the basis of a single scientific paper on the likely nutritional effect of genetic modification - compiled by a Monsanto scientist in 1996. When he started his project in 1995, there was no such evidence. He describes as offensive the celebrated remark delivered by Sir Robert May when criticising his work. Sir Robert memorably told Radio 4's Today programme: "If you mix cyanide with vermouth in a cocktail and find that it is not good for you, I don't draw sweeping conclusions that you should ban all mixed drinks."

Dr Pusztai said that this missed the point: the lectin used in his experiments had been found to be safe for consumption on its own; it was when it was the gene was inserted into the potatoes that something appeared to happen that made it damage the rats that ate them. The technology was already being developed on the basis that the lectin was safe, even though his research appeared to show that the food genetically modified to contain it was not.

Dr Pusztai said: "I think that is crass stupidity on Sir Robert's part. We spent six years, and published our findings, selecting out a lectin which even at a thousandfold concentration in the diet had no harmful effect on the rat. He must know this. He must have been told about this."

It was because of this previous research that Axis Genetics, a biotech company, went ahead with the commercialisation of the GNA gene - taken from snowdrops - which they believed could produce a new strain of insecticidal plants. The company sold the technology last year but GNA rice, GNA celery, GNA cabbage, and GNA strawberries are still under development in laboratories around the world.

He said: "Can you really imagine that a biotechnology company would spend millions of pounds on something which they are not certain is not a toxin. If we are using a stupid thing then half the world's population will eat a stupid thing in a few years time. I wrote to Sir Robert asking him to withdraw his garbage. He never even replied. He has never asked for my opinion or asked me to explain my research."

The only misdemeanour Dr Pusztai will admit to, in the eyes of the scientific world, is going public before his research had been published - and therefore peer reviewed. "I voiced my concern on World in Action. That was my misdemeanour. I broke the code. I knew what the companies were doing and what we were doing and I knew that there was a huge gap between the two. It would have taken the minimum of a year to publish it. Meanwhile, the stuff is on the shelves."

As he recounts in often difficult scientific jargon the story of the past 10 months, something of the frustration and powerlessness that have already led him to suffer one heart attack hangs in the air. One of many red herrings that Dr Pusztai quietly dismisses are suggestions by Prof Philip James, the then director of the Rowett, that the experiments involved potatoes genetically modified to contain ConA, a jackbean lectin already known to be poisonous.

This, he says, was a mistake that Prof James made without consulting him and was forced to retract a few days later but caused endless confusion in the scientific world. He said that for two days last August the Rowett was pleased with all the publicity. It discussed a press release at 3.00 one afternoon and all seemed well. Then he was called in by Prof James the following morning and suspended; the research he was contracted to finish by this April was stopped.

What had happened? "That was the $64,000 question." Select committees have investigated but no one has really explained what went on in the mind of Prof James. He himself has denied he was subjected to influential phone calls from Downing Street.

The effect on Dr Pusztai, though, had been profound. "I grew up under the Nazis in Hungary and we had the Soviet system inflicted on us. People born in this country are here as a accident of biology. I made an active choice. I had a Ford Foundation scholarship, you see. I thought this was a very civilised society which tolerated minorities. That was in the 1950s. Yet for first time in my life I was deprived of my right of self-defence. My restrictive contract prevented me saying the things necessary to defend myself."

What effect did his story have on the Prince? "He said I had been treated cruelly and deserved an apology. He said he is not a scientist but he said he has no reason to suspect we are telling him something we do not believe in."

Dr Pusztai's agenda now is to step up research into the health effects of GM food. For this he wants #1 million in research money, space in an institute, and the release of his potatoes. He hopes the prominence the visit to the Prince has given him might open doors.

At the heart of the theoretical arguments about whether it is foolish to have health concerns over the eating of GM foods lies a key issue: Does the DNA that permeates every cell of the food we eat get broken down into ordinary bits of innocuous fundamental protein in the gut? Or can gut cells take it up and incorporate it into their own DNA where it can send out dangerous instructions?

If they can do the latter - something regarded as a ridiculous idea by many scientists - then it can be argued that some of the pieces of foreign DNA, the ones that act as switches to turn genes on and off - could cause trouble in cells. They could switch inappropriate genes on, causing unwanted growth and perhaps tumours.

If so the Pusztais, and their team, would have to be numbered among the great whistleblowers of the 20th century.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 05, 2000.

From the Electronic Telegraph, Friday 21 May 1999

Expert urges US to act over toxic GM pollen alert By Charles Clover, Environment Editor

THE United States should ban a strain of genetically-modified maize if studies confirm that its pollen can kill the caterpillars of the threatened monarch butterfly, John Beringer, one of the Government's chief advisers said yesterday.

Prof Beringer, the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (Acre), said that the findings by researchers at Cornell University, published in Nature magazine, amounted to "a real story" which he would expect US regulators to "do something about".

If further research confirmed the study's results, he said he would expect licences for the maize modified with the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, known as BT toxin, to be withdrawn. "On the assumption that this study is proved to be correct, I feel that there is a real need to make sure that it isn't causing harm to the butterflies and if it is, to reconsider the licensing," he said. The laboratory study is the strongest evidence yet that a genetically-engineered crop poses a danger to wildlife.

Its public impact on both sides of the Atlantic has been the greater - Nature's website crashed yesterday under the pressure of hits from all over the world - because the monarch butterfly is not just any wildlife. It is, as the Washington Post put it, "the Bambi of insects".

In America between 10 million and 20 million acres are already growing BT maize, made by five companies, of which the largest suppliers are Novartis, Monsanto and Pioneer Hybred International.

Cornell researchers dusted pollen from the maize on to the leaves of the milkweed plant which grows around corn fields and which is the monarch caterpillars' main food. They found that caterpillars suffered severe side-effects. Almost half died and the remainder grew to only half their normal size. John Losey, Linda Rayor and Maureen Carter, the authors of the study, wrote: "These results have potentially profound implications for the conservation of monarch butterflies." The monarch is considered an indicator of the health of the wildlife in the American mid-west.

Prof Beringer said that he had a number of questions about the Cornell study. First, it would need to be established that the effect of the pollen was the result of the genetic manipulation and was not a normal characteristic of the plant brought out by selective breeding. Secondly, he would need to be satisfied that the study, which appeared in the correspondence section of Nature, had been fully peer-reviewed. Philip Campbell, the editor of Nature, said later: "The article was thoroughly peer-reviewed before being accepted for publication."

Dr Beringer, added: "The balance of probability is that they are right." He said the findings showed "a potential problem" for other GM crops which produced wind-blown pollen, such as wheat and barley. If correct, the Cornell findings fit into a slim but growing body of research which shows that insecticidal GM crops could have serious effects on wildlife. A Swiss laboratory study has shown that BT maize can kill lacewings, beneficial predatory insects which eat aphids. But the study, by the Swiss Federal Research Stations for Agroecology and Agriculture, was not replicated in a field test. The Acre committee dismissed the Swiss study. Prof Beringer said that larger field trails were needed because insects moved around and therefore were often not exposed to toxins which might be present.

The maize has been approved for commercial use by the European Union but Britain could apply for a ban on the grounds that it damages the environment.

In the only other study which showed a GM crop having unintended effects, potatoes engineered to produce a toxin known as GNA lectin, normally given off by snowdrops, were shown to harm ladybirds which fed on the potatoes. The female ladybirds' lifetime was halved and they laid fewer eggs in the study, by the Dundee-based Scottish Research Institute. The scientists reported in the journal Molecular Breeding: "The significance of these potential ecological risks under field conditions needs to be further evaluated."

Prof Beringer has been commissioned by the Government to head a sub-committee of Acre, after he steps down as chairman next month, to look at the wider implications for wildlife of the widespread introduction of genetically modified crops.

The committee was set up after a study earlier this year highlighting potential damage to the countryside from the new farming methods.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 05, 2000.

From the Electronic Telegraph, Sunday 10 October 1999

US alarm grows over GM foods By David Wastell in Washington

AMERICAN consumers are finally waking up to the international controversy over genetically modified food, with members of Congress joining a growing clamour for compulsory labelling and leading companies searching for alternative ingredients for some products.

In a country where 70 per cent of the items on supermarket shelves have some kind of GM content, there are signs that American shoppers are gradually taking up the concerns over GM food that have swept Britain and Europe.

With half of American corn and one third of its soya beans containing transplanted genes, most of the country's best-known household products would be at risk if a consumer backlash took hold - from Coca-Cola to tomato ketchup, breakfast cereals to cake mixes.

Until recently, most American consumers were oblivious to the fact that they routinely eat and drink artificially-altered combinations of genes. But recent publicity, including last week's high-profile climbdown by the American company Monsanto on plans to insert a so-called "terminator gene" into its cornseed, is leading to a sharp increase in awareness.

It has led to farmers across America's corn-growing heartlands wondering whether the bumper crops they are harvesting - at least half of them from genetically-engineered seed - will be worth growing in the same form again. A Gallup poll published in America last week surprised many in the food industry by finding that 68 per cent of adults surveyed wanted labelling of food that contained GM ingredients.

Tom Hoban, sociology professor at North Carolina State University, who has been tracking public opinion on the subject for the past 10 years, said the survey showed awareness had risen sharply over the past six months - from one third of Americans saying they had heard either "some" or "a great deal" about it earlier this year, to 50 per cent being aware of the issues last month.

Environmentalists in America have been encouraged by the fact that 27 per cent said that they believed that foods produced using bio-technology posed "a serious hazard" to consumers, although it is a figure that is well short of concern in Europe.

A flurry of articles in American newspapers and magazines, from Time to the Wall Street Journal, has contributed to the changing climate. Criticism has been heightened since earlier this year when a laboratory study at Cornell University found evidence that pollen from GM corn can kill the larvae of the popular monarch butterfly.

Mark Whiteis-Helm, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth, said: "Most Americans don't know that they are eating GM foods. They are the subject of a massive experiment and they are not aware of it. We are making it our business to let them know about it."

Greenpeace revealed on Friday that two products made and sold in America by Quaker Oats contained ingredients from GM crops, although most Americans said in a survey that they did not believe that such a food manufacturer would do so. In the same survey, 41 per cent of consumers said they would not buy labelled GM foods.

A small but growing number of companies are taking steps to avoid using GM ingredients. Heinz, which took action in Europe to exclude GM ingredients from all its foods before the recent scares, is eliminating them from baby foods sold in America, following a rival baby food manufacturer, Gerber.

In America, GM crops are regarded as identical to conventional crops unless their composition has been substantially changed. But a cross-party group of Congressmen, led by David Bonior, a Democratic party whip from Michigan, wrote to the US Food and Drugs Administration on Friday urging compulsory labelling.

Mr Bonior said: "It is particularly disconcerting that the effect of recombining the DNA for nearly 70 per cent of all foods in US stores is essentially unknown." Charles Margulis, a Greenpeace spokesman, said: "It is a myth that attitudes in the US are different. The biggest difference is awareness, and that is changing. The more people know, the less they want to buy it."

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 05, 2000.

Some of the many sites where information can be obtained regarding the dangers of GM foods:

Prince opens Labour rift on GM crops

"Seeds of Disaster," HRH the Prince of Wales

The Soil Association, GM Foods page

Friends of the Earth, GM Foods page

Greenpeace, GM Foods page

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 05, 2000.

Thanks for the research Old Git.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 05, 2000.

This whole thing is Pandoras Box. They also have developed the terminator gene which only produces sterile seed and you can't save seed each year.

-- morgan (bitbybit@eoni.com), February 05, 2000.

MONSANTO and its Henchmen,by FAR more dangerous than Iraq or Hitler ever was to us.

-- Wannabe de Executioner (hang@daybreak.cure), February 05, 2000.

The MAJOR PROBLEM is DROUGHT. When fertile soils receive fertile seeds, then absence of moisture will result in NOTHING. Mulch won't work. Only deep water porting will avert crop failure. But that is HARD WORK! Most Americans would faint under such stress.

The greatest concern this year will be LACK OF MOISTURE. When multiple thousands of crops cannot be harvested due to LACK OF MOISTURE, then STARVATION will be OBVIOUS.

Prep on for your life!

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), February 05, 2000.

The bottom line is money, and the price of human life gets cheaper every day. How can these people believe they can control the spread of this altered pollen? It's not possible. When these sterile genes get into the native plants(and it will happen) how many species of wildlife will we lose because they no longer have a food source? We are gambling with our lives and most of us are either too blinded by the dollar or too trusting in TPTB to even care.

-- grannyclampett (don'thave@clue.com), February 05, 2000.

Frito-Lay recently announced that they would no longer buy GM corn for their products...this was discussed on another thread which I can't now find. I finally got a response from them when I asked if they also would refuse to use GM ingredients in their other food products:

Thank you for contacting us again. We appreciate your deep interest in this sensitive matter.

Frito-Lay is a large buyer of agricultural commodities that are grown in the U.S. Unfortunately, some of the U.S. agricultural crop today is derived from gene technology and is not required to be labeled. Therefore, just like other food companies, Frito-Lay does not know if or how much of those commodities find their way into any of our products.

Be assured that we are doing our part to bring the best quality snacks possible to your store shelves! Thank you again for you concern and your support.

Sincerely,

Frito-Lay Consumer Affairs

-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), February 05, 2000.

Here it is:

No GM corn in Frito-Lay's products

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 05, 2000.

What a mess. This is why God iss suppose to hold all DNA patents, IMHO. Next thing you know, it will be illegal for me to grow green beans cause Libby's has them patented.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), February 05, 2000.

Check your Burpee catalog. IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL for you to SAVE MANY of the SEEDS FOR REPLANTING.

Look for the PROPAGATION CONTROLLED ICON!!

-- IGOR STRAVINSKOFF (save@the.seeds), February 06, 2000.