Tag: genes

Legislation Dividing Organic, Biotech Farmers

  • Organic farms are concerned about nearby farms that produce genetically modified crops. They fear that the genetically modified crops will cross with and alter the genes of their own crops. (Photo by Rene Cerney)

The nation’s agricultural seed companies are fighting local restrictions on their genetically engineered products. They say it’s the federal government’s job to regulate food safety. But critics say federal agencies aren’t doing a good job of testing genetically modified food for safety. They’re backing the right of local governments to regulate genetically engineered crops themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

The nation’s agricultural seed companies are fighting local restrictions on
their genetically engineered products. They say it’s the federal
government’s job to regulate food safety, but critics say federal agencies
aren’t doing a good job of testing genetically modified food for safety.
They’re backing the right of local governments to regulate genetically
engineered crops themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett reports:


Genetically engineered crops are created when genes from other plants,
animals or bacteria are used to alter their DNA.


Critics call them “Franken-foods,” and two years ago, three California
counties banned farmers from growing genetically altered crops. That
alarmed the agribusiness industry, and now it’s fighting to keep that from
happening elsewhere.


So far, the industry successfully lobbied 14 states to pass laws preventing
their local governments from putting restrictions on engineered crops.
Four other states are considering similar measures.


Jim Byrum is with the Michigan Agri-Business Association.


“Frankly, it’s pretty frustrating for us to look at some of the rumors that
are floating around about what happens with new technology. It’s
reduced pesticide use; it’s reduced producer expense in production. It’s
done all sorts of things.”


Genetically engineered seeds are created in the laboratories of big seed
companies like Monsanto and DuPont. The modified plants can produce
higher-yield crops that make their own insecticides, or tolerate crop-
killing problems such as drought or viruses.


Proponents of the technology say genetically altered crops have the
potential to feed the world more efficiently, and they say it’s better for
the environment. That’s because the crops can be grown with fewer
polluting pesticides, but critics say not enough is known yet about
engineered crops’ long-term ecological impact, or on the health of
people who eat them.


(Sound of farm)


Michelle Lutz is among the skeptics. She and her husband run an 80-
acre organic farm north of Detroit. She’s watching about a dozen head of
the beef cattle she’s raising. They’re feeding on cobs of organic corn
grown several yards away.


“I’m surrounded by conventional farmers. The farmers right over here to
my east – they’re good people, and I don’t think they would intentionally
do anything to jeopardize me, but they are growing genetically modified
corn.”


Lutz worries that pollen from genetically modified corn from those
nearby fields could make its way to her corn plants – and contaminate
her crop by cross-breeding with it. Lutz says people buy produce from
her farm because they trust that it’s free from pesticides, because it’s
locally grown, and because it has not been genetically altered. She says
she shares her customers’ concerns about the safety of engineered foods.


Lutz says letting local governments create zones that don’t allow
genetically engineered crops would protect organic crops from
contamination.


But Jim Byrum of the Michigan Agri-Business Association says no
township or county should be allowed to stop farmers from growing
genetically modified crops. He says every engineered seed variety that’s
on the market is extensively tested by federal agencies.


“Frankly, that evaluation system exists at the federal level. There’s
nothing like that at the state level, and there’s certainly nothing like that
at the local level. We want to have decisions on new technology, new
seed, based on science as opposed to emotion.”


Critics say the federal government’s evaluation of genetically modified
crops is not much more than a rubber stamp. The FDA does not approve
the safety of these crops. That’s just wrong.


Doug Gurian-Sherman is a former advisor on food biotechnology for the
Food and Drug Administration.


“It’s a very cursory process. At the end of it, FDA says we recognize that
you, the company, has assured us that this crop is safe, and remind you
that it’s your responsibility to make sure that’s the case, and the data is
massaged – highly massaged – by the company. They decide what tests
to do, they decide how to do the tests. It’s not a rigorous process.”


Gurian-Sherman says local governments obviously don’t have the
resources to do their own safety testing of engineered foods, but he says
state lawmakers should not allow the future of food to be dictated by
powerful seed companies. He says local governments should be able to
protect their growers and food buyers from the inadequacies of federal
oversight.


For the GLRC, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

“Biosafety Engineers” for Gmo Industry?

  • According to the USDA, 40% of the corn grown this year in the U.S. has been genetically modified. Some researchers fear there's not enough oversight on the rapidly growing biotech industry. A program at the University of Minnesota wants to create a new profession - the 'Biosafety Engineer.' (photo courtesy of the USDA)

Genetic engineering – especially when it comes to food – is a battleground. On one side: people who fear a world of contaminated food, harming humans and the environment. The other side fears we’ll miss an opportunity to prevent hunger and disease. Now there’s a ground breaking initiative that might produce compromise. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports that some researchers think safety can be built into the bio tech industry:

Transcript

Genetic engineering – especially when it comes to food – is a
battleground. On one side: people who fear a world of contaminated
food, harming humans and the environment. The other side fears
we’ll miss an opportunity to prevent hunger and disease. Now, there’s
a ground breaking initiative that might produce compromise. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports that some researchers
think safety can be built into the bio tech industry:


To remove a gene from one organism and transfer it to another…
that’s genetic engineering. Genetically modified or GM crops are
easier to grow, according to bio tech supporters and in the future
might be more nutritious. But they also might contain hidden
allergens, because they use genes from a plant or animal that
people might be allergic to. And there are concerns that GM crops
might harm the environment by crossbreeding with natural plants in
the wild. And so the University of Minnesota is proposing a
solution – an entirely new profession – call them biotech safety
engineers – along with a new science of bio safety. Anne
Kapuscinski is a researcher at the University of Minnesota and a
force behind the initiative called Safety First. Kapuscinski says
rather than regulating the industry after a new product is developed,
companies should prove safety first.


“It will mean that some ideas that will be on the lab bench won’t go
any further in development because the developers
will realize there are safety concerns that we don’t know how to
mitigate, or how to prevent from happening or how to address.”


And that could save companies money… by avoiding costly mistakes
such as the Starlink corn debacle. That’s when genetically modified
corn accidentally mixed with conventional corn and got into dozens of
foods. Kapuscinski says it was common knowledge in the industry that
the corn could get mixed up because of the way it’s transported and
stored… which might have been avoided with uniform safety standards
and government oversight. But until now, industry has resisted that.
They’ve been touting the benefits rather than the risks such as this
ad campaign put out by a group called the Biotechnology Industry
Organization.


(music under)


“Biotechnology, a big word that means hope.”


But one expert says if the industry wants to inspire public
confidence, it should support the Safety First initiative. John
Howard is the founder of a Texas based biotech firm called
ProdiGene. Not all biotech companies support the University of
Minnesota effort, but Howard thinks it has a good chance of
alleviating public concerns.


“The problem is, however, if you do it yourselves, what
credibility do you have as a company promoting your own safety
assessment? So an independent agency or source that comes out
and says, ‘Look, this is now credible, we’ve looked at all the safety
issues,’ that’s great, and if they find something that we’ve missed
then fine, we want to do it that way.”


John Howard says his company is working to bio-engineer corn to
deliver drugs. For instance, if you need insulin you could have it
in your breakfast cereal.


Opponents of bio tech say we don’t know all of the ramifications of
engineering drugs into food or altering the genetics of any organism,
but John Howard thinks we know enough to be safe.


“You can always argue that we just don’t know
enough yet and that’s an argument that can go on and on. And this
applies to everything that we think about in terms of risk. But
what you can do is look at a risk benefit equation. There’s
no question this is a for-profit company, let’s not make any mistake,
but not at the expense of harming people.”


And supporters say the Safety First initiative will see to that.
Lawrence Jacobs is a political scientist at the University of
Minnesota and a leader in Safety First. Jacobs says, like it or not,
GM food is here to stay.


“If we do not find some credible way to address the biosafety issues in
biotechnology, we are heading for a major maelstrom. The challenge
that’s out there now for the biotechnology industry right now is get
your act together. And the potential for consumers to panic in this
country is significant.”


Of course safety standards are already engineered into the
manufacturing of airplanes and cars. But will that work in an
industry which is manufacturing a living thing?


Supporters of the Safety First initiative say there’s too little
oversight on an industry that could have much greater impact on health
and the environment.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky.

Related Links

Groups Call for Moratorium on Gm Trees

Some environmentalists are calling for a moratorium on growing genetically altered trees in orchards and forests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Some environmentalists are calling for a moratorium on growing genetically altered trees in
orchards and forests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Genetically modified crops have been in the fields for a number of years. Now, genetically
altered trees are being introduced. Fruit trees with genes spliced in to protect them from pests or
disease are becoming more common. And some forest trees are being genetically altered to make
them easier to process for paper.


Jim Diamond is with the Sierra Club. He says if these genetic traits are transferred into the wild,
it could mean biological contamination…


“When you put corporate-patented hacked genetic code out into the out-of-doors where it can
travel around, that genetic code can get into other related species and the way in which they can
interact and change nature is not understood at all.”


Orchards and paper companies say use of the genetically modified trees is safe. In some cases,
genetically modified trees have prevented the loss of entire fruit industries… and might be used
to restore some valuable trees back to the forests.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Modified Fish to Protect Water Supplies?

Some scientists working on protecting freshwater supplies from terrorism are trying to recruit a new special agent. It’s a small fish that may serve as a sentinel of contamination. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Some scientists working on protecting freshwater supplies from
terrorism are trying to recruit a new special agent. It’s a small fish that
may serve as a sentinel of contamination. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


Researchers are injecting firefly genes or a fluorescent
jellyfish protein into a small tropical freshwater species
called the zebrafish. The hope is that when the genetically
modified zebrafish is exposed to environmental pollutants or
chemical warfare agents, the fish would give off light or a green signal.


University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee scientist Michael Carvan says the
fish would be placed in water coming in from a source such as Lake Michigan.


“This would kind of be like the canary in the coal mine… where if the fish
signaled that there were toxic chemicals in the water… that that would alert
the system and probably shut down water that would go beyond that point.”


Carvan acknowledges that he’s having trouble getting the zebrafish to pass along
the so-called green gene from generation to generation.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Chuck Quirmbach in Milwaukee.

Canadian Food Labeling Bill Defeated

The Canadian Parliament has voted down a bill that would have required labeling for genetically modified foods. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

The Canadian Parliament has voted down a bill that would have required labelling for genetically modified foods. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly
reports.


The proposal called for labeling food when at least one percent of its ingredients have been genetically modified. Opinion polls have indicated that a large majority of
Canadians support the labeling. But farmers and food industry lobbyists fought the
bill. Holly Penfound of Greenpeace Canada is disappointed
with the defeat. But she says her group will now focus on convincing
companies to label voluntarily.


“We’re going to see more and more companies just gradually realize that they can be leaders in this or they can be followers and the ones who are going to be leaders are going to be in the best economic position in their marketplace.”


Several bills related to genetically modified foods have been introduced in the U.S. but mandatory labeling has yet to come to a vote. For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

COMMENTARY – &Quot;FRANKENFISH" TO HIT STORE SHELVES?

Canadian researchers have developed a genetically altered
salmon. Dubbed "Frankenfish" by the public, the designer salmon grow
about eight times faster – and as much as 37 times larger – than normal
salmon. While fish farmers are hoping to bring their latest catch to
a dinner table near you, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator
Suzanne Elston finds the whole thing rather unappetizing:

Commentary – Changing Our Genetic Future

Last week (week of April 3rd) a report released by the National
Academy of Sciences stated that it was not aware of any evidence that genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat. This is just the latest
news concerning this controversial issue. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston wonders if we’re not making the entire issue too complicated:

Agri-Chemical Merger Stirs GMO Debate

A corporate merger between two large agri-chemical companies
will create the world’s largest pesticide manufacturer. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… some environmentalists are
concerned the new company’s approach will mean more pesticide use:

Transcript

A corporate merger between two large agri-chemical companies will create the world’s largest

pesticide manufacturer. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports some

environmentalists are concerned the new company’s approach will mean pore pesticide use:


The chemical and agriculture companies Novartis and Astra-Zeneca are in the process of merging

their agriculture divisions. The new company, Syngenta, will go its own way sometime in 2000.

Syngenta will be the world’s largest pesticide producer, and the third largest producer of

genetically modified seeds. Some environmentalists are concerned about the merger. Lori Mott is

with the Natural Resources Defense Council.


“Well, it’s a potentially dangerous mix because one of the areas where genetically modified

organisms are being developed is to make them pesticide resistant. So, you could have the largest

seller of pesticides also making the seeds that are resistant to the very pesticides that they

sell and the end result would be excessive use of pesticides – as if we don’t already have that –

out in the environment with severe environmental consequences.”


Mott says the new company will likely focus on creating herbicides and design genes to make crops

resistant to them. She says that will encourage farmers to use pesticides even more because they

know it won’t harm their crops. Astra-Zeneca already has a pesticide and pesticide-resistant crop

seed package. Novartis is working on one. Both of those product packages will now be part of the

Syngenta line. Other companies such as Monsanto and DuPont also have genetically modified crops

resistant to their respective pesticides.


A financial analyst says it’s possible the merger might mean less use of certain pesticides. One

of the companies involved in the merger, Novartis, manufactures atrazine. It’s the herbicide most

used on crops in the Midwest. Atrazine has developed negative reputation because drinking water in

some lakes and wells has been contaminated by the herbicide.


Alexander Hittle is an analyst with A.G. Edwards and Sons. Hittle says if Syngenta pushes an

herbicide and genetically-altered crop package, it might mean atrazine is used less.


“Atrazine sales are actually really being in part driven by resistance to genetically modified

crops. Either way, the farmers are going to be using pesticides, herbicides. Is the herbicide

being used in one of these seed combinations more or less benign than an herbicide that would be

used under so-called conventional farming. And, I think that’s the way, in terms of the

environment, the question needs to be posed.”


Because some of the new generation herbicides break down faster, they don’t have the same

reputation for contamination problems atrazine does.


Pesticides aren’t the only thing about the merger worrying environmentalists and others. Until

recently, genetically modified crops were more or less ignored by the American public. But,

because of food safety and environmental concerns, some people are becoming wary of the

bio-engineered plants. Public opinion might shift again in the near future. Hittle says so far,

the traits of the genetically engineered crops have only benefited farmers and the ag-chemical

companies. If consumers see a direct benefit, he thinks they’ll be more accepting.


“Down the road what’s coming are crops that have improved nutritional profiles, so that you’ll

begin to see benefits to consumers and that’s probably where the tide will turn. And, Novartis,

Astra-Zeneca both have pretty strong research capabilities and that should play into those sorts

of products.”


Farmers will be watching for the new products and the whims of the market as public opinion about

genetically modified food evolves. Don Parrish is with the American Farm Bureau. He agrees that

people eventually will accept the new technology.


“But, I guess as consumers see the benefits of what it could mean more lean, tender products, more

nutritious products, you know, I just have a hard time believing that people won’t believe in

good, sound science and won’t ultimately allow that to dictate what is safe for the marketplace.”


The Farm Bureau adds… genetically altered crops will be necessary to feed the world’s growing

population.


Environmentalists say advances in food production should not come at the expense of environmental

damage. The NRDC’s Lori Mott says the Astra-Zeneca and Novartis ag divisions’ merger rushes

headlong into a genetically-altered future that might have serious consequences.


“I think the whole issue of genetically modified organisms is a dicey one. We are changing the

scale of evolution…”


One interesting twist of the Syngenta merger: Novartis will be keeping its baby food line, Gerber

Foods. This past year, Gerber declared it would not allow genetically modified crops into its baby

food – something of a contradiction inside a corporation that has touted the safety of genetically

modified foods. Novartis will keep Gerber, and spin off its genetically modified foods section to

the new company, Syngenta.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Creating Fragrant Flowers

When was the last time you got a bouquet of flowers that had a
fragrant smell? While there’s no shortage of beautiful looking flowers
for
sale, many have little if any scent anymore. As the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Tamar Charney reports it’s a problem one scientist has
gotten a whiff of:

Transcript

When was the last time you got a bouquet of flowers that had a fragrant smell? While there’s no shortage of beautiful looking flowers for sale, many have little, if any, scent anymore. Ast he Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamar Charney reports, it’s a problem one scientist has gotten a whiff of:


Flowers have lost their smell as flower growers have bred them to be big and brightly colored. Eran Pichersky is a biologist at the University of Michigan. He studies the smell of flowers. Pichersky is focusing his genetics research on whether it’s possible to bioengineer a flower’s scent.


“We actually have some collaboration with biotech companies who are trying to use some of the genes and enzymes we’ve isolated to put them back into plants so that the plant makes more scent, or even new scent that they didn’t make before.”


But it’s not florists who are interested in this work, it’s farmers. Pichersky’s research means it might be possible to alter the smell of flowers in ways that entice bees to visit crops more often, or even attract other insects to do the pollination work. That increase in pollination could mean an increase in crop yields.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tamar Charney.

Food Giant Drops Genetically Modified Spuds

Genetically modified foods have gotten the cold shoulder from
consumers in Europe… and now, resistance to engineered food seems to
be growing in Canada. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Wendy
Nelson reports: