----- Original Message -----
From: steef van duin <s.duin@wxs.nl
To: BANGEF-lijst <Ban-GEF@lists.greenbuilder.com
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 4:48 PM
Subject: B-GE: anti GMO document
compiled by Roberto Verzola
email: rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org

1. ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT

1.1. This document aims to support the campaign against the risks of
genetic engineering (GE). It will try to summarize all claims made by
the proponents of GE, and the responses by the critics of GE. Supporting
data and summaries of scientific studies will be included as much as
possible.

1.2. I welcome suggestions, corrections, improvements and new
information to this document. Most important are corrections to factual
or argumentation errors/weaknesses. Style, syntax and grammar
corrections are also welcome. My real role is to coordinate what will
hopefully be a worldwide group effort.

1.3. Contributions we are most interested in are of two types: a) facts,
together with the source or URL, preferably both; source can be an email
posting or news item, but scientific publications are preferred; peer-
reviewed articles are even better; b) arguments, whether for or against
GE; we also want the strongest arguments of the other side, so we can
research how they may be answered properly.

1.4. IMPORTANT: When sending me a suggested change or addition, please
do not (repeat: DO NOT) send me back the full edited document.  Send
only the paragraph(s) you want to add/change, the version number of the
document you have (e.g., v0.2), and the section heading of the paragraph
(e.g., 1.4).

1.5. Updated versions of this document will be released regularly at the
GENTECH (gentech@ping.de) and BAN (ban@tao.ca) mailing lists.  You are
welcome to post this document on any other mailing list or website, but
please post it in its entirety.

1.6. Some conventions: + is an argument in favor; - is against; ++ or ?
means this item is a new entry or is an edited version of its earlier
counterpart.

2. GE-FOOD, GENERAL

++ We have been doing GE for thousands of years.
++ GE is just an extension of conventional breeding.

? GE and conventional breeding are radically different. Conventional
breeding works only within the same or closely related species (e.g.,
bacteria to bacteria, corn with corn, pigs with pigs, etc.) In contrast,
GE involves mixing genes from very distantly related species that in
nature will never breed with each other (e.g., bacteria to corn, or pig
to human beings). ? Whoever argues that GE is no different from
conventional breeding is probably laying the groundwork for the concept
of "substantial equivalence", that the products of genetic engineering
are as safe as the products of conventional breeding.  This dubious
concept is often used as excuse to avoid thorough and rigorous testing.

++ GE is much more precise than conventional breeding.

? GE is only precise in so far as the foreign genes which will be
inserted into a target organism are known. But GE has no control where
into the target organism's genome the foreign genes will be inserted.
The insertion site is totally random and unpredictable. Since modern
genetics has shown that genes do not operate in isolation, but interact
in a complicated way and change their behaviour in response to
influences from nearby and even distant genes, the behaviour of the
transformed target organism is also unpredictable.

? There is no data documenting the stability of any transgenic line in
gene expression, or in structure and location of the insert in the
genome. Such data must include the level of gene expression, as well as
a genetic map and DNA base sequence of the insert and its site of
insertion in the host genome in each successive generation.  No such
information has been provided by industry, nor requested by regulatory
authorities.  (32) (See: "WILL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN
ADULTERATED AND TOXIC FOOD, BODIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS?", Michael W. Fox,
Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100
L Street, NW Washington, DC  20037)

2.1. HUMAN AND ANIMAL CONSUMPTION

? Summary: we do not know enough yet; more studies need to be done; in
the meantime, based on the precautionary principle, we must assume that
GE foods are not safe.

2.1.1. SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE

++ We have established the substantial equivalence between commercial GE
foods and their conventional counterparts.  Therefore, we can assume
that GE foods are as safe as their conventional counterpart.

++ In September 1996, WHO and the FAO convened an expert consultation on
GE-food safety in Rome, which adopted the same industry line that: 1)
safety issues in GE-foods were "basically of the same nature" as in
foods from conventional breeding; 2) the substantial equivalence concept
can be used to show GE-food safety; and 3) once substantial equivalence
is shown, "no further safety consideration is needed." (See:
"Biotechnology and food safety: Report of a joint WHO/FAO consultation",
Rome, Italy, 20 Sep - 4 Oct 1996) (http:)

? The 1996 WHO/FAO report made clear that the participants were invited
"in their individual capacities and not as representative of any
organization, affiliation or government." So the report describes
individual opinions and not official WHO or FAO position. (See:
"Biotechnology and food safety: Report of a joint WHO/FAO consultation",
Rome, Italy, 20 Sep - 4 Oct 1996, p.1) (http:)

? Biotech firms often refer to this 1996 report to falsely claim that
the "WHO/FAO have declared that Bt corn [or some other GE-product] is as
safe as its conventional equivalent for animal and human consumption."
Yet, the WHO and the FAO themselves have no such official position.
(See:) (http:)

++ The U.S. FDA has declared that Bt corn is as safe as conventional
corn.

? Because the FDA accepted the concept of substantial equivalence, it
did not require feeding and other rigorous tests that pharmaceuticals or
food additives normally require. (See also "Revolving door" under
"Government/Industry collusion")

? The global fight for market share markets is leading companies to
massively deploy transgenic crops around the world (more than 30 million
hectares in l998) without proper advance testing of short- or long-term
impacts on human health and ecosystems. In the U.S., private sector
pressure led the White House to decree "no substantial difference"
between altered and normal seeds, thus evading normal FDA and EPA
testing.  Confidential documents made public in an on-going class action
lawsuit have revealed that the FDAs own scientists do not agree with
this determination.

? Some scientists have questioned substantial equivalence as "a
commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were
scientific... primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring
biochemical or toxicological tests." (See: Letter to Nature by Erik
Millstone, Eric Brunner and Sue Mayer, 10/7/99) (http:)

? The Codex Alimentarius itself, the UN agency which WHO and the FAO
defer to on food safety issues, has not adopted the concept for its food
safety assessments. (See: ) (http:)

? The British Medical Association rejected the notion that GM foods
should be assumed to be safe when they are said to be substantially
equivalent to their conventional counterparts, which is the basis of
U.S. regulation of biotech foods. "This concept does not account for
gene interaction of unexpected kinds, which may take place in GM foods,"
the statement asserts.  "The possibility that certain novel genes
inserted into food may cause problems to humans is a real possibility,
and 'substantial equivalence' is a rule which can be used to evade this
biological fact." (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on
Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999)

? Animals reject "substantial equivalence": After four months of
retrieving anecdotes from Kansas to Wisconsin, I think its high time to
sample the producer community more thoroughly to see how many stories
there are out there. About the hogs that wouldn't eat the ration when
the GMO crops were included. About the farmer who said "Well, if you
want your cattle to go off their feed, just switch them out to a GMO
silage." About the farmer who said that his cattle broke through an old
fence and ate down the non-GMO hybrids but wouldn't touch the Round-up
ready corn, and as a matter of fact "They had to walk through the GMOs
to get to the Pioneer 3477 on the other side." About the cattleman who
saw the weight-gain of his cattle fall off when he switched over to GMO
sources. About the organic farmer with a terrible deer problem on his
soybeans, and when he drives out at night, there are forty of them
mowing down his tofu beans while across the road there isn't one doe
eating on the Round-up Readies. About the raccoons romping by the dozen
in the organic corn, while down the road there isn't one ear that's been
touched in the Bt fields. Even the mice will move on down the line if
given an alternative to these "crops". (See: ACRES USA Special Report,
18 Sep 1999 by Steven Sprinkel, Yankton, South Dakota)

2.1.2. ALLERGENIC EFFECTS

? GE-soya inserted with a Brazil nut gene to raise the soya's protein
content also showed increased allergenic effects (See: ) (http:)

++ The fact that the soya with the Brazil nut gene was recalled and not
commercialized shows that the regulatory system worked. (See:)

? The system worked only in that particular case. How about all the
other cases of commercialized GE-soya?

? A study by the York Nutritional Laboratory, Europe's leading
specialists on food sensitivity, found that health complaints caused by
soya - the ingredient most associated with GM foods - have increased by
50% in 1998. Researchers said their findings provide real evidence that
GE food could have a tangible, harmful impact on the human body. It is
the first time in 17 years of testing that soya has crept into the
laboratory's top 10 foods to cause an allergic reaction in consumers.
John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said: "We believe this
raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods because it is
impossible to guarantee that the soya used in the tests was GM-free."
(See: UK Daily Express, 12 March 1999)

? A new study of Ohio crop pickers and handlers finds that Bt can
provoke immunological changes indicative of a developing allergy. With
long-term exposure, affected individuals might develop asthma or other
serious allergic reactions, notes study leader I. Leonard Bernstein of
the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. (See: Science News
Online, Vol 156 No 1, 3 Jul 1999) 2.1.3. TOXIC EFFECTS


? One case in which a GE-product might have resulted in toxic
contaminants is the L-tryphtophan case. A Japanese firm that makes the
food supplement L-tryphtophan changed its production process and
switched to GE bacteria, as the same time removing some steps in their
purification process. The new process resulted in a toxic contaminant
that could have come from the GE-bacteria used in producing the L-
tryphtophan. Before the product could be recalled, it had killed 37 and
hospitalized 1,500.

++ The L-tryphtophan contaminant came not from the GE-bacteria but from
a non-GE source which was overlooked due to the change in the
purification process,

? A non-GE contaminant cannot be ruled out. Unfortunately, A mysterious
fire destroyed all samples of the GE-bacteria used for the production
process, making it impossible for investigators to conclusively
determine the real cause. (See: ) (http:)

? Dr. Arpad Pusztai found that a diet of potatoes engineered to express
the snowdrop lectin weakened rats' immune systems and adversely affected
the kidney, thymus, spleen, gut and brain of the animals. If confirmed,
Pusztai' s conclusions will reinforce concerns that gene insertion
itself may create new toxins; it will also implicate the toxin commonly
used in other GE-crops- the Bt toxin which, Pusztai says, is also a
lectin. (See: ) (http:)

++ The Royal Society of London reviewed Pusztai's study and found it
flawed and unworthy of publication.

? After the Royal Society's review, however, Pusztai submitted the
results of his study to The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious
medical journal, which found that the study merited publication. (See:
The Lancet, Oct 1999)

? The UK's Royal Society has written to the Natural Law Party indicating
that it has called for Dr Pusztai's work to be repeated because of the
outstanding uncertainties it considers arise from it. (From: "NLP
Wessex" <nlpwessex@bigfoot.com, 19 Nov 1999) ++ The Bt formulation has
been in use as a biopesticide for decades and is not considered harmful
to human beings. It is one of the few insecticides that organic farmers
are allowed to use.

? The Bt biopesticide is relatively safe, compared to chemical
pesticides, but it is not completely safe. The dried Bt spores, for
instance, may be harmful to the human immune system.  French scientists
at le Bouchet army research labs found that the spores caused lung
inflammation, internal bleeding and death in lab mice. Last year, French
scientists isolated a Bt strain that destroyed tissue in the wounds of a
French soldier in Bosnia. The strain, known as H34, also infected wounds
in immuno-suppressed mice. Now the same team has found that H34 can kill
mice with intact immune systems if they inhale the spores. Francoise
Ramisse of le Bouchet and her colleagues found that healthy mice
inhaling 108 spores of Bt H34 died within eight hours from internal
bleeding and tissue damage. (See: New Scientist, 29 May 1999)

? Spores from mutants of the Bt H34 strain which did not produce the
insecticide were equally lethal to mice, suggesting that the Bt toxin
was not to blame. The researchers think that the symptoms are caused by
other toxins. The bacterium's close cousin, Bacillus cereus, produces a
toxin that ruptures cell membranes. And in 1991, Japanese researchers
showed that B. thuringiensis produces the same toxin. (See: New
Scientist, 29 May 1999)

++ Since the natural Bt toxin is relatively safe, then the GE-toxin in
corn is safe too.

? The Bt corn toxin is not identical to the natural toxin. The natural
Bt gene which produces the toxin was substantially modified before it
was transferred to corn. The toxin gene in Bt corn is a truncated
version (at both 5' and 3' ends) of the Bt toxin and is the smallest
fragment that still possesses toxicity to insects. (See: M. Vaeck et al.
Nature 328, 33-37, 1987, as cited by Heine Deelstra). ++ The Bt natural
gene produces a large, inactive pro-toxin that is about 1200 amino acids
in length. This pro-toxin releases upon digestion by proteases (in the
insects gut) an active 68,000 Dalton fragment. So the pro-toxins of
plants and Bt may differ in length, while the active toxic fragment is
exactly the same in size and mode of action. Truncation of sequences
before and after the 'toxic fragment' might affect, due to folding
differences, (1) the crystallisation properties and (2) the
susceptibility to proteases of the pro-toxin. The occurrence of (1)
and/or (2) are not known to me. (Heine J. Deelstra
<h.j.deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl, on GENTECH list)

? The Bt corn toxin is up to 100 times more powerful than the natural
toxin.

? The expression of the full-length [Bt] toxin was too low to achieve
pest resistance in plants other than tobacco (against the tobacco
hornworm) and tomato plants. Toxin levels were so low that protection
was not attained against less sensitive, but agronomically important
insect pests. Researchers then modified part of the Bt toxin coding
sequence so that it was efficiently expressed (and translated) in
plants. This was done by fusion of a synthetic* toxin gene for amino
acids 1-453 to the (natural) gene fragment encoding for amino acids 454-
615. (* This fragment [1-453] coded for the same amino acids as in the
natural Bt toxin gene, but it used codons preferred by plants.) The rest
of the bacterial gene (amino acids 616-1178) was not used. Expression of
this gene in cotton plants showed that Bt toxin levels were increased by
100 times and that Bt toxin constituted 0.02% of the protein in the
plant. (See: Recombinant DNA, 2nd edition by James D. Watson et al. and
(if your good in Dutch) Moleculaire Biologie van Schimmels en Planten,
1998 by Prof. J.G.H Wessels, as cited by Deelstra)

2.1.4. CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS

? Since herbicide-resistant GE-crops lead to greater herbicide use,
cancer risk can also come from exposure to higher levels of herbicides
like bromoxynil (Rhone-Poulenc's Buctril) and glyphosate (Monsanto's
Roundup). Authors Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey (Against the Grain, 1998)
warn that bromoxynil bioaccumulates, because it is fat-soluble. Rat and
rabbit studies have shown birth defects, other developmental disorders
in fetuses, tumors, and carcinomas at levels ranging from 20 to 300
parts per million. (See: Lappe, Marc and Britt Bailey; Against the
Grain, 1998) (http:)

? Glyphosate exposure, on the other hand, can triple the risk of non-
Hodgkin 's lymphoma, say cancer specialists Dr.  Lennart Hardell and Dr.
Mikael Eriksson of Sweden's Orebro Hospital, in a study published in the
American Cancer Society journal (See: Cancer, 3/15/99) (http:)

? U.S. food campaigner Robert Cohen warns about the hormone Insulin-like
Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), identical versions of which occur in cows and
humans. In 1994, Cohen says, the U.S. FDA approved the use of a GE-
hormone (rBGH) in cows to stimulate milk production. Using rBGH raises
IGF-1 levels in cows' milk by 80%.  IGF-1, Cohen warns, is a key factor
in prostrate cancer (Science, 1/98), breast cancer (The Lancet, 5/98),
and lung cancer (Journal of the NCI, 1/99). Most recently, Cohen cites a
report in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (10/99,
p.1231), which found IGF-1 levels in the blood of milk drinkers 10%
higher than in non-drinkers. The implication: GE-milk exposes its
drinkers to higher cancer risks. (See: ) (http:)

? On December 15, 1998, the Center for Food Safety, on behalf of a broad
coalition, filed a legal petition in Washington, D.C. against the FDA to
have rBGH taken off the market. The CFS petition cites mounting evidence
that the original testing of rBGH was flawed. In 1990 the FDA said BGH
was "safe for human consumption." Part of its findings were based on 90-
day rat feeding studies in which they reported "no toxicologically
significant changes..." Based largely on this conclusion, FDA did not
require human toxicological tests usually required for a veterinary
drug. However in April of 1998, researchers from Health Canada, the
Canadian equivalent to FDA, issued a report which contradicted FDA's
findings. Canadian researchers found studies showing that rats were
absorbing rBGH after all. In fact, between 20 and 30 percent of the rats
were developing distinct immunological reactions. Additionally, cysts
formed in the thyroid of some male rats and infiltrated the prostate-
both warning signs for potential cancer hazards. (See:)

? Milk from cows injected with rBGH, which is not analogous to normal
BGH (7), has elevated insulin-like growth factor that is implicated as a
risk factor in human breast cancer (8,9).  (See: "WILL GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED AND TOXIC FOOD, BODIES, AND
ECOSYSTEMS?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane
Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC  20037)

2.1.5. ESTROGENIC EFFECTS


? Lappe and Bailey also noted the "remarkably high estrogenic activity
of soy isoflavones," elevated levels of which have been found in
herbicide-treated GE-soya. "If ingested by nursing infants, these
isoflavones can produce circulating levels equivalent to 13,000 to
22,000 times the normal plasma estradiol concentrations found in babies,
with unknown and potentially dangerous secondary effects," they warned.
Early exposure to estrogens, they wrote, is associated with sex organ
dysfunctions and higher risks of vaginal adenocarcinoma and other
tumors.  (See: Lappe, Marc and Britt Bailey; Against the Grain, 1998)
(http:)

? On the isoflavone statement reread
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1999/Jul-Aug/msg00200.html (From: "H J
Deelstra" <H.J.Deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl)

2.1.6. EMERGENCE OF NEW PATHOGENS


? "The evidence is now overwhelming that horizontal gene transfer has
been responsible for both the rapid spread of antibiotic resistance and
for the emergence of virulent strains of pathogens in recent years...
One main contributing factor to the recent increase in the scope and
frequency of horizontal gene transfers may be the deliberate acts of
genetic engineers to break down species barriers. They do so by
constructing a range of chimaeric vectors for cloning, and transferring
genes... Thus, genetic engineering biotechnology has opened effectively
opened up highways for horizontal gene transfer and recombination, where
previously, there was only restricted access through narrow, tortuous
footpaths. (See: Mae Wan-Ho, Terje Traavik, Orjan Olsvik, Tore Midtvedt,
Beatrix Tappeser, C. Vyvyan Howard, Christine von Weizsaecker, and
George C. McGavin; Gene Technology in the Etiology of Drug-resistant
Diseases, 1998.

? In May 1999, the British Medical Association, which counts some 80% or
nearly 115,000 of Britain's medical doctors, issued an official
statement in May 1999 expressing concern over the safety of GE-foods.
The BMA recommended a moratorium on planting commercial GE-crops in the
UK "until there is scientific consensus (or as close agreement as
reasonably achievable) about the potential long-term environmental
effects." The BMA also called for 1) segregation at source, "to enable
identification and traceability" of GE-foods; 2) labelling GE-imports
and banning unlabelled ones, if the industry refuses to segregate; and
3) more robust systems of disease surveillance, to deal with "potential
emergence of new diseases associated with GM material which will be
obscure and difficult to diagnose". (See: ) (http:)

? Mae Wan-Ho and Angela Ryan of the UK Open University warned last July
1999 that "no transgenic plant containing the CaMV promoter should be
released," because the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter is "very
likely to recombine with other DNA in the host genome, including dormant
viral DNA, as well as with other viruses in the host cell." The problem
covers practically all GE-plants released so far. These GE-plants,
according to Ryan, "have the potential to create new viruses or other
invasive genetic elements." (See: ) (http:)

? There is potential for vector recombination to generate new virulent
strains of viruses, especially in transgenic plants engineered for viral
resistance with viral genes. In plants containing coat protein genes,
there is a possibility that such genes will be taken up by unrelated
viruses infecting the plant.  In such situations, the foreign gene
changes the coat structure of the viruses and may confer properties such
as changed method of transmission between plants. The second potential
risk is that recombination between RNA virus and a viral RNA inside the
transgenic crop could produce a new pathogen leading to more severe
disease problems. Some researchers have shown that recombination occurs
in transgenic plants and that under certain conditions it produces a new
viral strain with altered host range (Steinbrecher l996) (See: "Ten
reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A.
Altieri, University of California, Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Food
First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, California,
Oct 1999)

? The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) and HIV have interchangeable
components, according to five researchers of the John Innes Centre and
Sainsbury Laboratory (UK). (See John Innes Centre Annual Report,
1998/1999) If they meet in nature, they could recombine to form chimeric
viruses with potentially devastating properties.
(jcummins@julian.uwo.ca, 6 Nov 1999) This can happen, for instance, if
pollen from a GE plant is inhaled by an HIV-positive or AIDS-stricken
person. (http:)

? The 1999 UK John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory Annual report
specifically acknowledges that this particular viral promoter is prone
to 'recombination' events (see
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/camv.htm for more
information).

? One must consider not only the "fate" of transgenic organisms but also
the genes and viruses or parts thereof, that have been inserted into
them. Such "naked DNA", in the form of recombinant and modified nucleic
acids, has been found capable of surviving and remaining functional
longer after organisms' death than was assumed previously.(6,30)
Furthermore, xenobiotics, especially dioxins and various agrichemicals,
can act as mutagens (31), altering the structure and sequence of DNA and
also increasing the permeability of cells and the incorporation of
foreign DNA into living organisms. (See: "WILL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED AND TOXIC FOOD, BODIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS?", Michael
W. Fox, Senior Scholar/Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United
States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC  20037)

? The use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral promotor (CaMV) has the
potential to reactivate dormant viruses or create new viruses in all
species to which it is transferred. CaMV is known to be found in
practically all current transgenic crops released commercially or
undergoing field trials. This transgenic instability increases the
possibility of promotion of an inappropriate over-expression of genes to
the transferred species. The development of cancer may be one
consequence of such inappropriate over-expression of genes. The
scientists behind the research "strongly recommend that all transgenic
crops containing CaMV 35S or similar promoters which are recombinogenic
should be immediately withdrawn from commercial production or open field
trials. All products derived from such crops containing transgenic DNA
should also be immediately withdrawn from sale and from use for human
consumption or animal feed". (See: Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan, and Joseph
Cummins, "Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promotor - A recipe for Disaster?",
Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (Dec 1999).

2.1.7. ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE

++ There is very low probability that the antibiotic resistance genes in
GE-plans can transfer to pathogenic bacteria.

? In May 1999, The British Medical Association called for a "ban on the
use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food, as the risk to
human health from antibiotic resistance developing in micro-organisms is
one of the major public health threats that will be faced in the 21st
Century." (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food
and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999) (http:/)

? Modified DNA quickly breaks down in the gut, so it cannot transfer
antibiotic resistance

? Using an "artificial gut", Dutch researchers showed that DNA remains
intact for several minutes in the large intestine. If the GE bacteria
were a type normally found in the gut, such as Enterococcus, the
experiment showed each had a 1 in 10 million chance of passing DNA
containing antibiotic resistance genes to an indigenous gut bacterium
when they came in contact. There are normally around a thousand billion
gut bacteria, suggesting that many would be transformed. If some normal
gut bacteria were killed off - as in the guts of people or animals in
antibiotics - the transfer rate from gut-type bacteria increased
tenfold. (See: New Scientist, 30 Jan 1999)

? Safer New Screen for GM Crops: Researchers at the Rockefeller
University and University of Singapore have developed a method to screen
for genetically modified crops without having to insert a gene for
antibiotic resistance... The new method, described in Nature, involves
using a gene that enhances a plant's use of its own growth hormones.
(Irish Times, 13 Sep 1999) If antibiotic-resistance genes are safe, why
is so much research fund being spent looking for alternatives to these
genes?

? Countries which have banned antibiotic-resistance genes: Norway (See:
) (http:)

? Countries where a ban on antibiotic-resistance genes has been
proposed: Europe (See:) (http:)

2.1.8. CHANGE IN FOOD QUALITY


? GE will "produce foods that are healthier, more nutritious, and even
taste and look better." (Alliance for Better Food)

? No GE food produced to date has been shown to be more nutritious than
non-GE food.  Most GE crops are only designed to be resistant to
specific herbicides, to produce their own insecticides or to have an
increased shelf life. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering",
Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as
posted by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu on the SANET
list)

? 71% of GE acreage is for HT-soya, which encourages farmers to use more
herbicides

? The use of rBGH to stimulate milk production in cows resulted in udder
inflamations, infections and other problems affecting milk quality (See:
) (http:)

++ GE foods vary from non-GE foods only in the characteristic that has
been modified.

? The random insertion of foreign genes into the genetic material may
cause unexpected changes in the functioning of other genes.  Existing
molecules may be manufactured in incorrect quantities, at the wrong
times, or new molecules may be produced.  GE foods and food products may
therefore contain unexpected toxins or allergenic molecules that could
harm our health or that of our offspring. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic
Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin
Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu on
the SANET list)

2.1.9. EFFECTS ON INFANTS, THE ELDERLY AND THE SICK


? The concern of pediatric neurologist Dr. Martha Herbert of the Council
for Responsible Genetics is "the immature gut and immature body of
infants." If introduced too early, even proteins that are normally part
of our diet can lead to auto-immune and allergic reactions later on, she
said. "If a substance harms adults, it may well harm babies, the sick
and the elderly more severely, and after smaller exposures," Dr. Herbert
warned in her June 1999 statement. (See: ) (http:)

2.1.10. FEW SCIENTIFIC FEEDING STUDIES

++ GE food is extensively tested and the GE food at present on our
supermarket shelves is perfectly safe to eat. GE foods have been one of
the most thoroughly tested foods in history.

? No GE food testing is done in America.  We rely almost entirely on the
testing carried out by the GE biotechnology companies that have spent
billions of dollars developing the food and intend to make a profit
selling it to us. There are serious doubts about the adequacy of the
testing and the validity of the conclusions drawn from the results.
Independent long-term testing is required before we can be sure that GE
food is safe to eat. Another health concern is the possible acceleration
of the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics due to the use
of antibiotic resistance genes in the production of GE foods.  (See: "13
Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic
Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu on the SANET list)

? In 1996, only one GE-food feeding test had been published

? done by Monsanto (no harmful effects observed) (See: ) (http:)

? A second feeding study on broiler chickens by a Novartis researcher
was published 1998 (no harmful effects observed) Abstract: "A 38-d
feeding study evaluated whether standard broiler diets prepared with
transgenic Event 176-derived "Bt" corn (maize) grain had any adverse
effects on male or female broiler chickens as compared to diets prepared
with nontransgenic (isogenic) control corn grain. No statistically
significant differences in survival or BW were observed between birds
reared on mash or pelleted diets prepared with transgenic corn and
similar diets prepared using control corn. Broilers raised on diets
prepared from the transgenic corn exhibited significantly better feed
conversion rations and improved yield of the Pectoralis minor breast
muscle. Although it is not clear whether this enhanced performance was
attributable to the transgenic corn per se, or due to possible slight
differences in overall composition of the formulated diets, it was clear
that the transgenic corn had no deleterious effects in this study." The
authors also wrote that "to our knowledge, this is the first published
large-scale feeding study of transgenic corn." (See: J.Brake (NCSU) and
D.Vlachos (Novartis), "Evaluation of Transgenic Event 176 Bt corn in
Broiler Chickens," 1998, Poultry Science 77:648-6??) ++ The Bt toxin is
safe to mammals, as confirmed by rat feeding experiments. Unlike the gut
of target insects, the mammallian gut has no receptors which the toxin
can bind to.

? Pusztai's rat study published October 1999 -- the only independent
study so far-observed some harmful effects (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999)
(http:)

? No feeding studies had been done on swine or cattle (major consumers
of GE-corn and -soya), primates, or human volunteers (See: ) (http:)

? No study on the long-term effects of GE-food had been done either
(See: ) (http:)

? Studies of their effects in combination with other toxins or with
conventional chemicals are non-existent (See:) (http:)

? Millions of Americans are already buying GE food and nobody has gotten
sick eating them.

? The feeding of GE-food to the American population is not a scientific
experiment but a criminal act of doing uncontrolled experiments on human
subjects without their knowledge or consent.  It is not possible to
determine from the uncontrolled feeding of unlabelled GE-foods to
Americans how much of the rise in the incidence of allergies, the
emergence of new or more virulent pathogens, or the higher cancer rates
is due to the consumption of GE-foods.

2.1.20. OTHERS

? The Scottish Crop Research Institute and the University of Dundee,
reported that the snowdrop lectin (the same lectin Pusztai used in his
GE-potato study) can bind with human white blood cells, raising
questions about safety of the lectin itself.  (See: The Lancet, Oct
1999) (http:)

2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS


? Summary: Once released into the environment, live GE organisms will be
practically impossible to recall and will be a permanent source of
genetic contamination and pollution. We therefore oppose field releases,
including field-testing, of live GE organisms.

2.2.1. DEVELOPMENT OF BT RESISTANCE


? Resistance will be controlled by using a high-dose strategy to kill
all corn borers, and requiring farmers to plant 20-40% of their fields
with non-Bt corn, to provide susceptible pests who will mate with
resistant pests

? Farmers find it ridiculous to be required to reserve 20-40% of their
crops as feed for pests they want to eliminate in the first place.

? In the earliest days of the debate, the suggested refugia size was 5%.
Later, it rose to 10%. Now, it is 20-40%. If the trend continues, they
will be suggesting a 100% non-Bt field soon, which is what we've been
arguing for in the first place.

? The high-dose/refugia strategy can only work resistance is recessive
and: i) dose should be very toxic so that all heterozygotes for
resistance are killed; ii) resistance alleles are very rare; and iii)
susceptible insects are within mating distance of resistant insects. ECB
have been found to exhibit resistance to Bt toxin in a dominant way,
which will hasten instead of retard the spread of resistance. (See:
Science 284: 965-967, 1999)

? F.Huang, L.L.Buschman (both with the Dept. of Entomology, Kansas State
U) and W.H.McGaughey (USDA, Agric. Research Center Service, Grain Mktg &
Prod. Research Center): ECB resistance to a Bt spray formulation (Dipel)
appears to be inherited as an incompletely dominant autosomal gene. This
contrasts with the resistance of other insects, which has been
characterized as recessive. If it is not recessive, the usefulness of
the high-dose/refugia strategy may be diminished.

? Dominant mutants conferring resistance to Bt toxin can be recovered
from Corn Borers exposed to the toxin. Such mutants would spread like
wildfire through corn fields with refuge plots because over half the
off-springs of mating between  mutant and wild type insects would be
resistant to Bt toxin. The refuge would provide a rich breeding ground
for spread of the dominant mutants. (See: "Inheritance of resistance to
Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Dipel ES) in the European Corn Borer";
Haung,F., Buschman,L., Higgins,R. and McGaugen,W., Science, 7 May
1999:965-967, as cited by Joseph Cummins)

? Bt resistance has emerged among pink bollworms, a major cotton pest,
in Arizona cotton fields. (See: California Farmer Magazine, mid-January
1999)

? When Monsanto and other companies took the naturally occurring
insecticide bacterium Bt and spliced its operating mechanism into crops,
organic farmers were concerned that insects would quickly become
resistant to Bt, removing a crucial tool of environmentally sound
farming only to serve corporate interests.  These concerns are being
borne out in last year's cropping trials. (See: "Wake-up call for
biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)

? Transgenic plants which produce their own insecticides closely follow
the pesticide paradigm, which is itself rapidly failing due to pest
resistance to insecticides. Instead of the failed "one pest-one
chemical" model, genetic engineering emphasizes a "one pest-one gene"
approach, shown over and over again in laboratory trials to fail, as
pest species rapidly adapt and develop resistance to the insecticide
present in the plant (Alstad and Andow l995). Not only will the new
varieties fail over the short-to-medium term, despite so-called
voluntary resistance management schemes (Mallet and Porter l992), but in
the process may render useless the natural pesticide "Bt," which is
relied upon by organic farmers and others desiring to reduce chemical
dependence. Bt crops violate the basic and widely accepted principle of
"integrated pest management" (IPM), which is that reliance on any single
pest management technology tends to trigger shifts in pest species or
the evolution of resistance through one or more mechanisms (NRC l996)...
when the product is engineered into the plant itself, pest exposure
leaps from minimal and occasional to massive and continuous exposure,
dramatically accelerating resistance (Gould l994). Bt will rapidly
become useless, both as a feature of the new seeds and as an old standby
sprayed when needed by farmers that want out of the pesticide treadmill
(Pimentel et al l989). (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not
ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley
and Peter Rosset, Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy,
Oakland, California, Oct 1999)


2.2.2. IMPACT OF BT ON NON-TARGET SPECIES

++ The Bt toxin will not harm non-target species.

? Massive use of Bt crops affects non-target organisms and ecological
processes. Recent evidence shows that the Bt toxin can affect beneficial
insect predators that feed on insect pests present on Bt crops (Hilbeck
et al l998), and that windblown pollen from Bt crops found on natural
vegetation surrounding transgenic fields can kill non-target insects
such as the monarch butterfly (Losey et al l999). (See: "Ten reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and
reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, University
of California, Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Food First/Institute for Food
and Development Policy, Oakland, California, Oct 1999)

? Iowa researchers have found Bt corn pollen deadly to monarch
butterflies. First, the Iowa study determined the amount of corn pollen
deposited on A. syriaca leaves within and adjacent to a Bt corn field at
0 m, 1m, and 3m. The highest levels of pollen deposition was found on
plants within the corn field, and lowest levels found at three meters
from the edge of the corn field. Leaf samples taken from within and at
the edge of the corn field were used to assess mortality of first instar
monarch, D.  plexippus exposed Bt and non-Bt corn pollen. Within 48
hours, there was 19% mortality in the Bt corn pollen treatment compared
to 0% on non-Bt corn pollen exposed plants and 3% in the no pollen
controls. (See: "Non-target effects of Bt corn pollen on the Monarch
butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae)" by L. Hansen, Iowa State University,
Ames , IA 50011 and J. Obrycki, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
(Contact e-mail: lrahnsen@iastate.edu)

? Cornell University researchers, in a letter to the journal Nature, May
20 issue, reported that pollen from Bt corn harmed monarch butterfly
larvae in laboratory tests. In the Cornell study, one group of monarch
(Danaus plexippus) caterpillars fed on milkweed (Asclepias curassavica)
leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn, another group fed on milkweed
leaves dusted with pollen from non-GE corn, and a third group fed on
leaves without added pollen. The researchers found that the caterpillars
that ate leaves with pollen from the Bt corn ate less, grew more slowly
and died sooner. Results were similar to those reported earlier by
Hansen and Obrycki
(http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/d81.html) who used
leaves collected in corn fields. The Cornell researchers (Losey, Rayor
and Carter, who can be contacted at jel27@cornell.edu) collected pollen
and applied it to lab-raised milkweed leaves. (See: Nature 399: 214)

? Concerns over impact on birds that feed on insects targetted by Bt
crops like the skylark, linnet and corn bunting in the UK.

? Bt crops have a negative effect on Chrysoperla carnea, a beneficial
insect, based on three studies by A. Hilbeck, M.  Baumgartner, et. al.
of the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture.
The green lacewings suffered reproductive problems and reduced
longevity. (See: Hilbeck, A., Baumbartner, M., Fried, P.M. and F.
Bigler, 1998. Effects of transgenic Bt corn-fed prey on mortality and
development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera:
Chrysopidae).  Environmental Entomology 27:480-487, as cited by
Kapuscinski 1999))

? Ethanol-producing GE microbes had adverse effects on wheat plants
grown on sandy soil (Holmes, M.T., Ingham, E.R. Doyle, J.D. and
C.W.Hendricks. 1998. Effects of Klebsiella planticola SDF20 on soil
biota and wheat growth in sandy soil. Applied Soil Ecology 326:1-12, as
cited by Kapuscinski 1999)

? Beneficial insects that feed on insect prey reared on transgenic
insect-resistant crops exhibited increased mortality and reduced
developmental time (See: Birch, A N.E., Geoghegan, I.E., Majerus,
M.E.N., Hackett, C., and J. Allen. 1996/7, Interactions between plant
resistance genes, pest aphid populations and beneficial aphid predators.
Scottish Crop Research Institute Annual Report, 1996/7: 68-72, as cited
by Kapuscinski 1999) Researchers led by Dr. Nicholas Birch of the
Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee, fed GE GNA potato to aphids,
which were in turn fed to ladybird beetles. The ladybirds' lives were
shortened by up to half the expected life-span, and their fertility and
egg-laying was significantly reduced. Females were apparently affected
more seriously than males and a change of diet to aphids not exposed to
GE plants seemed to reverse the process. Potato aphids were fed to adult
two-spot ladybirds for 12 days, before switching back to non-GE diet.
Female ladybirds fed with GE-affected aphids died on the average after
36 days, compared with the 74 days of those in a control group fed on
aphids not exposed to a GE diet. The study was published in the
scientific journal Molecular Breeding. (See: Guardian, London, 4 Mar
1999) 2.2.3. GENETIC CONTAMINATION (ESCAPE AND SPREAD)

++ Pollen does not travel very far. Isolation distances of 50-100 meters
will prevent any genetic contamination.

? Pollen can be carried by wind, bees and other insects, birds, and
other pollinators. Animals can eat seeds and then travel long distances.
Their droppings can contain viable seeds.  People can inadvertently
transport seeds hundreds or even thousands of kilometers from the
source.

? Studies in Denmark, Scotland and Lower Saxony in Germany have shown
that GMO rapeseed can pass on its traits to, not only non-GMO rapeseed,
but also weedy relatives up to 2.5 km away.  This would lead to
superweeds.

? Scientists from the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Dundee have
shown that as high as 7% of the natural rape plants in a field 400
meters away were pollinated by transgenic pollen.  They said that
oilseed rape pollen had been found 4 km away from the nearest source -
further than it had been previously discovered. They said "bees may be
important pollen vectors over a range of distances" and concluded that
"the results suggest that farm-to-farm spread of OSR [oilseed rape]
transgenes will be widespread." (See: New Scientist, April 1999)

? The European Commission has formulated 5-point emergency plan if GE
plants result in widespread illness or death of wildlife. The plan
includes: 1) methods and procedures for controlling the GMOs in case of
unexpected spread; 2) methods for decontamination of the areas affected
and eradication of the GMOs; 3) methods for disposal or sanitation of
plants, animals, soils, etc. exposed during and after the spread; 4)
methods for isolating area affected by spread; and 5) plants for
protecting human health and environment in case undesirable effects
occur.  (See: Independent, London, 4 Apr 1999)

? Steve Jones (professor of genetics, University College, London): Those
[transgenic] genes are going to get out into other plants. Everybody
knows that. And we have no idea what is going to happen. (BBC, 12 Apr
1999)

? Spontaneous hybrids and backcrosses occured between GE oilseed rape
and its weedy relative, Brassica campestris, under field conditions
(Jorgensen, R.B. and B. Andersen. 1994.  Spontaneous hybridization
between oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and weedy B. campestris
(Brassicaceae): a risk of growing genetically modified oilseed rate.
American Journal of Botany 81:1620-1626, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999).

? Transgenic, herbicide-tolerant weed-like plants, exhibiting high
fertility and the same morphology and chromosome numbers as in the weedy
relative, were produced in field experiments where GE herbicide-tolerant
interspecific hybrids were grown together with the weedy relative.
(Mikkelsen, T.R., Andersen, B. and R.B.Jorgensen. 1996. The risk of crop
transgene spread. Nature 380:31, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999)

? Arabidopsis thaliana, weed species often used for GE studies, was
found to be more prolific and promiscuous when genetically modified.
This implies that GE can substantially increase the probability of
transgene escape, heightening the risk of producing weedy or pest
populations of wild relatives. In field studies, herbicide-resistant
Arabidopsis thaliana produced by gene transfer of a resistance allele
outcrossed to wild relatives roughly 20 times more often than ordinary
mutants expressing the same mutant allele as the transgenic plants.
(Bergelson, J., Purrington, C.B. and G. Wichmann. 1998.  Promiscuity in
transgenic plants. Nature 395: 25, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999)

? "This is only the latest in a long list of field trials showing that
genetically engineered crops, once released, are totally uncontainable.
They will become a nightmare for conventional farmers to control. For
farmers who do not want to grow them, such as the organic sector, these
crops will be almost impossible to avoid." (Dr. Michael Antoniou)

? John Innes Centre, one of Europe's leading research institute on GM
crops, carried out research commissioned by the UK Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They reported: GE crops will
"inevitably" contaminate organic crops. Pollen and seed pollution by GE
crops could not be avoided entirely and "acceptable levels" of
contamination would have to be set. They estimated that 1% of
organically-grown plants in any one field could become GM hybrids
because of pollen spread. They concluded that contamination by seed or
pollen cannot be entirely eliminated. (BBC, 17 Jun 1999)

? LONDON, Sept 29 PA - Scientists have found genetically modified pollen
in beehives nearly 5km from an official trial site, Friends of the Earth
said today. These are the first published monitoring results of GM
pollen from a farm-scale trial site and show GM pollen travelling
further than ever previously detected. It also reveals the scale of the
threat the trials pose to non-GM and organic farmers, beekeepers and the
wider environment, said Friends of the Earth. The government's rules for
farm-scale trials require only a 50-metre separation between GM crops
and other fields... (AAP, 30 Sep 1999)

++ Gary Barton (Monsanto's director of biotechnology communications):
"Resistance can develop" but superweeds - hybrid plants resistant to
herbicide - were not an issue since they could always be sprayed with
other weedkillers to which they were not resistant. (See: Independent,
London, 25 Apr 1999)

? A scientific report, carried out for the British government in 1997
but not published until now, concluded that genetically engineered
oilseed rape could breed with ordinary farmers' crops and make them
inedible. The study, conducted by the prestigious Scottish Crops
Institute for the Ministry of Environment, says that contamination of
farmers' ordinary fields is "inevitable" under current farming
practices. (UK Sunday Independent, 21 Feb 1999)

? Genetic contamination and pollution can occur through live DNA
fragments.

? There is evidence that foreign DNA can enter the body via the
gastrointestinal tract and cross the placenta (1,2). (See: "WILL
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED AND TOXIC FOOD, BODIES,
AND ECOSYSTEMS?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane
Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)

? STRAINS of farm-bred fish developed to grow fat quickly are
threatening to drive Britain's majestic wild salmon into extinction.
Millions of modified fish have escaped into the Atlantic from offshore
farms in Europe and America. And the new strains are mating with wild
salmon, polluting their gene pool and producing hybrids that can't
survive in the open ocean. Don Staniford, of the Scottish office of
Friends of the Earth, said yesterday: 'Wild salmon are nearly extinct in
a number of Scottish regions and rivers where they used to be plentiful.
There's certainly a link between the decline of our wild salmon and the
escape of these farm-bred fish. It's genetic pollution.' (Mail, 19 Sep
1999)

2.2.4. BT IN THE SOIL

++ Bt toxin from GE-plants is very short-lived in soil (Eric Sachs of
Monsanto, in response to a question re impacts of Bt corn on soil
microbial community, 18 Jun 1999 EPA-USDA Bt corn workshop, as cited by
Charles Benbrook)

? GE crops are building up Bt toxins in the soil, damaging the soil food
web and harming beneficial insects. (Gene Exchange, Union of Concerned
Scientsts, Fall/Winter 1998)

? New York University researchers found out that unlike natural Bt
toxin, the active toxin produced by Bt crops do not disappear when added
to soil, but become rapidly bound to soil particles, and are not broken
down by soil microbes. The researchers contend that these GE Bt toxins
can build up in the soil, killing Bt-sensitive soil organisms and
increasing selection pressure for resistance to develop. In addition, a
broader range of organisms is likely to be susceptible to the active,
engineered toxins. (See: Seedling, Mar 1999, Vol 16 No 1)

? "Bound humic acid-toxin complexes were toxic to larvae of the tobacco
hornwork (Manduca sexta). The lethal concentration necessary to kill 50%
of the larvae (LC50) of the bound toxin was comparable with that of the
free toxin, indicating that the binding of the toxin to humic acids did
not affect insecticidal activity... The result of these studies indicate
that the toxins from B. thuringiensis introduced in transgenic plants
and microbes could persist, accumulate, and remain insecticidal in soil
as a result of binding to humic acids, as well as on clays, as
previously described. This persistence could pose a hazard to non-target
organisms and enhance the selection of toxin-resistant target species."
(See: C.Crecchio and G.Stotzky 1998.  Insecticidal activity and
biodegradation of the toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki
bound to humic acids from soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 463-470). See
also: J. Koskella and G. Stotzky, "Microbial Utilization of Free and
Clay-Bound Insecticidal Activity after Incubation with Microbes,"
Applied and Env. Microbiology, Sep 1997: 3561-3568. See further: H. Tapp
and G. Stotzky, "Persistence of the Insecticidal Toxin from Bt subsp.
Kurstaki in Soil," Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Vol 30 No 4 1998: 471-
476.)

? Bt toxin present in crop foliage plowed under after harvest can adhere
to soil colloids for up to 3 months, negatively affecting the soil
invertebrate populations that break down organic matter and play other
ecological roles Donnegan et al l995 and Palm et al l996). (See: "Ten
reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A.
Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)

? DNA released from living and dead cells can persist in the environment
and be transferred to other organisms. An organism may be dead, but its
"naked" DNA released from decaying cells may remain biologically active
for potentially thousands years, especially in certain soils and marine
sediments. (30) Naked DNA (nucleic acids) ingested by mice can be
transferred to offspring and be voided and spread in animals' feces.
(2) (See: "WILL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED AND TOXIC
FOOD, BODIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/
Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037)

? Studies Note Risks of Genetically Modified Plants: Dr. Guenther
Stotzky, soil microbiologist at New York University, has found that Bt
toxin in the soil, as it might be found after a crop is plowed under,
can remain active for at least eight months. "We were surprised," Dr.
Stotzky said. "I'm sure it hangs around longer. We just terminated the
experiment after eight months." 2.2.5. USE OF CHEMICALS

++ GE crops will reduce the use of herbicides, insecticides and other
chemicals.

? Crops engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides may encourage
more liberal use of those herbicides. This has been anticipated by one
manufacturer, who has applied to ANZFA (Australia-New Zealand Food
Authority) to have the allowable residue of the herbicide glyphosate
(Roundup) in foods sold in New Zealand increased by 200 times. In areas
of the USA where GE-crops that produce their own insecticide are grown,
pesticide use has not decreased. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic
Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin
Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu on
the SANET list)

? The British Medical Association urged that: the risk that GM crops may
increase the use of herbicides and pesticides in the environment needs
to be comprehensively assessed to determine their full environmental
impact. (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food
and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999) 2.2.6. MONOCULTURE


? The use of herbicide resistant crops undermine the possibilities of
crop diversification thus reducing agrobiodiversity in time and space
(Altieri l994). (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure
food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley
and Peter Rosset, Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy,
Oakland, California, Oct 1999)

? Ecological theory predicts that the large-scale landscape
homogenization with transgenic crops will exacerbate the ecological
problems already associated with monoculture agriculture. Unquestioned
expansion of this technology into developing countries may not be wise
or desirable. There is strength in the agricultural diversity of many of
these countries, and it should not be inhibited or reduced by extensive
monoculture, especially when consequences of doing so results in serious
social and environmental problems (Altieri l996). (See: "Ten reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and
reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter
Rosset, Oct 1999)

? The trend to create broad international markets for single products,
is simplifying cropping systems and creating genetic uniformity in rural
landscapes. History has shown that a huge area planted to a single crop
variety is very vulnerable to new matching strains of pathogens or
insect pests. Furthermore, the widespread use of homogeneous transgenic
varieties will unavoidably lead to "genetic erosion," as the local
varieties used by thousands of farmers in the developing world are
replaced by the new seeds (Robinson l996). (See: "Ten reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and
reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter
Rosset, Oct 1999)

2.2.10.   OTHERS 2.3. ECONOMIC IMPACT


? Summary: Based on the actual experience after the 1999 harvests of
U.S. farmers who planted GE crops, it is now clear that the market
considers GE crops as undesirable contaminants.  If mixed with a non-GE
batch, that batch will be considered contaminated and cannot be sold in
some markets or will fetch a lower price in other markets. Consumers
want GE-free foods, more and more firms are going GE-free, and GE-
imports are banned in some countries. Why plant an undesirable
contaminant ? Why let a neighbor plant an undesirable contaminant which
can cross-pollinate and contaminate your own crops?

2.3.1. HIGHER OR LOWER INCOME FOR FARMERS?

++ GE will increase crop yields.

? Recent experimental trials have shown that genetically engineered
seeds do not increase the yield of crops. A recent study by the USDA
Economic Research Service shows that in 1998 yields were not
significantly different in engineered versus non-engineered crops in 12
of 18 crop/region combinations. In the six crop/region combinations were
Bt crops or HRCs fared better, they exhibited increased yields between
5-30%. Glyphosphate tolerant cotton showed no significant yield increase
in either region where it was surveyed. This was confirmed in another
study examining more than 8,000 field trials, where it was found that
Roundup Ready soybean seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than
similar conventionally bred varieties (USDA l999). (See: "Ten reasons
why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment
and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter
Rosset, Oct 1999) ++ Farmers will benefit from growing GE crops.

? Seeds of genetically engineered crops are more expensive than those of
conventional crops.  Farmers in the UK and USA report that yields are
generally no better, the crops are less reliable and overall have not
improved profitability.  Non-GE crops now receive a premium and as more
countries reject GE foods, the opportunities to sell GE produce overseas
are diminishing. Because of risks associated with GE crops insurance
companies in the USA and UK are now reluctant to insure them.  Farmers
growing GE crops have to sign binding contracts with the biotechnology
producers. These commit them to using only the herbicides produced by
that company and prohibit them from the traditional practice of saving
seed for the next season. Most third world farmers certainly will not
benefit. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for
Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by
Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu on the SANET list)

? GE crops will result in lower pesticide costs, higher yields and
greater overall productivity, raising the income of the farmer.

? Concerns about genetically engineered corn have already halted
virtually all corn exports from the United States to Europe, costing
U.S. farmers about $200 million a year. Exports of American engineered
soy worth additional hundreds of millions of dollars are so far being
accepted by Europe.

? The National Corn Growers Association acknowledges that U.S. corn
sales to Europe plunged from nearly 70 million bushels in 1997 to less
than 3 million last year because the U.S. crop contained a small amount
of genetically engineered corn. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods",
Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)

? Australian trade authorities announced Jan. 8, 1999, the largest
shipment of canola (rapeseed) ever exported from Australia. The $16.5
million dollar shipment is bound for oilseed crushing plants in Europe.
According to Graham Lawrence, managing director of the New South Wales
Grains Board, "Europe has moved to become a major buyer this year
because Australia is the only country to guarantee non-genetic modified
canola." Canada has lost $300-400 million in canola sales to Europe over
the last year because government authorities have followed the US model
of co-mingling GE and non-GE grains. This year over 50% of Canada's 13.4
million acres of canola are genetically engineered.

? Surveyors warned yesterday that farmers who plant genetically modified
(GM) crops could see their land values fall, and that tenants of such
land might face bills to make up the shortfall. The Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors (RICS) called for the creation of a land register
through which potential buyers, and banks, could find out if and when GM
crops had been planted or grown on a particular holding. However, the
RICS report, sent to the Government's Office of Science and Technology
and other departments, warned that growing such crops might lower the
value of the land. In the case of tenant farmers, a landlord could, in
effect, sue for any shortfall in land value caused by the tenant growing
GM crops. (INDEPENDENT, London, 12 Mar 1999)

? Dr. Charles Benbrook presented evidence that farmers who use
Monsanto's RoundUp Ready soybeans are getting lower yields than farmers
using conventional soybeans. (See: Campaign on Food Safety News #20, 14
Jul 1999)

2.3.2. COUNTRIES/COMPANIES WHICH REFUSE GE-FOOD


? Europe banned the importation of Bt corn (See: ) (http:)

? Austria has imposed a total ban on Bt corn, including field trials.

? The governments of Norway and Denmark have banned the
commercialization of genetically modified organisms and food

? XINHUA - Italian Farm Minister Paolo De Castro on Friday blocked three
genetically modified (GM) crops - maize, soya and chicory - that had
completed testing and were ready to proceed to field planting... For the
moment, De Castro has also halted all new GM testing programs. He said
he wanted responsibility for the schemes to be shared by regional
governments before giving the go-ahead. (Xinhua, 5 Nov 1999)

? Russia: The sale to the population of foodstuffs and medicinal
preparations, obtained from genetically modified sources, without
special marking on the package will be banned, starting from July 1,
2000. The document says that the foodstuffs, obtained from genetically
modified sources, which do not contain DNA and proteins, specifically
food and aromatic additives, refined oil, modified starch and glucose
syrups, are not subject to the marking. (TASS, 5 Oct 1999)

? The following declared in May/Jun 1999 they will refuse to buy GE-
crops not approved for export to Europe: Archer Daniels Midland Co.
(See: Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999); A.E.  Staley Mfg. Co.; Corn
Refiners Association; and National Grain and Feed Association (See: )

? Maybe most astonishing was multinational grain marketer Archer Daniels
Midland's recent announcements that it will separately market soybeans
that are not genetically engineered and will reject any genetically
engineered corn not accepted in Europe. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech
foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)

? Carlsberg to Brew Beer only from Malt to Avoid GM Substances:
Carlsberg AS said it will henceforth brew its beer only from malt and no
longer use corn to reassure consumers that the product will not contain
any genetically modified substances, spokesman Henrik Moelstroem said.
(AFP, 12 Nov 1999)

? The Korean Bean Processing Association and the Korea Soybean Food
Association said Thursday that they want to cultivate non-genetically
modified (non-GM) beans through free contracts with farming groups in
the United States, Canada and Australia... Meanwhile the Korea Consumer
Protection Board said Wednesday that a GM bean ingredient has been found
in 18 tofu (bean curd) products out of 22 examined, or 81.8 percent, and
many famous tofu makers were also found to have used GM beans imported
from the United States. (Asia Pulse, 4 Nov 1999)

? GM free feed cannot meet rising demand: There is insufficient non-GE
soya or derived products available on the international market to met
growing demand for GM free animal feed, according to [National Farmers
Union]'s Dr Vernon Barber.  (See The Farmer's Guardian, 15 Oct 1999, UK)

? Thailand will establish agricultural zones declared free of
genetically

modified organisms ( GMOs) in a bid to promote exports, a senior
government official said Monday. 'Agricultural products from GMO-free
zones exported to foreign markets will be guaranteed by Thai authorities
as GMO-free,' said Newin Chidchob, deputy agriculture minister... 'We
have no policy of allowing trading in modified food in Thailand. GMO
plants are banned from import, except for study and research, and we
never produce and export such food,' Newin said. The authorities will
announce certain agricultural areas where the whole process of
agricultural production-from seed to harvest-is controlled, he said,
noting the zone will be expanded until the entire nation is declared
GMO-free. (Kyodo, 27 Sep 1999)

? The following companies are part of the growing list of firms which
have declared that they will not use GE-ingredients or sell GE-foods:

? Unilever, the world's largest food manufacturer (See: Independent, 28
Apr 1999)

? Tesco (Britains biggest supermarket chain, sales: #18.5bn) (See:
Observer, 7 Mar 1999)

? Asda, a major British supermarket chain (See: Independent, 27 Jan
1999)

? Kentucky Fried Chicken UK (See: Daily Mail, 23 Feb 1999)

? Iceland, a British frozen food specialist

? Marks and Spencer, another British retail chain

? Waitrose UK

? McDonald's UK (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999)

? Burger King UK (See: Daily Mail, 23 Feb 1999)

? United Biscuits UK (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999)

? Carrefour (France's largest supermarket chain)

? Gerber (US) (See: ) (http:)

? Heinz (US) (See: ) (http:)

? Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd

? Sanitarium Health Food Company (Australia),

-- Cadbury-Schweppes (Australia),

-- Master Foods Australia,

-- Mars Confectionery of Australia,


? Wyeth Australia

? Heinz Watties Australasia

? Grupo Maseca, Mexico's leading producer of corn flour

? Nissin Food Products, Japan

? Kirin Brewery, Japan

? Itochu Corp, Japanese trading house

? With more and more major food retailers, restaurants, and processors
in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Scandinavia, the UK, and other
nations going "GE-free" a tremendous market now exists for certified
"non-GE" and organic products.

++ Europe's banning of GE-foods is simply a protectionist move. It is a
trade issue, not a health issue.

? Even analysts from Deutsches Bank, the largest investment bank in the
world, who were themselves willing to concede that GE-foods were safe,
were telling their investors to sell their Pioneer stocks, because the
health concerns of Europeans are real, not imagined. (See: )
(http://www.dmg.com/central/ver40/index.html) In fact, not only
Europeans but also Americans have called for a recall of GE-foods on the
market. (See: anti-FDA lawsuit) (http:) 2.3.3. SEGREGATION AND MANDATORY
LABELLING

++ One can always choose not to eat GE food.

? Because genetically engineered food remains unlabeled, consumers
cannot discriminate between GE and non-GE food, and should serious
health problems arise, it will be extremely difficult to trace them to
their source. Lack of labeling also helps to shield the corporations
that could be potentially responsible from liability (Lappe and Bailey,
l998). (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food
security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)

? "We strongly oppose efforts to have mandatory labelling or segregation
of genetically engineered products." (US Sec of Agriculture Dan
Glickman, Dec 1998)

? In May 1999, the British Medical Association, which counts some 80% or
nearly 115,000 of Britain's medical doctors, issued an official
statement expressing concern over the safety of GE-foods. The BMA
recommended a moratorium on planting commercial GE-crops in the UK
"until there is scientific consensus (or as close agreement as
reasonably achievable) about the potential long-term environmental
effects." The BMA also called for 1) segregation at source, "to enable
identification and traceability" of GE-foods; 2) labelling GE-imports
and banning unlabelled ones, if the industry refuses to segregate (See:
) (http:)

? Countries which have adopted mandatory labelling: UK, Australia-New
Zealand Food Standards Council (Dec 1998),

? The EU has issued a directive requiring the mandatory labelling of all
genetically modified crops and foods in the market

? Countries which are considering mandatory labelling: Japan (See: )
(http:), Philippines

? In Japan, 2,300 out of 3,300 local governments have asked the national
government to require mandatory labeling of such food (See: "Wake-up
Call for Biotech Foods," Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)

? Lawmakers seek special labeling for genetically engineered food:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Everybody who eats food made in America deserves to
know what's in it, a bipartisan group of lawmakers said as they offered
legislation to create special food labels. "Today's limited scientific
knowledge warrants allowing consumers to make a better, more informed
choice," said Rep.  Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, leader of an effort to
identify for the marketplace all genetically altered food. (11 Nov 1999)

++ Labelling is a form of trade discrimination.

? Consumers have a right to know and to choose what they are eating.

++ Segregation is going to be very expensive. The consumers will
eventually realize that the cost of segregation is prohibitive and they
will accept mixed foods.

? No segregation costs will be incurred in countries and areas which
have so far refused to commercialize or even field-test GE-crops. These
areas will therefore enjoy a huge advantage compared to those who jumped
early into the GE-crop bandwagon. Other countries should learn from this
experience and stop even the field-testing of GE-crops until all the
necessary studies in biologically confined laboratories have been done
and there is widespread scientific consensus on the safety of a GE
product to be released.

? Monsanto, the beleaguered American biotechnology company, is coming
under intense pressure from Wall Street analysts and professional
investors in New York to dismember itself in the wake of the campaign
against genetically modified food. New York's financial community is now
convinced that successful protests from consumers and environmental
groups in Europe have hurt Monsanto's growth prospects and its stock
market rating so badly that the only option to realise some value for
investors would be some kind of sell-off. (The Guardian, 22 Oct 1999,
London)

2.3.4. WHO WANTS GE-FOOD?


? "Ag Biotech: Thanks, But No Thanks?" - that was the title of a July
1999 report of investment analysts Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell of
the Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, the largest investment firm in the world.
The two said they were "willing to believe that GMO crops are safe," but
they warned that the "no thanks" attitude "appears to be in the lead in
Europe and could easily become the thought process in the United States
as well." Earlier, three analysts from the same company had sent
investors a report entitled "GMOs Are Dead," advising them to sell their
Pioneer Hi-Bred stocks. (http://www.dmg.com/central/ver40/index.html)

? In Britain, for example, where genetically engineered food labeling is
required, poll results last March [1999] showed that nine out of 10
shoppers would switch supermarkets and travel considerable distances to
avoid such food. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State
Journal, 22 Apr 1999)

? Some 86% of consumers questioned in a poll for Here's Health magazine
said they would switch to a different supermarket if it banned all such
products. On top of this, 84% of the same sample of 1,030 shoppers said
they would be willing to travel double the distance it normally takes to
visit their supermarket if they could be sure of shopping in a GM-free
environment. (The Press Association, 10 Mar 1999)

? More than 100 chefs and food writers launched a campaign to oppose
"freakish" genetically modified food yesterday. Antonio Carluccio,
Antony Worrall Thompson, Fay Maschler and Annie Bell, food writer for
The Independent, were among those who pledged to secure a ban on the
release of all genetically modified (GM) organisms into the food chain.
In a joint statement, they said: "As food professionals we object to the
introduction of [GM] foods into the food chain. This is imposing a
genetic experiment on the public, which could have unpredictable and
irreversible adverse consequences. " In a recent Mori poll, 61 per cent
of respondents said they would not be happy to eat genetically modified
food. (INDEPENDENT, London, 27 Jan 1999)

? Washington, D.C.: Citing major deficiencies in the government's
regulatory system, a coalition of environmentalists and scientists
issued a document today calling for the suspension of all further
releases of genetically engineered organisms. The Pacific Declaration
was first drafted at a national meeting on July 26-28, 1999 at the
Commonweal Conference Center in Bolinas, California. The Declaration
cites the failure of governmental agencies to review the long-term
prospects for environmental and human harm stemming from genetically
engineered organisms. Among the groups endorsing the Declaration are the
Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the American Corn Growers
Association,  Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), the
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Council for Responsible
Genetics, the Edmonds Institute, and the Center for Ethics and Toxics
(CETOS). (12 Oct 1999)

? SEOUL, Sept 9 (Reuters) - The Korea Consumer Protection Board said
last Thursday its survey had found that 94.7 percent of the total 526
survey respondents said labelling for GM foods was necessary -- 71.5
percent said all the time and 23.2 percent in some cases. (Reuters, 9
Sep 1999) 2.3.10.   OTHERS

? At the 12th (1999) annual Scientific Conference of the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), more than 600
delegates from over 60 countries voted unanimously against the use of
GMOs in food production and agriculture. The delegates called on all
governments and regulatory agencies to immediately ban GE in agriculture
and food production since it involves: 1) Negative and irreversible
environmental impacts; 2) Release of organisms which cannot be recalled;
3) Removal of the right of choice, both for farmers and consumers; 4)
Violation of farmers' fundamental property rights and endangerment of
their economic independence; 5) Practices which are incompatible with
the principles of sustainable agriculture as defined by IFOAM; 6)
Unacceptable threats to human health. (See: )

2.4. FEEDING THE WORLD

++ GE will make Third World agriculture more productive.

? Most innovations in agricultural biotechnology have been profit-driven
rather than need-driven. The real thrust of the genetic engineering
industry is not to make third world agriculture more productive, but
rather to generate profits (Busch et al l990). This is illustrated by
reviewing the principal technologies on the market today: a) herbicide
resistant crops such as Monsanto's "Roundup Ready"soybeans, seeds that
are tolerant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and b)"Bt" crops which are
engineered to produce their own insecticide. In the first instance, the
goal is to win a greater herbicide market-share for a proprietary
product and in the second to boost seed sales at the cost of damaging
the usefulness of a key pest management product (the Bt based microbial
insecticide) relied upon by many farmers, including most organic
farmers, as a powerful alternative to insecticides.

? These technologies respond to the need of biotechnology companies to
intensify farmers' dependence upon seeds protected by so-called"
intellectual property rights," which conflict directly with the age-old
rights of farmers to reproduce, share or store seeds (Hobbelink l991).
Whenever possible corporations will require farmers to buy company's
brand of inputs and will forbid farmers from keeping or selling seed. By
controlling germplasm from seed to sale, and by forcing farmers to pay
inflated prices for seed-chemical packages, companies are determined to
extract the most profit from their investment (Krimsky and Wrubel l996).
(See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world";
Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)

++ Without GE-crops, we cannot feed the world's rapidly increasing
population.

? There is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given
country and its population. For every densely populated and hungry
nation like Bangladesh or Haiti, there is a sparsely populated and
hungry nation like Brazil and Indonesia.  The world today produces more
food per inhabitant than ever before. Enough is available to provide 4.3
pounds every person everyday: 2.5 pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about
a pound of meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits and vegetables. The
real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access.  Too
many people are too poor to buy the food that is available (but often
poorly distributed) or lack the land and resources to grow it themselves
(Lappe, Collins and Rosset l998). (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology
will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce
poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset,
Oct 1999) ++ GE crops will save the world from famine.

? A major cause of famine is the unequal global distribution of food.
Food mountains exist in much of the western world and food is regularly
dumped. Poor people have limited ability to buy either GE or non-GE
food. There is no evidence that GE crops produce higher yields than
conventional crops or that GE products will be cheaper. (See: "13 Myths
about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic
Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu on the SANET list)

? Dr. Geoffrey Clements (physicist and leader of the Natural Law Party,
UK): "Perfectly safe natural alternatives are readily available, and no
one believes the propaganda that GE crops are essential to help feed the
hungry or to secure food stocks for the future. In fact, if the GE
revolution is not halted and if the balance of Nature continues to be
disrupted, we would well see the worst famines and disease of all time."

? The dramatic effects of rotations and intercropping on crop health and
productivity, as well as of the use of biological control agents on pest
regulation have been confirmed repeatedly by scientific research. The
problem is that research at public institutions increasingly reflects
the interests of private funders at the expense of public good research
such as biological control, organic production systems and general
agroecological techniques . Civil society must request for more research
on alternatives to biotechnology by universities and other public
organizations (Krimsky and Wrubel l996).

? There is also an urgent need to challenge the patent system and
intellectual property rights intrinsic to the WTO which not only provide
multinational corporations with the right to seize and patent genetic
resources, but that will also accelerate the rate at which market forces
already encourage monocultural cropping with genetically uniform
transgenic varieties. Based on history and ecological theory, it is not
difficult to predict the negative impacts of such environmental
simplification on the health of modern agriculture (Altieri l996). (See:
"Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect
the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A.
Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)

? Much of the needed food can be produced by small farmers located
throughout the world using agroecological technologies (Uphoff and
Altieri l999). In fact, new rural development approaches and low-input
technologies spearheaded by farmers and NGOs around the world are
already making a significant contribution to food security at the
household, national and regional levels in Africa, Asia and Latin
America (Pretty l995).  Yield increases are being achieved by using
technological approaches , based on agroecological principles that
emphasize diversity, synergy, recycling and integration; and social
processes that emphasize community participation and empowerment (Rosset
l999). When such features are optimized, yield enhancement and stability
of production are achieved, as well as a series of ecological services
such conservation of biodiversity, soil and water restoration and
conservation, improved natural pest regulation mechanisms, etc (Altieri
et al l998). (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food
security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)

2.5. LIST OF FOODS WITH CONFIRMED GE-INGREDIENTS

++ There is no need to label GE foods.

? Below is a list of processed foods that tested positive for
genetically engineered ingredients (September 1999). These tests were
not "safety" tests; they were only to establish the presence of
unlabeled genetically engineered ingredients.  (NYTimes full page ad
October 18, 1999 )

? Frito-Lay Fritos Corn Chips * Bravos Tortilla Chips * Kellogg's Corn
Flakes * General Mills Total Corn Flakes Cereal * Post Blueberry Morning
Cereal * Heinz 2 Baby Cereal * Enfamil ProSobee Soy Formula * Similac
Isomil Soy Formula * Nestle Carnation Alsoy Infant Formula * Quaker
Chewy Granola Bars * Nabisco Snackwell's Granola Bars * Ball Park Franks
* Duncan Hines Cake Mix * Quick Loaf Bread Mix * Ultra Slim Fast *
Quaker Yellow Corn Meal * Light Life Gimme Lean * Aunt Jemima Pancake
Mix * Alpo Dry Pet Food * Gardenburger * Boca Burger Chef Max's Favorite
* Morning Star Farms Better'n Burgers * Green Giant Harvest Burgers (now
called Morningstar Farms) * McDonald's McVeggie Burgers * Ovaltine Malt
Powdered Beverage Mix * Betty Crocker Bac-Os Bacon Flavor Bits * Old El
Paso Taco Shells * Jiffy Corn Muffin Mix [Sources: Genetic ID (an
independent testing firm) and Consumer Reports (September 1999).]

? List of GE-foods in the U.S.: * Canola (oilseed rape) * Chicory, red
hearted (Radicchio) * Corn * Cotton * Papaya * Potato * Soybean * Squash
* Tomato (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)

? A high percentage of the following ingredients have been made from GE
plants, and are commonly found in processed foods: * Soy flour * Soy oil
* Lecithin * Soy protein isolates and concentrates * Corn flour * Corn
starch * Corn oil * Corn sweeteners & syrups * Cottonseed oil * Canola
oil

2.10. OTHERS 3. RISK ASSESSMENT

++ The benefits of GE outweigh the risks.

? Assessing risk means to anticipate the various potentially harmful
events that can occur, and totaling the probability of each event
multiplied by the consequence of that event. This means an event of low
probability can still be very risky if its consequences are very
serious. For GE organisms, we still lack the knowledge to anticipate
many of the harmful events, or to measure their probability or
consequences.

? In fact, methods for risk assessment of transgenic crops are not well
developed (Kjellsson and Simmsen 1994) and there is justifiable concern
that current field biosafety tests tell little about potential
environmental risks associated with commercial-scale production of
transgenic crops. (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure
food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)

? Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics at Harvard University: "We
have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops
from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock
after another." (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers
for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech)

? Funds for research on environmental risk assessment are very limited.
For example, the USDA spends only 1% of the funds allocated to
biotechnology research on risk assessment, about $1-2 million per year.
Given the current level of deployment of genetically engineered plants,
such resources are not enough to even discover the "tip of the iceberg".
(See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world";
Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)

? Risks increase as the GE organisms that carry them multiply. Unlike
oil spills, chemical releases or nuclear leaks, which eventually
dissipate, living GE organisms reproduce and multiply, and they cannot
be recalled once released.

? The BMA urged that: the precautionary principle should be applied in
developing genetically modified crops or foodstuffs, as we cannot at
present know whether there are any serious risks to the environment or
to human health involved in producing GM crops or consuming food
products. (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food
and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999)

4. GOVT/INDUSTRY COLLUSION


? Summary: The collusion of corporations who are in a hurry to recover
their investments in GE research and governments which are heavily
targetted by corporate lobbyists is forcing GE crops on farmers and GE
foods on consumers.

4.1. THE "REVOLVING DOOR"

++ The U.S. FDA has determined that GE crops are as safe as their
conventional counterparts. The U.S. has one of the most stringent food
regulatory regimes in the world.

? In February 1999, the Center for Food Safety sued the FDA to have all
genetically engineered foods taken off the market on the grounds that
they are neither properly labelled nor safety-tested, and that lack of
mandatory labeling illegally restricts the freedom of choice of those
who would choose - on religious or ethical grounds - to avoid GE foods.
(http://www.icta.org)

? The FDA's records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to
be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts-all the while
claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal
reports and memoranda disclose that: 1) FDA scientists repeatedly
cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail
different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts; and
2) this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who
crafted FDA's policy, to treat GE-foods the same as natural ones.  (See:
Statement by Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance
for Bio-Integrity, lawsuit coordinator, in collaboration with the Legal
Department of the Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C.).

? FDA's own scientists repeatedly warned that genetic engineering
differs from conventional practices and entails a unique set of risks.
Numerous FDA experts protested that drafts of the Statement of Policy
were ignoring the recognized potential for bioengineering to produce
unexpected toxins and allergens in a different manner and to a different
degree than do conventional methods.

? Dr. Louis Priybl (FDA Microbiology Group): "There is a profound
difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional
breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this
document." He added that several aspects of gene splicing "...may be
more hazardous."

? Dr. Linda Kahl (FDA compliance officer): The FDA was "...trying to fit
a square peg into a round hole ... [by] trying to force an ultimate
conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic
engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices." She
said: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are
different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they
lead to different risks."

? Dr. Jim Maryanski (FDA Biotechnology Coordinator) acknowledged there
is no consensus about the safety of genetically engineered foods in the
scientific community at large, and FDA scientists advised they should
undergo special testing, including toxicological tests.

? Monsanto's top dairy scientists Margaret Miller and Suzanne Sechen,
were hired by the US FDA to review Monsanto's research in the process of
approving rBGH.

? Monsanto's lawyer Michael Taylor was hired by the US FDA to write the
labelling laws governing rBGH.

? Suzanne Wuerthele (BS in Biology, MA in Teaching Science, PhD in
Pharmacology, 7 years of post-doctoral work, board-certified
toxicologist, worked in a U.S. EPA regional office for 13 years, a
national expert in toxicology and risk assessment): I was introduced to
GE a few years back when I was shown the "risk assessment" for a GE
nitrogen-fixing bacteria, Rhizobium meliloti... I learned some very
disturbing things about regulation of GE:

o EPA has an official position of "fostering" biotechnology;

o There is no process-across all U.S. federal agencies-to evaluate the
hazards of GE organisms (we have such a process for chemicals and it
works pretty well). For GE, however, no formal risk assessment
methodologies. No science policies... No conferences where scientific
issues of GE are debated. No understanding of the full range of hazards
from GE organisms. No discussion of or consultation with the public to
determine what constitute "unacceptable risk". No method to even measure
magnitude of risks. Etc.

o When peer review panels are put together, they are not necessarily
unbiased. They can be filled with GE proponents or confined to questions
which avoid the important issues, so that a predetermined decision can
be justified.

...we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has
ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought
whatsoever to its consequences. In fact, we don't even know yet the full
extent of what it can do to the environment and to our health. The few
scientists in regulatory agencies who are concerned are ignored or their
concerns are dismissed. Or they are told to be silent. Good risk
assessment and good science, which if they were used rationally, would
tell us that we're making a big mistake, is not being used or is being
twisted.  (Susan Wuerthele, toxicologist)

? David W. Beier, former head of Government Affairs for Genentech, Inc.,
now chief domestic policy advisor to Al Gore, Vice President of the
United States. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Linda J. Fisher, former Assistant Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, now Vice President of Government and
Public Affairs for Monsanto Corporation. (http://www.edmonds-
institute.org/door.html)

? Michael A. Friedman, M.D., former acting commissioner of the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Department of Health and Human
Services, now senior vice-president for clinical affairs at G. D. Searle
& Co., a pharmaceutical division of Monsanto Corporation.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? L. Val Giddings, former biotechnology regulator and (biosafety)
negotiator at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA/APHIS),
now Vice President for Food & Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry
Organization (BIO).  (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Marcia Hale, former assistant to the President of the United States
and director for intergovernmental affairs, now Director of
International Government Affairs for Monsanto Corporation.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Michael (Mickey) Kantor, former Secretary of the United States
Department of Commerce and former Trade Representative of the United
States, now member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Josh King, former director of production for White House events, now
director of global communication in the Washington, D.C. office of
Monsanto Corporation. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Terry Medley, former administrator of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture, former chair and vice-chair of the United States Department
of Agriculture Biotechnology Council, former member of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) food advisory committee, and now Director of
Regulatory and External Affairs of Dupont Corporation's Agricultural
Enterprise. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Margaret Miller, former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto,
now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and Consultative Services, New
Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine in the
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).* (http://www.edmonds-
institute.org/door.html)

? Michael Phillips, recently with the National Academy of Science Board
on Agriculture, now head of regulatory affairs for the Biotechnology
Industry Organization. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? William D. Ruckelshaus, former chief administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),,now (and for the past 12
years) a member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Michael Taylor, former legal advisor to the United States Food and
Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of
Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA, still
later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised
a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural
Company, still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States
Food and Drug Administration, and later with the law firm of King &
Spaulding., now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto
Corporation.* (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Lidia Watrud, former microbial biotechnology researcher at Monsanto
Corporation in St. Louis, Missouri, now with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Effects Laboratory,
Western Ecology Division.  (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Jack Watson, former chief of staff to the President of the United
States, Jimmy Carter, now a staff lawyer with Monsanto Corporation in
Washington, D.C. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Clayton K. Yeutter, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, former U.S. Trade Representative (who led the U.S. team in
negotiating the U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement and helped launch the
Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations), now a member of the board of
directors of Mycogen Corporation, whose majority owner is Dow
AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)

? Larry Zeph, former biologist in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, now
Regulatory Science Manager at Pioneer Hi-Bred International.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html) 4.2. PERSECUTION OF CRITICS

++ Trust the scientists who have assured us that GE food is safe.

? The money for scientific research on GE comes from either the
biotechnology companies or the government. Both are committed to the
promises of biotechnology. This means that even when scientists have
concerns about the safety or commercial application of the technology,
it is often hard for them to risk their careers by being openly
critical. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for
Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu on the SANET list)

4.2.1. DR. ARPAD PUSZTAI


? Pusztai had began a #1.6-million study which indicated that a GE-
potato diet weakened rats' immune systems and adversely affected the
animals' internal organs. When he shared with the media (with his
superior's permission) some of his concerns, Pusztai was promptly sacked
from his research post. His papers were confiscated, he was prohibited
from talking to the media, and his research team was closed down. (See:
) (http:)

? Some 20 scientists from 13 countries issued a statement deploring the
harsh treatment by Scotland's Rowett Research Institute of world-
renowned British researcher and lectin expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai and
demanding his reinstatement. (See: ) (http:)

? In April last year [1998], a scientist, Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett
Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely announced on television
that experiments had shown intestinal changes in rats caused by eating
genetically engineered potatoes.  He said he would not eat such modified
foods himself and that it was "very, very unfair to use our fellow
citizens as guineapigs".  A storm of publicity overtook Pusztai. He was
removed from his job, a sacrifice that did not quell public alarm in the
UK or in Europe. Last week (May 22, p1769 ) we reported that the Royal
Society had reviewed what it could of Pusztai and colleagues' evidence
and found it flawed, a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the
Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and
final publication of their work. (See: The Lancet, Vol 353 No 9167, 29
May 1999, "Health risks of genetically modified foods")

4.2.10.   OTHERS
4.10. OTHERS
5. HUMAN GENOME
6. GE WEAPONRY


? Joseph Rotblat, the British physicist who won a 1995 Nobel Prize: "My
worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of
mass destruction, maybe more readily available even than nuclear
weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible area, because of these
dreadful developments that are taking place there." (See: "13 Myths
about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic
Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu on the SANET list)

10. OTHERS

10.1. TERMINATOR SEEDS:


? USDA spent $229,000 of US taxpayers' money to create the new
"technology protection system" with Delta and Pine Land Company. The
research was done, according to the inventor himself (Melvin Oliver), to
improve the bottom lines of American corporations.

? Monsanto announced in October 1999 that it was dropping its Terminator
seed program, confirming the effectiveness of the global campaign
against the technology of developing sterile GE-seeds. (See: ) (http:)

10.2. UNETHICAL/CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

? Monsanto has been condemned for making 'wrong, unproven, misleading
and confusing' claims in a #1m advertising campaign.  The Advertising
Standards Authority, the industry's official watchdog, criticised the
firm for wrongly giving the impression that GE potatoes and tomatoes had
been tested and approved for sale in Britain. ASA also dismissed
Monsanto's assertion that GM crops were grown 'in a more environmentally
sustainable way' than ordinary crops as unproven. (John Arlidge,
Observer (London), 28 Feb 1999)

? Almost 200 cotton farmers in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are
suing Monsanto for damages after crop failures of Monsanto's Bt and
Roundup Ready cotton seeds. In a separate lawsuit 25 cotton farmers in
Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Louisiana are suing Monsanto for fraud
and misrepresentation- also in regard to Bt cotton crop failures. (See:
Augusta Chronicle, Georgia, 25 Jan 1999)

? Biotech giant Monsanto exported Canadian GE potatoes to Ukraine,
ignoring the domestic laws which require environmental impact
assessment, according to a Greenpeace report published today... Monsanto
NewLeaf potatoes were exported to Ukraine in 1997 and 1998 with the help
of Solanum-PEI, a joint venture company created by Monsanto and the
government of PEI. (See: Canada Newswire, 17 Sep 1999) 10.10. OTHERS