Genetically
 Manipulated 


 

 
 
 Food


 News

17 January 2000

Table of Contents

Canola Growers Unsure about GM Seed
US firm may double cost of UK cancer checks
Agriculture Canada Study questions higher-yield theory on genetically modified canola
Law To Protect Native Intellectual Property
US-MExico Legal Battle Erupts over Patented "Enola" Bean
Food additives
Canada: Interview with Hon. Eugene Whelan
Scientists bypass GM route
EU Pushes for Environmental Agreement on GMOs In Montreal
The Economist GE Food Poll
Saftey, Future Of Genetically Altered Food At Issue In Suit
Commentary by Elbert van Donkersgoed: Uncertainty
Dismantling the GE myth - important article
New EPA Restrictions on Bt Corn!
Bt. Corn Insect Resistance Management Announced for 2000 Growing Season
New Restrictions on Biotech Corn
EPA Restricts Gene-Altered Corn in Response to Concerns
Genetically Modified rBST Dairy Products
Austria Urged to Take Initiatives to Protect the Public
"a victory?"
Inheritance of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin (Dipel ES) in the European Corn Borer

Top NextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

Canola Growers Unsure about GM Seed

By Ed White, Saskatoon newsroom
Western Producer, January 6, 2000

Canadian canola growers are, according to this story, uncertain about what to plant next spring because of the uproar over genetically modified crops. ... Dale Adolphe, president of the Canola Council of Canada, was quoted as saying, "There's uncertainty, and growers are asking what they should be growing,. We don't know what will happen in the next three months, or four months, or 18 months – which is how long growers will be marketing their next crop."


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

US firm may double cost of UK cancer checks

By James Meek, The Guardian, Monday January 17, 2000

An American company which has "patented" two human genes for breast cancer screening is threatening the work of 15 publicly funded British laboratories that perform a genetic test at half the cost.

The attempt by the Salt Lake City firm, Myriad Genetics, to move into the European market signals the beginning of what is likely to be a bitter struggle over the "patenting of life" - whether private companies should be given exclusive rights to exploit the codes printed by nature in the cells of every human being.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

Agriculture Canada Study questions higher-yield theory on genetically modified canola

By Carol Harrington, The Montreal Gazette - Montreal, Québec, Canada, January 14, 1999
http://www.montrealgazette.com

CALGARY (CP) - Farmers won't necessarily get higher yields by growing costly genetically modified canola, a new Agriculture Canada study suggests. The two-year study indicated herbicide-tolerant canola brought bigger yields than traditional farming methods in only 60 per cent of test fields. Those results should prod Prairie canola farmers to be more prudent when deciding which farming method to use, said Bob Blackshaw, an Alberta weed specialist who conducted the study http://res.agr.ca/leth/scitech/blacksha.htm

"There is this general assumption by farmers that they get higher yields and make more money if they used herbicide-tolerant canolas," Blackshaw said. "They might get better economic return on their farm by not growing a herbicide-tolerant canola."


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

Law To Protect Native Intellectual Property

By Abraham Lama, International Press Service,, January 12, 1999
http://www.gene.ch

Law to protect native intellectual property LIMA, Jan 12 (IPS) - The Peruvian government is drafting a law to protect indigenous rights over their ancestral knowledge in an attempt to prevent the history of plundering native wealth from repeating itself, as well as controlling the international exploitation of Peru's native plants. Indigenous communities will be the intellectual owners of genetic resources coming from plant species whose curative or nutritional values form part of their ancestral knowledge, according to the text of the legal bill.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

Plant breeders' wrongs continues…

US-MExico Legal Battle Erupts over Patented "Enola" Bean

RAFI - Geno-Types - 17 January 2000

A US-based company, POD-NERS, L.L.C, is suing Mexican bean exporters, charging that the Mexican beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) they are selling in the US infringe POD-NERS' US patent on a yellow-colored bean variety. It's not surprising that the Mexican beans are strikingly similar to POD-NER's patented bean. That's because POD-NERS proprietary bean, "Enola" originates from the highly popular "Azufrado" or "Mayocoba" bean seeds the company's president purchased in Mexico in 1994.

The Mexican yellow beans have been grown in Mexico for centuries, developed by generations of Mexican farmers and more recently by Mexican plant breeders. Last year RAFI released a report, Plant Breeders' Wrongs, which documents 147 suspected cases of institutional biopiracy. In RAFI's opinion, the Enola bean patent is a textbook case of biopiracy, and it confirms – once again – that the plant intellectual property system is predatory on the rights of indigenous peoples and farming communities.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

http://cnniw.newsreal.com/cgi-bin/NewsService?osform_template=pages/cnniwStory&ID=cnniw&storypath=News/Story_2000_01_17.NRdb@2@21@3@610&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@23

Food additives

Bangor Daily News Bangor, ME

The American people have finally been made aware we are eating foods -- and have been for some time – that have been genetically altered.

Several government agencies took it unto themselves to allow this and to keep it a secret. They appear to have the arrogance to use this control of information because they have so little respect for the intelligence of us to understand that genetically modified food products are "good" for us.

However, according to respected researchers in the field of genetics, there is doubt concerning the benefit of the manipulation of genes in food. Is this the reason for the secrecy surrounding this program? We might raise questions about the benefits to us?


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

Canada: Interview with Hon. Eugene Whelan

Ottawa Citizen, Sunday, Jan 16, 2000

Canada section, first page.

Interview with Hon. Eugene Whelan, previous Minister of Agriculture for Canada, and recently retired Senator and Co-Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry:

Q. What do you think of the advances in biotechnology?

Mr. Whelan (answer):I think some of them are actually great. I am all in favour of good genetically modified food. We were involved in a lot of the research when I was minister. We spent millions of dollars on that. We developed canola oil. It was derived from therape seed. We gave that to the world.

Q. Are people right to distrust GM food? Are there any dangers?

Mr. Whelan (answer): Yes there are. There is not enough testing. We don't know if they are safe for humans. We have to make sure there's no effect on people, that there are no allergic effects. These are the questions that we have to answer.

Q. What are the implications of GM foods for the fight against hunger in the developing world?

Mr. Whelan (answer):I think this is an overstated fact, using g.m. food to fight hunger and disease. In the developing world, people don't trust these things. People are suspicious. I remember we were testing a corn in Mexico that was drought-resistant, insect-resistant and all that, but the question was if this thing is going to kill the insects, how do they know five or six years down (the road) it's not going to cause them problems. I have serious reservations when they say genetically modified food is going to help fight hunger.

Q. In particular, what do you think of the opposition of GM food in the West? Is this a kind of elitism?

Mr. Whelan (answer):I don't think it is elitism. There are a lot of scientists who are opposed to it because there are real concerns. I don't think we know enough about the full repercussions of this. People should be distrustful until they know this is perfectly safe.

Q. But if we don't go ahead, are we losing a great opportunity to reduce or even stop hunger and disease?

Mr. Whelan (answer): No, we are not. Agriculture has been my whole life and I know g.m. food is not the answer to hunger and disease in the developing world. There are things you can do that are most important - storage of food and marketing. If you hlep them with storage, processing and marketing, they can feed themselves.

Q. Should the United Nations be involved? If so what should be their role?

Mr. Whelan (answer): I was a member of the World food Council for 10 years and chairman of the council for two years. I don't have faith in the United Nations, the way they run their business. They are too bureaucratic, too politicized. They have wasted billions in the developing world. Most of the time they don't have the experience. It's unbelievable the programs that have failed.

END OF ARTICLE


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

Scientists bypass GM route

By Nick Nutfall. Environment Correspondent, London Times 17.1.2000

PEST-RESISTANT oilseed rape has been bred by British scientists, casting doubt on the need for genetic engineering to generate future super-crops.

The new crop, developed by conventional breeding, produces large amounts of a chemical called mustard oil that "acts like a beacon" to lure aphid-killing wasps into a field. It may also repel pigeons; millions flock here from Scandinavia in the winter.

The researchers believe the technique could be used against a wide range of pests to reduce damage and boost crop yields. It should also dramatically reduce the need for farmers to spray environmentally questionable pesticides.

CPB Twyford, one of Britain's leading seed companies, is to commercialise the breakthrough and hopes to have the new pest-resistant oilseed rape strains on the market in about six years' time.

The Cambridgeshire-based company pulled out of testing genetically modifed rape last year after attacks by activists and mounting public concern over genetic engineering.

The development has been welcomed by environmental groups. Adrian Bebb, of Friends of the Earth, said yesterday. "This shows we do not need genetic engineering."


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

EU Pushes for Environmental Agreement on GMOs In Montreal

European Commission, DN: IP/00/36, January 17, 2000

Brussels – An international conference will seek to finalise the Protocol on Biosafety in Montreal on 24 to 28 January. The protocol is an international environmental agreement under the Convention of Biodiversity, which aims to facilitate a proper risk assesment prior to cross-border movements of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) derived from biotechnology.

After five years of negotiations, the European Union considers that the agreement must now be concluded. It should be based on the precautionary principle and balance environmental and trade concerns. A primary objective of this protocol is to enable developing countries often lacking adequate legislation and administrative capacity to take well founded decisions on the import of living genetically modified organisms and thereby to protect their biodiversity.

The international community must also demonstrate that it takes the concerns of the citizens about the safety of biotechnology seriously. EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström urges all Governments to go to Montreal with a sincere willingness to conclude an agreement.

The final negotiation meeting of the Protocol on Biosafety, an important international agreement for the protection of the environment, will take place in Montreal on 24-28 January 1999. This would be the first Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted at the Rio Conference in 1992.

APwo 01/17 1310 EU:

Agreement Under Convention of Biodiversity

BRUSSELS, January 17 (Xinhua)--The European Union (EU) said Monday that it considers that an international environmental agreement under the Convention of Biodiversity must be concluded when an environmental conference is held from next Monday to Friday in Montreal, Canada.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

The Economist GE Food Poll

The Economist January 15, 2000 , U.S.

"MAYBE those anti-capitalist, unscientific Europeans are against genetically modified (GM) food. But we optimistic, pro-capitalist scientific Americans know better."

American producers of the stuff often took that line in 1999 – but the latest Angus Reid poll for The Economist shows it to be at best a partial truth. The poll was carried out among more than 5,000 respondents in eight countries where GM foods have been an issue, in late November and early December 1999. In the three European countries included, it confirms that the public is deeply suspicious (see ).

Among those in Germany who have heard of or read about GM food, for example (and that includes 95% of Germans) fully four-fifths say that they would be less likely to buy a food because it was genetically modified. The French are only marginally less hostile to the foods, with Britons easily the least unfavourably disposed of the three European countries. But America is also unenthusiastic.

Only 4% of Americans would actually be more likely to buy foods because they are genetically modified. By contrast, 57% would be less likely to buy them.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

A FOOD FIGHT ON U.S.

Saftey, Future Of Genetically Altered Food At Issue In Suit

By Kathleen Kerr, Newsday (New York, NY), January 16, 2000, Page A46

A crusade against the alleged dangers of "Frankenstein foods"-the genetically altered farm products that spurred European protesters to dress as mutant vegetables and tear corn crops from fields-has landed squarely both in America's courts and in its supermarket aisles. And the eventual outcome, experts suggest, may be a dramatic shift in how the world's food supplies are managed.

Next month, the Monsanto Co., one of the world's largest producers of biotech foods, is expected to answer charges in an antitrust lawsuit filed recently in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., by six American farmers with the backing of environmental activists. The lawsuit also questions the safety of biotech crops. At stake for the agricultural and pharmaceutical giant are its business practices and the success of its agricultural biotech arm. But a far more encompassing issue looms for the rest of us, activists say: the future and the safety of the world's food supply.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:45:39 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson

Commentary by Elbert van Donkersgoed: Uncertainty

Corner Post, Farm & Rural, December 14, 2000

Controversy swirling around genetically modified foods is creating uncertainty about seed purchases for spring planting. It will be a mistake to make decisions based on the assumption that the hullabaloo will soon die down.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 16 Jan 2000 05:40:42 U
From: RBBAX@aol.com
Originated: mail@icsenglish.com (Jonathan Mathews. NGIN)
Forwarded by: rbbax@aol.com (Ron Baxter)

'Are GMOs essential for effective sustainable agriculture in a hungry world?'

Dismantling the myth of genetics as the principal constraint on responsible global agricultural production

Mark Griffiths BSc FRICS FAAV

Dismantling the GE myth - important article

By Mark Griffiths BSc FRICS FAAV
This paper is available online at
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/geneticsmyth

Sections:
References

Two days before the last Christmas of the second millennium the London Times, as if firing a final parting salvo from the rapidly retreating values of the 20th Century, reported on the indignant retirement of Professor John Beringer as chairman of the government committee overseeing the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment in the UK [1]. Clearly angry at the poor public reception that genetically modified crops have received in the UK Professor Beringer was reported as saying that those who oppose their use in agriculture were consigning billions of people to a future of hunger and starvation.

John Beringer is Professor of Molecular Genetics and Dean of Science in the School of Biological Sciences at Bristol University. Unlike some of his colleagues in the scientific community [2] he has so far come under little fire from critics of genetic engineering for making false claims about the 'benefits' and risks of the technology.

The Times quotes Professor Beringer as saying that organic agriculture and "spreading around a bit of manure" were not going save the planet, feed the hungry or conserve wildlife. According to Professor Beringer: "In a real, hungry world, there are no solutions other than technological ones."

The implication arising from this bold assertion is that the main or only solution to such problems is 'improved' genetics. Beringer was of course making two important assumptions. The first is that the principal problem with global food provision is one of low yields, rather than issues of distribution, poverty, social conflict and waste. The second assumption is that genetic 'improvement', primarily the use of genetic modification, is essential if we are to increase usable crop yields and to farm more sustainably.

At a time when 78 percent of all malnourished children under the age five in the developing world live in countries with food surpluses, much has already been written about the weaknesses of the first assumption [3]. Less investigation has been made into the second.

Just how bad are our existing crop genetics and is their further improvement the only way forward? To solve these vital human and environmental problems should we be exclusively focusing on Professor Beringer's specialism of molecular genetics? Or should we be looking at factors affecting productive output from a wider scientific perspective? Are inadequate genetics really the limiting factor here? Or do they just simply seem so only from the specialised outlook of molecular geneticists dedicated to their own discipline, but not necessarily working as a practising agriculturists?

In an article printed in the UK's Farming News in the spring of 1999 [4] Yorkshire agronomist Ian Chalmers highlighted the existing gap between the genetic yield potential of many existing non-transgenic wheat varieties - more than 21t/ha in some cases - and the actual UK average wheat yield of around 7t/ha. Highlighting better crop establishment as a key factor, he pointed to one of his own clients in Lincolnshire who had achieved 18t/ha using an early sowing regime.

Under the headline "Agronomist casts doubt on growers' intelligence" Mr Chalmers expressed his long term belief that the limiting factor for improved production was not the genetic merit of the crops concerned, but rather the average grower's mental ability to understand the physiological traits of the particular varieties being grown. In other words the source of the problem was not technical but human. It would seem farmers needed to have a better understanding of plant husbandry, not access to better genetics.

Whilst most of Mr Chalmers' advice related to seedbed preparation and time of sowing a subsequent article in the UK's 'Arable Farming' in the autumn of 1999 [5] expanded the debate about the productive capacity of UK agriculture into even wider management horizons. Crucially it began to explore the issue of microbial soil management, rather than plant genetics, as the principal limiting factor in farm production. It might be said that if any farming publication in the UK was interested in the technological approach to 'solving' agricultural production problems as advocated by Professor Beringer, 'Arable Farming' is that publication. But this article by another farm adviser Bill Butterworth was refreshingly different in raising matters that the 'miracle' of post-war agriculture has so far largely overlooked.

Bill Butterworth's article focused on the need to address soil management issues as a powerful tool to improve output, reduce inputs and prevent plant disease. In an approach parts of which would be recognised by many organic farmers Mr Butterworth was quietly pointing out that soil health is crucial to the performance of crop plants and ultimately to low-input high-output agriculture. Whilst dismissive of the notion of 'going organic' (perhaps not entirely surprising given the nature of the readership he was addressing) he nonetheless focused on matters which also reside at the heart of organic farming: "When I was a student at Reading in the early '60's, there was a 'standard' textbook called 'Soil Conditions and Plant Growth' by E.W Russell. I still have it. It is a weighty volume. Maybe this is what we have glossed over for 25 years; the right soil conditions to unlock the genetic potential of the plant."

Much, though not all, of Bill Butterworth's successful experimentation with soil management has come from the use of biosolids (sewage sludge) on clients' farms. The use of biosolids in agriculture is often a source of much heated debate, particularly because of the potential for the unwelcome inclusion of industrial contaminants such as heavy metals - although the controversy is as much about the inadequacies of the way our sewage systems are managed as it is about the principle of returning human waste to the fields from which it originated as food [6].

Nonetheless Bill Butterworth's experience in this area is exposing some important principles for farmers which are likely to have relevance in a much wider context. He identifies the nurturing and development of soil mycorrhiza, the small fungi which surround plant roots, as the principal trigger for improved plant health and output: " These mycorrhiza are bound up with plant nutrition and diseases..... The soil is like an enormous rumen, it is similarly complex and it is the plant's 'stomach'. The connection between this soil rumen and the plant is all the soil micro-organisms and it appears to be substantially the soil mycorrhiza which are the last link in the chain. You can grow plants without them but it is much easier and more secure with them."

Butterworth also quotes Wellingborough crop consultant Peter Wright: "It is this biological activity which, if encouraged by good husbandry, will allow the full potential of growing crops to be expressed, year after year, resulting in more profit for the grower." This, of course, is to say nothing of the implications of this type of approach for the production of more food for and by the world's hungry.

Genetically modified crops have been presented by molecular biologists such as Professor Beringer as the way to reduce industrial agriculture's chemical inputs and produce higher yields. In practice, however, the hoped for reduction in inputs from many such crops are proving temporary at best, and non-existent at worst [7, 8]. Even more disappointing, yields from GM crops are frequently lower than from conventional varieties [8].

So given their unfavourable risk-benefit profile [7-11, 30] why are scientists like Beringer advocating the prevalent use of transgenics in agriculture rather than the more holistic approach gradually being discovered by practical mainstream advisers like Butterworth. Probably the reason is that scientists will always inevitably tend to draw from the 'knowledge' of their own specialisms when trying to develop solutions to problems, rather than from a wider spectrum derived from parallel branches of knowledge. This is simply because theirs is the area they know and understand best (or as in the case of genetic engineering the one that they claim they do!). Inevitably specialists are often ignorant of potential solutions to problems from other branches of knowledge. Not surprisingly in this context, therefore, genetic engineering in agriculture has sometimes been described by its critics as 'a solution in search of a problem.' An equally apt description might also be: 'a problem in search of a solution'.

Nonetheless could it be that alternatives to the genetic modification 'panacea', such as those uncovered by Bill Butterworth, are effective only in favourable growing conditions such as those found in the UK, without a realistic chance of success in more demanding circumstances? Well, not if the work of Professor Jules Pretty, Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the John Tabor Laboratories at the University of Essex, is anything is to go by.

Pretty has demonstrated that placing soil management at the core of farming techniques using little or no artificial inputs is producing consistent and frequently massive increases in output on millions of hectares in parts of the world as diverse as Africa, Asia and Latin America [12]. These truly transforming results go largely unreported. This is because they are not being achieved through rapid turnover 'one-size-fits-all' technology promoted by high profile corporations utilising questionable business methods [13,14]. They are being achieved by individual farmers benefiting from self-reliance based regenerative projects which encourage thoughtful approaches to long term management.

When it comes to counting the social costs can genetic engineering really compete with such a 'dependency-free' approach to agriculture? It might still be argued that only the hi-tech approach of genetic engineering can have any hope of offering the necessary agronomic robustness required for crops to function productively in some of the world's more extreme growing conditions.

A couple of recent research studies raise some interesting questions about the validity of such assumptions. 'New Scientist' reported in November 1999 [15] that far from increasing output Monsanto's genetically modified soya beans were prone to stunted growth and excessive stem splitting in high temperature field conditions. This was apparently due to unintended changes in plant physiology caused by the addition of genes making the beans resistant to glyphosate, the herbicide marketed as 'Roundup' by Monsanto. It resulted in up to 40% yield losses compared to traditional soya beans grown in the same conditions.

Research results released at more or less the same time have also demonstrated that organic soya crops grown in high-stress drought conditions in the United States were in fact dramatically more productive than 'conventional' high-input crops. Their yield was almost double [16] thanks to less compacted and more water retentive soil characteristics arising from their higher organic matter content.

As if to make matters worse for the advocates of 'technology-only' solutions to world food production problems, additional research [17-25] (the most recent of which was published in December 1999) suggests that certain types of GM plants may in fact have damaging effects on those very soil micro-organisms which Bill Butterworth identifies as being the key to unlocking the genetic potential of existing varieties.

Under conditions of global warming ironically this suite of findings would place organic production at the top of the list in terms of solutions for global hunger, genetic engineering at the bottom, and 'conventional' techniques somewhere in the middle. Certainly it is recognised that the addition of organic matter to poor soils can improve many of their properties including reduced susceptibility to erosion [26]. Soil erosion is an critical issue of immense proportions influencing the future of food production in many parts of the world, and one which is often exacerbated by short-termist agricultural policy-making and practice.

Given the large gap that has opened up between what was promised from transgenic crops and what is actually delivered in practice, is more intelligent soil-biology management a better and more reliable alternative to genetic modification when trying to develop a sustainable strategy for unlocking latent productivity in global agriculture? Certainly the results Bill Butterworth's farmer clients in the UK have been getting seem to overwhelmingly outshine anything that America's blindly unscientific [27] adoption of GM crops has been able to deliver. Butterworth claims up to 80% reductions in fertiliser costs, yield increases of 45 -70%, and simultaneous falls in crop disease.

This latter factor is especially interesting because with 'conventional' high-input agriculture top yields have typically gone hand-in-hand with increased risks of plant disease and higher applications of remedial fungicides, insecticides and growth regulators.

Bill Butterworth concludes his article in 'Arable Farming' with the following words: "Those who pay more attention to soil biology get higher yields and lower costs consistently. It does seem clear that not only can we sometimes get close to double the national average yield in a variety of crops, we may be able to do it consistently, across the farm and under a wide range of farming types. The pieces of the jigsaw are beginning to fit into place and it is the balanced management of the soil rumen which is going to deliver."

The truth here is that for decades the industrialised approach to agriculture has principally focused at most on only half the picture - what goes on above the surface of the soil, rather than beneath it. The key to unlocking the power of this additional realm of nature's bounty is of course intelligent holistic management, not the genetic modification of plants. By contrast in many parts of the world there has been a relentless mental 'dumbing-down' of modern farming for nearly half a century based substantially on the deployment of chemical and related 'technologies' which in practice move management intelligence off the farm and into the factory laboratory.

With the attention of advisers like Messrs Chalmers, Butterworth, and Wright, now turning to redress the on-farm biological and human balance have we finally reached a truly progressive and defining point in farmland management as we leave the 20th century and its urbanised reductionist models of agricultural production behind us? Perhaps as some suggest [28-30] the time has come to welcome back the special intelligence of the farmer's own consciousness to its rightful place at the centre of global agricultural practice. If so, the time would seem ripe to rediscover its unique connection [31] to the vast organising power of the natural processes which sustain both it and the soil from which our own physical existence is constantly re-created.

Whether or not to chose this farmer-empowering route, or whether to settle for corporate dependency engineered through the industrial intellectual property rights that attach themselves to the Beringer model of farming's future, is the most critical issue facing global agriculture at the dawn of the third millennium.

In the final analysis it may not be such a difficult choice to make.

Mark Griffiths BSc FRICS FAAV

Environment Spokesman
Natural Law Party (UK)

12 January 2000

References:

  1. London Times, 23 December (1999), p.6. 'Prince's war on GM "condemns world to starve" ' http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/1999/12/23/timnwsnw

  2. Mathews, J. (1999) 'False Reports and the Smears of Men', NGIN http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/false.htm

  3. Lappe, F., Collins, J., & Rosset, P. (1998) 'World Hunger: 12 Myths', p.9, The Institute for Food and Development Policies, Earthscan Publications. ISBN 1 85383 493 9. http://www.foodfirst.org/media/press/1999/wohucop.html http://www.earthscan.co.uk/books/492_0.html

  4. Farming News, 14 May (1999), p.19. 'Agronomist casts doubt on growers' intelligence'

  5. Butterworth, W. (1999) 'Balancing soil inputs', Arable Farming, 25 September 1999, p.16 - 18.

  6. Goodland, R. & Rockefeller, A. (1996) 'What is Environmental Sustainability in Sanitation?', UNEP-IETC Newsletter, Summer 1996. http://www.enviroweb.org/issues/sludge/sustainability.html

  7. New Scientist, 18 December (1999) 'Keep that spray' http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991218/newsstory2.html

  8. NLPWessex, (1997-2000) 'Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?' http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm

  9. NLPWessex, (1997 - 2000) 'What leading scientists and public figures have said about the dangers of genetically modified foods' http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmoquote.htm

  10. NLPWessex, (1999-2000) 'Risks Associated with the Use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Promoter in Trangenic Crops' http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/camv.htm com/~nlpwessex/Documents/camv.htm )

  11. NLPWessex (1998) 'Monsanto's approach to sustainability' http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/monsanto_sustainabilty.htm

  12. Pretty, J. (1999) 'Feeding the World: Is Genetic Engineering the Answer or Are There Alternatives? - ActionAid Briefing Paper' (related earlier paper at http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/article2.htm )

  13. NGIN press release, 1 March (1999) 'US corporate link up with UK co-op rings GM alarm bells' http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/scats.htm

  14. NLPWessex, (1999) 'FBI find illegal GMOs in US animal feed allegations' http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/fbigminvestigations.htm!

  15. New Scientist, 20 November (1999). 'Monsanto's modified soya beans are cracking up in the heat' http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991120/newsstory4.html http://www.biotech-info.net/cracking.pdf

  16. The Rodale Institute Global Report, 8 November (1999) '100-Year drought is no match for organic soybeans'. http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/global/11_9_99.html

  17. Koskella, K. & Stotzky, G. (1997) 'Microbial Utilization of Free and Clay-Bound Insecticidal Toxins from Bt and Their Retention of Insecticidal Activity after Incubation with Microbes,' Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Sept. 1997, p. 3561-3568 H. http://www.psrast.org/btsoilecol.htm

  18. Crecchio, C. & Stotzky, G. (1998) 'Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki bound to humic acids from soil', Soil Biology & Biochemistry, Volume 30, Vol. 30 (4) pp. 463-470, 1998. http://www.elsevier.nl/cgi-bin/cas/tree/store/sbb/cas_sub/browse/browse.cgi?year=1998&volume=30&issue=4&aid=1075

  19. Tapp, H. & Stotzky, G. (1998) "Persistence of the Insecticidal Toxin from Bt subsp. Kurstaki in Soil," Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Vol. 30, No. 4, p. 471-476., 1998 http://www.elsevier.nl/cgi-bin/cas/tree/store/sbb/cas_sub/browse/browse.cgi?year=1998&volume=30&issue=4&aid=1076

  20. Gebhard, F. & Smalla, K. 'Transformation of Acinetobacter sp. Strain BD413 by Transgenic Sugar Beet DNA' Applied and Environmental Microbiolology, April 1998, p. 1550-1554, Vol. 64, No. 4 http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/64/4/1550

  21. Gebhard, F. & Smalla, K. (1999) "Monitoring field releases of genetically modified sugar beets for persistence of transgenic plant DNA and horizontal gene transfer," FEMS, Microbiology Ecology, 1999, Vol.28, No.3, pp.261-272 http://www.elsevier.nl/cgi-bin/cas/tree/store/femsec/cas_sub/browse/browse.cgi?year=1999&volume=28&issue=3&aid=999

  22. PRAST, (1999) 'GE crops with bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes suspected to harm soil ecology' http://www.psrast.org/btsoilecol.htm

  23. Benbrook, C. (1999) 'Impacts on Soil Microbial Communities Needs Further Study', Ag BioTech InfoNet http://www.biotech-info.net/microbial_communities.html

  24. Saxena, D. , Flores, S. and Stotsky, G. (1999) 'Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn', Nature, Vol 402, 2 December 1999, p.480 http://www.nature.com/server-java/Propub/nature/402480A0.docframe http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/NewsNov-Dec99/GEN12-2BtLeak1FishHagel.html

  25. Benbrook, C. (1999) 'Commentary on Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn', Ag BioTech InfoNet http://www.biotech-info.net/exudates_cmb.html

  26. Christopher, T. (1996) 'Aggregate Stability: Its Relation to Organic Matter Constituents and Other Soil Properties', Department of Land Management, University of Putra, Malyasia http://www.agri.upm.edu.my/jst/resources/as/om_stable.html http://www.agri.upm.edu.my/jst/resources/as/om_ref.html

  27. Griffiths, M. (1999) 'The Emperor's Trangenic Clothes - Are GMO lemmings in the US leading all of us over the biotechnology cliff?', NLPWessex http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmlemmings.htm

  28. James, S. (1989) 'An Essay on the Application of Maharishi's Vedic Science to Agriculture as a Solution to the Problem of Pesticides', Modern Science and Vedic Science, Volume 3, No.2, p.200-205 http://www.mum.edu/msvs/james3-2.html

  29. Fagan, J. (1995) 'Genetic Engineering: The Hazards - Vedic Engineering: The Solutions.', Maharishi International University Press, ISBN 0-923569-18-9 http://www.lauralee.com/fagan.htm

  30. Griffiths, M. (1999) 'The Millennium Choice: Genetic Engineering or Natural Law', NLPWessex http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/eagmconf.htm

  31. Hagelin, J. (1987) ' Is Consciousness the Unified Field? A Field Theorist's Perspective', Modern Science and Vedic Science 1(1): 29-87; and Proceeding of 'Towards a Science of Consciousness 1996', University of Arizona, April 8-13, (1996) http://www.bakery.demon.co.uk/SPECIAL/author.html

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 16 Jan 2000 16:48:54 U
From: GMOStuff@aol.com

New EPA Restrictions on Bt Corn!

Dear Health Freedom Fighters,

Opponents of genetically engineered crops had a minor victory on Friday when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new restrictions on the planting of genetically engineered Bt corn. Farmers choosing to plant the Bt corn will also be required to plant from 20% to 50% non-Bt corn to act as "refuges" for insects to delay the development of resistance in insects populations. Farmers will not be allowed to spray refuges with conventional insecticides unless they can prove that pests have exceeded certain levels.

These restrictions and the accompanying reporting requirements will be a real inconvenience to farmers choosing to plant Bt corn. And it is clear evidence that the EPA was too quick to allow these Bt crops to be planted in the first place without further research into the potential environmental impacts.

Below is a press release from the EPA followed by two articles. The first article is from Associated Press and the second from the Washington Post.

While it is disappointing that the EPA did not put a complete moratorium on planting Bt corn (and all genetically engineered crops) as The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods has requested, these new restrictions and regulations are likely to cause even more farmers to decide against planting Bt corn in the coming growing season. As we reported last Thursday, a recent poll indicated farmers had already intended to plant 24% less Bt corn this year. We anticipate these new restrictions and regulations will cause that figure to increase significantly.

Meanwhile, there are still concerns that the pollen from genetically engineered corn crops is blowing into organic corn fields threatening the purity of organic agriculture. And since a spray form of Bt is sometimes used by organic farmers for insect control, the ongoing use of genetically engineered Bt crops continues to undermine organic agriculture. Over the next couple months, The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods intends to increase our pressure on the EPA to put a complete moratorium on the planting of all Bt crops.

Craig Winters
Executive Director
The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

The Campaign
PO Box 55699, Seattle, WA 98155
Tel: 425-771-4049    Fax: 603-825-5841
E-mail: mailto:label@thecampaign.org    Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

Mission Statement: "To create a national grassroots consumer campaign for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States."


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 16 Jan 2000 16:48:54 U
From: GMOStuff@aol.com

Environmental Protection Agency Press Release
Friday, Jan. 14, 2000

Bt. Corn Insect Resistance Management Announced for 2000 Growing Season

EPA has announced new measures for resistance management in Bt. corn. The additional measures to fully manage insect resistance for the 2000 growing season include: registrants must require that growers plant a minimum structured refuge of at least 20 percent non-Bt. corn; for Bt. corn grown in cotton areas, registrants must ensure that farmers plant at least 50 percent non-Bt. corn; registrants will expand monitoring in the field as an early warning system to detect any potential resistance, and will communicate voluntary measures that will protect non-target insects, particularly the Monarch butterfly; and there will be sales and planting restrictions in certain limited geographic areas for some products. The industry has agreed to the Agency's conditions. For more information on EPA's biotechnology regulatory program for plant pesticides, see: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 16 Jan 2000 16:48:54 U
From: GMOStuff@aol.com

New Restrictions on Biotech Corn

By Philip Brasher, © The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The government is putting new planting restrictions on genetically engineered corn to address various environmental concerns, including a fear that it could endanger Monarch butterflies.

About 30 percent of the corn grown last year was Bt corn, named because of the bacteria it contains to kill an insect pest, the European corn borer.

The new restrictions, which the Environmental Protection Agency worked out with the industry, will require farmers to plant at least 20 percent conventional corn in most areas, and 50 percent in areas where cotton is grown.

Seed companies will be required to expand field monitoring so they can tell whether insect pests are developing resistance to the biotech crop. to protect the Monarch butterfly. EPA posted a brief notice about the new restrictions Friday on its Web site.

The butterflies feed on milkweed, which sometimes is found around corn fields. A study released in May by Cornell University said Monarch larvae died when they ate pollen from the Bt corn. We are really happy to see that the agency is taking the resistance issues said Margaret Mellon, director of the agricultural and biotechnology program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. We think the agency has done a good job of jawboning the industry and getting them to agree to the restrictions in an environment where strictly

Rebecca Goldburg, senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, said confirm the fact that Bt corn can pose both an

The European Commission, which enforces rules for the 15-member European Union, cited the Cornell study last summer in delaying approval of pending requests to sell the corn variety. Mexican environmentalists urged their government to ban its import and use.

In response to the study, EPA scientists said last year that they knew that the pollen could kill insects but did not believe the butterflies would be exposed to the toxin outside the laboratory.

The agency is to consider renewing expiring registrations for Bt corn later this year and has asked seed companies to provide data on its impact.

AP-NY-01-16-00 1248EST


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 16 Jan 2000 16:48:54 U
From: GMOStuff@aol.com

EPA Restricts Gene-Altered Corn in Response to Concerns

By Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, January 16, 2000; Page A02

Farmers Must Plant Conventional 'Refuges' to Reduce Threat of Ecological Damage

The Environmental Protection Agency has placed new restrictions on the cultivation of genetically modified corn, a response to concerns that gene-altered crops may be causing ecological disruptions.

The new restrictions, which were released late Friday and are effective immediately, make unprecedented demands on the producers of biotech seeds and on farmers who wish to plant so-called Bt corn, which has been endowed with a gene that allows the corn to make its own insecticide.

Among the new restrictions is a requirement that farmers plant 20 percent to 50 percent of their acreage in conventional corn, which some farmers have said would be burdensome and some experts said could lead to a decline in plantings of the high-tech seeds.

Bt corn has enjoyed a meteoric rise in popularity among farmers since it was approved for sale in 1996, and was planted on more than one-third of U.S. corn acres last year.

But some experts have warned that large-scale plantings of Bt corn may be speeding the evolution of "superbugs"--insects resistant to standard insecticides.

Then, last summer, Cornell University scientists presented preliminary evidence from laboratory studies that pollen from Bt corn could blow onto milkweed plants and kill monarch butterfly caterpillars. Although field studies aimed at measuring the true ecological impact of Bt corn on monarchs are not yet complete, the EPA suggested Friday that farmers voluntarily plant their conventional cornfields upwind of their biotech fields so the Bt corn pollen won't blow onto these refuges.

Milkweed, the only plant on which monarch butterflies lay their eggs, grows around cornfields.

Environmentalists praised the new regulations, which the EPA negotiated with the biotechnology industry, as a step in the right direction, if not as strong as they might have liked.

"Many of the companies and industries have gone to great lengths to belittle concerns about toxic pollen on butterflies and the development of resistance in insects," said Rebecca Goldburg, a scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund in New York and a member of a National Academy of Sciences panel that is preparing a report on the environmental impact of gene-altered corn. "What EPA has done is to confirm that there are some serious environmental problems concerning the widespread planting of Bt corn."

Several varieties of genetically modified corn have been rejected by European consumers and others because of environmental and health concerns, costing U.S. farmers more than $200 million in exports last year. With trade tensions rising over the crops, and insect populations holding at modest levels in many parts of the American corn belt, some experts were already predicting that sales of engineered corn might decline this spring for the first time.

A straw poll of 400 farmers conducted by Reuters last week at the annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation found that some farmers are planning to call it quits with biotech varieties. Farmers said demands by U.S. consumers that engineered food products be labeled, and ongoing European rejection of the crops, could depress the prices farmers will get at harvest for the costly new varieties.

The poll results predict a 24 percent decline in plantings of Bt corn compared with last year, and a 26 percent decline in plantings of Bt cotton. They also predict a 15 percent decline in RoundUp Ready soybeans – gene-altered variety of soy that protects the plants against the popular weed killer made by St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. and was planted on more than half of all U.S. soy acres last year. And it predicts a 22 percent drop in RoundUp Ready corn.

Representatives from major producers of biotech seeds could not be reached for comment, but a spokesman for Monsanto told Reuters last week that farmers have been pleased with the new varieties and that it's too soon to say what farmers will do in the spring.

The new EPA restrictions, described in letters to biotech seed producers from Janet L. Andersen, director of EPA's biopesticides and pollution prevention division, could influence those decisions for corn.

They demand that farmers plant large "refuges" of conventional corn near their Bt corn to reduce Bt pressures on insects and delay the evolution of resistance in pest populations. Farmers will not be allowed to spray refuges with conventional insecticides unless they can prove that pests have exceeded certain levels.

And biotech seed producers and farmers will have to monitor insect populations for the emergence of insecticide resistance. At the first sign that such resistance is occurring, sales of the new seed varieties must be halted.

The rules also demand that seed producers develop grower agreements that farmers must sign or produce educational materials and programs such as workshops and publications to ensure compliance with the rules. Companies must submit details of those plans to the EPA for approval by Jan. 31.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 16 Jan 2000 18:44:13 U
From: GMOStuff@aol.com

Genetically Modified rBST Dairy Products

Dear Ban-GEF Folks,

Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, asked me to post this Press Release to the Ban-GEF list.

Dr. Epstein is currently is Vienna fighting against the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone called rBST. As you may be aware, rBST is being injected in about 30% of America's cows. The rBST is being manufactured in Austria by a company owned by Novartis and imported to the U.S. under an exclusive license with Monsanto.

This press release points out many of the health concerns associated with rBST including increased rates for cancer from the elevated levels of the hormone IGF-1.

The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, HR 3377, currently in the U.S. House of Representatives, when passed into law will require that the milk from cows injected with rBST be labeled as genetically engineered.

Craig Winters
Executive Director
The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

The Campaign
PO Box 55699, Seattle, WA 98155
Tel: 425-771-4049    Fax: 603-825-5841
E-mail: mailto:label@thecampaign.org    Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org


Top PreviousNextFront Page

"Vier Pfoten" Press Release, Vienna, January 16, 2000

Austria Urged to Take Initiatives to Protect the Public

Austria Urged to Take Initiatives to Protect the Public Against Cancer and Other Risks of Monsanto's Genetically Modified rBST Dairy Products

The following was released today by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition:

Austrian concerns on animal welfare, food safety, and genetically modified (GM) foods are among the highest in the world. However, these concerns are complicated by the fact that the GM milk hormone, rBST, is exclusively manufactured in Austria by Biochemie Kundl, a Novartis plant under license to Monsanto; in 1998, over 100 million doses of the GM hormone were exported to the U.S. and also to 16 other Third World Countries. While the administration of rBST to cows in Europe was banned this month on unarguable animal health and welfare grounds, there are no restrictions yet on the import of GM dairy products, nor any requirements for their GM labeling.

Austria could resolve this dilemma with two initiatives. First, a grass roots campaign and/or government ruling requiring the labeling of imported GM dairy products; the labeling of such GM foods is now under consideration by the EC. Second, representation to the European Parliament and European Council by the Austrian government to ban imports of GM dairy products from the U.S. and other Third World Countries on human health grounds on the basis of the well-recognized "Precautionary Principle."

GM milk, produced by injecting cows with the hormone rBST, is qualitatively and quantitatively different from natural milk. These differences include: contamination of milk by the GM hormone rBST; contamination by pus and antibiotics resulting from the high incidence of mastitis in rBST injected cows; contamination with illegal antibiotics and drugs used to treat mastitis and other rBST induced disease; increased concentration of the thyroid hormone enzyme thyroxin-5'-monodeiodinase; increased concentration of long chain and decreased concentration of short chain fatty acids; reduction in casein levels; and major excess levels of the naturally-occurring Insulin-like Growth Factor, IGF-1, including its highly potent variant.

There are very persuasive grounds for invoking the "Precautionary Principle" with regard to the public health hazards of GM milk. Evidence for these hazards, published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, is over a decade old. This evidence has recently been fully endorsed in the March 15-16, 1999 EC risk assessment report, by a team of 16 internationally recognized experts, on "Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin."

These hazards include: allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, and cancer risks from residues in milk of antibiotics used to treat mastitis in GM-hormone injected cows; unresolved concerns relating to elevated thyroid hormones; cardiovascular disease from elevated levels of long chain fatty acids; immunological effects of rBST absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract; and growth promoting and cancer risks from elevated IGF-1 levels. Multiple lines of converging evidence have strongly incriminated elevated IGF-1 milk levels with major excess risks of breast, prostate, and colon, besides possibly other cancers.

Furthermore, IGF-1 is known to inhibit the programmed self-destruction (apoptosis) of cancer cells, thus promoting their growth and invasiveness, and also decreasing their responsiveness to chemotherapy. In spite of such fully-documented evidence, in July 1999 the London-based Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products Veterinary Medicines Evaluation Unit (EMEA), rejected the proposed ban on the GM hormone on public health grounds. It should, however, be stressed that a minority Committee report expressed strongly divergent views, stressing their recognition of the cancer risks of GM milk. Furthermore, the EMEA agency has no track record of competence and scientific authority in the relevant area of cancer prevention.

Even accepting that there possibly may be scientific uncertainty with regards to the public health hazards of GM milk, there is more than a sufficient weight of preponderant evidence to unreservedly invoke the "Precautionary Principle," whose validity has achieved substantial support internationally and in the European Parliament. The "Precautionary Principle" could also be used in support of labeling requirements for GM dairy products and/or for a ban of all such imports. Finally, the "Precautionary Principle" mandates the categorical responsibility of industry to unequivocally establish the safety of new candidate products, as opposed to imposing a heavy burden on regulatory agencies and citizens to prove risks. Monsanto has completely failed to comply with this requirement with regards to the cancer, and other, risks of its GM hormone and GM milk.

CONTACTS:
Dr. Samuel S. Epstein.
Until Jan. 19: The Vienna Plaza Hilton, telephone: 00431/313900
From Jan. 21: The School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago 2121 W. Taylor, Chicago, 60612, (312) 996-2297 (telephone), epstein@uic.edu (email)

Michael Buchner (Animal Welfare), Robert Hanke (Communication Director) VIER PFOTEN, Sechshauserstraße 48, 1150 Vienna, 00431/8950202-23 or 31 (telephone) michael.buchner@vier-pfoten.at; robert.hanke@vier-pfoten.at (email)


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 16 Jan 2000 18:56:55 U
From: "j.e. cummins" jcummins@julian.uwo.ca

"a victory?"

Craig Winters circulated the article with the following quote about the EPA requirement for refuge to limit Bt resistance in corn: "Opponents of genetically engineered crops had a minor victory on Friday when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new restrictions on the planting of genetically engineered Bt corn.

Farmers choosing to plant the Bt corn will also be required to plant from 20% to 50% non-Bt corn to act as "refuges" for insects to delay the development of resistance in insects populations. Farmers will not be allowed to spray refuges with conventional insecticides unless they can prove that pests have exceeded certain levels" The abstract of the article below indicates that dominant resistance to Bt has begun to appear in the corn borer. That finding suggests that refuge may be worse than useless as it would hasten spread of dominant mutants. I am writing as a geneticist and member of the genetics society of America many years.

The point I wish to make is that the first major epidemic of dominant resistant corn borer can be blamed, by EPA and Monsanto, on the environmental movement. We should not try to take credit for a very shaky remedy and we will be the scape goats for any major failure caused by Monsanto and widespread us of Bt corn. What we should do is demand that Bt corn be withdrawn from the market until its safety to the environment is proven.


Top PreviousFront Page

Date: 16 Jan 2000 18:56:55 U
From: "j.e. cummins" jcummins@julian.uwo.ca

Inheritance of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin (Dipel ES) in the European Corn Borer

F. Huang, 1 L. L. Buschman, 1 R. A. Higgins, 1* W. H. McGaughey 2

Resistance in the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (H=FCbner), to a commercial formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Berliner toxin, Dipel ES, appears to be inherited as an incompletely dominant autosomal gene. This contrasts with the inheritance of resistance to Bt in other insects, where it has usually been characterized as a recessive trait. The proposed high-dose/refuge strategy for resistance management in Bt maize depends on resistance being recessive or partially recessive. If field resistance turns out to be similar to this laboratory resistance, the usefulness of the high-dose/refuge strategy for resistance management in Bt maize may be diminished.

  1. Department of Entomology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.

  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, 1515 College Avenue, Manhattan, KS 66502, USA (retired).

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rhiggins@oz.oznet.ksu.edu


Richard Wolfson, PhD
Consumer Right to Know Campaign, for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods,
500 Wilbrod Street Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2
tel. 613-565-8517 fax. 613-565-1596 email: rwolfson@concentric.net

Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html contains more information on genetic engineering as well as previous genetic engineering news items. Subscription fee to genetic engineering news is $35 (USD for those outside Canada) for 12 months, payable to "BanGEF" and mailed to the above address. Or see website for details.