|
|
News |
| Top | Next | Front Page |
Date: 3 Feb 2000 07:06:41 U
From: wytze
geno@zap.a2000.nl
Steve Emmott is Advisor-Genetic Engineering
Greens/European Free Alliance Group
European Parliament,
1047 Brussels
Tel/fax +32 2 284 2026
Stephen Emmott wrote:
Here for your enjoyment is the text of the European Commission's Communication on the PP (Precautionary Principle). Critical evaluations will be gratefully received.
Brussels, 2 February 2000
Sections:
Communication From The Commission on the Precautionary Principle
Summary
The European Commission has today adopted a Communication on the use of the precautionary principle. The objective of the Communication is to inform all interested parties how the Commission intends to apply the principle and to establish guidelines for its application. The aim is also to provide input to the on-going debate on this issue both at EU and international level. The Communication underlines that the precautionary principle forms part of a structured approach to the analysis of risk, as well as being relevant to risk management. It covers cases where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU.
Today's Communication complements the recently adopted White Paper on Food Safety and the agreement reached in Montreal this week-end on the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety. The Communication also qualifies the measures that may be taken under the precautionary principle. Where action is deemed necessary, measures should be proportionate to the chosen level of protection, non-discriminatory in their application and consistent with similar measures already taken. They should also be based on an examination of the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action and subject to review in the light of new scientific data and should thus be maintained as long as the scientific data remain incomplete, imprecise or inconclusive and as long as the risk is considered too high to be imposed on society.
Finally, they may assign responsibility or the burden of proof – for producing the scientific evidence necessary for a comprehensive risk assessment. These guidelines guard against unwarranted recourse to the precautionary principle as a disguised form of protectionism. Today's Communication was presented to the Commission by Mr Erkki Liikanen, Enterprise and the Information Society Commissioner, Mr David Byrne, Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner, and Ms Margot Wallstrom, Environment Commissioner. It is a follow-up to President Romano Prodi's speech to the European Parliament on 5 October 1999.
The Communication recalls that a number of recent events have undermined the confidence of public opinion and consumers because decisions or absence of decisions were not supported by full scientific evidence and the legitimacy of such decisions was questionable.
The Commission has consistently striven to achieve a high level of protection, inter alia in the environmental and human, animal and plant health fields. It is the Commission's policy to take decisions aimed to achieve this high level of protection on a sound and sufficient scientific basis. However, where there are reasonable grounds for concern that potential hazards may affect the environment or human, animal or plant health, and when at the same time the lack of scientific information precludes a detailed scientific evaluation, the precautionary principle has been the politically accepted risk management strategy in several fields. Although the precautionary principle is not explicitly mentioned in the EC Treaty except in the environment field, the Commission considers that this principle has a scope far wider than the environment field and that it also covers the protection of human, animal and plant health.
The Communication makes it clear that the precautionary principle is neither a politicisation of science or the acceptance of zero-risk but that it provides a basis for action when science is unable to give a clear answer.
The Communication also makes it clear that determining what is an acceptable level of risk for the EU is a political responsibility. It provides a reasoned and structured framework for action in the face of scientific uncertainty and shows that the precautionary principle is not a justification for ignoring scientific evidence and taking protectionist decisions.
The horizontal guidelines established in this Communication will provide a useful tool in the future for taking political decisions in this regard and will contribute to legitimate decisions taken when science is unable to assess completely the risk rather than decisions based on irrational fears or perceptions. Thus, one of the objectives of the Communication is to clearly describe the situations in which the precautionary principle could be applied and determining the scope of measures taken in this respect. It will therefore help ensuring the proper functioning of the Internal Market as well as a high level of protection and predictability for consumers and economic operators located in the EU and elsewhere.
-------------- Annex ------------------
The Communication's fourfold aim is to:
The Commission considers that the Community, like other WTO members, has the right to establish the level of protection – particularly of the environment, human, animal and plant health, – that it deems appropriate. Applying the precautionary principle is a key tenet of its policy, and the choices it makes to this end will continue to affect the views it defends internationally, on how this principle should be applied.
Recourse to the precautionary principle presupposes that potentially dangerous effects deriving from a phenomenon, product or process have been identified, and that scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty.
The implementation of an approach based on the precautionary principle should start with a scientific evaluation, as complete as possible, and where possible, identifying at each stage the degree of scientific uncertainty.
In some cases, the right answer may be not to act or at least not to introduce a binding legal measure. A wide range of initiatives is available in the case of action, going from a legally binding measure to a research project or a recommendation. The decision-making procedure should be transparent and should involve as early as possible and to the extent reasonably possible all interested parties.
Proportionality means tailoring measures to the chosen level of protection. Risk can rarely be reduced to zero, but incomplete risk assessments may greatly reduce the range of options open to risk managers. A total ban may not be a proportional response to a potential risk in all cases. However, in certain cases, it is the sole possible response to a given risk.
Non-discrimination means that comparable situations should not be treated differently, and that different situations should not be treated in the same way, unless there are objective grounds for doing so. Consistency means that measures should be of comparable scope and nature to those already taken in equivalent areas in which all scientific data are available.
Examining costs and benefits entails comparing the overall cost to the Community of action and lack of action, in both the short and long term.
This is not simply an economic cost-benefit analysis: its scope is much broader, and includes non-economic considerations, such as the efficacy of possible options and their acceptability to the public. In the conduct of such an examination, account should be taken of the general principle and the case law of the Court that the protection of health takes precedence over economic considerations.
Subject to review in the light of new scientific data, means measures based on the precautionary principle should be maintained so long as scientific information is incomplete or inconclusive, and the risk is still considered too high to be imposed on society, in view of chosen level of protection. Measures should be periodically reviewed in the light of scientific progress, and amended as necessary. Assigning responsibility for producing scientific evidence is already a common consequence of these measures. Countries that impose a prior approval (marketing authorisation) requirement on products that they deem dangerous a priori reverse the burden of proving injury, by treating them as dangerous unless and until businesses do the scientific work necessary to demonstrate that they are safe.
Where there is no prior authorisation procedure, it may be up to the user or to public authorities to demonstrate the nature of a danger and the level of risk of a product or process. In such cases, a specific precautionary measure might be taken to place the burden of proof upon the producer, manufacturer or importer, but this cannot be made a general rule.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 3 Feb 2000 07:51:00 U
From: Marcus Williamson
marcus_williamson@ibm.net
I've just posted a new page about the myth of E.Coli / Faecal Contamination in Organic food on my site at :
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gmfaec.html
This includes an expose on the links between two proponents of this myth, Professor John Hillman / Dennis T Avery, and the biotechnology industry.
regards
Marcus
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 3 Feb 2000 14:29:08 U
From: Paul & Katrin Davis
devatalk@mcmail.com
Also it is not neccessary to grow new. Here in Europe, paticularly in Germany, recycled rapeseed oil is being used successfully. Emmissions are low and no change to the engine is needed (works only with diesel engines).
The person who 'refined' the sysytem buys waste oil and puryfies it. I have met taxi drivers who have used it exclusively for years with no damage to the engine and not mixed with other fuel....
I am sure there is enough waste from verious oils that could be adapted in this way. And conventially grown crops would suffice. Sorry - a bit off topic, but another example of what can be done.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 3 Feb 2000 14:51:46 U
From: Robert Mann
robt_m@talk.co.nz
Hello fellow stirrers
Biologists will think less of you if you don't name species by the convention. The whole species name is italicised, or failing that is underlined; in the depauperate character-set of email, the usual way is exemplified by the species name
_Escherichia coli_ .
The name of the genus is capitalised; except in some cases which don't concern us here, the specific epithet is NOT. Thus, 'Coli' is wrong – and a biologist will definitely think you ignorant if you continue to use it.
Even if you haven't directly experienced the importance of these rules, or can't imagine why they matter, I hope you will accept my assurance that they do matter, and I urge you to follow them for the sake of the general credibility of the movement to control GE.
This does all matter, because as you know the gene-jockeys pretend that our reservations about GE are due to ignorance of the science. If we write like scientific illiterates, they will surely use that as 'evidence' in support of that dismissive attitude - and with a degree of justice.
It should also be a matter of simple self-respect for us to get scientific conventions right.
In case anyone feels "it's only a convention so I'll show I'm liberated by disregarding it", the above arguments should suffice to over-ride that rebel attitude; and I wonder whether you take that attitude to the 'mere convention' of which side of the road to drive on.
While I'm at it, could I expand on the issue of our attitudes to science?
There are those who don't care if scientists think less of them; indeed, like Norman Mailer, they ascribe many of today's social ills to science which they suspect & despise.
This is a tragic confusion. Science is not inherently antisocial! We have to use science for social benefit, as has been done in a very big way and could be done much more. In order to expand benefits from science, we will have to deal with it on its own conventions. People like Dr Ann Clark do so, and as a result they increase the effectiveness of the movement to control GE. Those who are not scientists can and should learn its conventions insofar as they apply to their writing. This species name convention is a simple case, but not a trivial one. Let's get it right, for our own credibility.
R
----------------------
Robt Mann
Mulgoon Professor emeritus of Environmental Studies, U of Auckland
consultant stirrer & motorcyclist
P O Box 28878, Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 3 Feb 2000 22:57:17 U
From:
Judy_Kew@greenbuilder.com (Judy Kew)
It's curious that the rationale for creating a GE measles vaccine in lettuce is that it could be used in developing countries where conventional vaccines can't be refrigerated:
"The modified food would be treated as a medical product and would not be available for mass consumption. These crops wouldn't be generally released. You would make them in special areas and then distribute
Lettuce is a vegetable which doesn't grow vigorously in hot climates, and once picked, it wilts quickly without refrigeration. It would seem that if a GE vaccine in lettuce were distributed "in the same way" as other vaccines, you'd have the same problem with lack of refrigeration.
----------------
Green Homes For Sale:
http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate
Green Building Pros:
http://www.greenbuilder.com/directory
Calendar:
http://www.greenbuilder.com/calendar
Bookstore:
http://www.greenbuilder.com/bookstore
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 4 Feb 2000 08:21:37 U
From: "j.e. cummins"
jcummins@julian.uwo.ca
By Prof. Joe Cummins, February 4, 2000, e-mail: jcummins@julian.uwo.ca
I am commenting on the article University dismisses modified food study Feb. 4,2000. The article was about some criticism of Prof. Ann Clark, of Guelph University (in Ontario near my home University) for criticizing government reports on the safety of GM foods. Her critics were Dean of Agriculture McLaughlin and his sidekick, Doug Powell, who seem to have put themselves forward as expressing the view of the University. I should point out that a real University does not have a single view but puts forward all views freely(that is why it is called a university).
Dean claimed Ann Clark lacked expertise in GM safety , but even though he seemed to have pretended to have expertise he is not a recognized expert in genetics . Doug claimed that Ann's report was silly and superficial. Doug is not recognized as an authority in genetics, his training was mainly in journalism. Dean seems to believe that training in journalism is more valuable than expert knowledge in genetics. Doug seems to have led Dean to put forward his ill informed views in the tabloids. Both seem to consider that move a class act.
However, the article spared us one painful experience. The gruesome twosome, Doug and Dean, usually include a long and tedious presentation on their personal superiority.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 4 Feb 2000 08:47:12 U
From: "Nancy Allen"
nallen@acadia.net
From: "Herb Hoche"
herbh@acadia.net
From: Peter Panek
ppanek@SFU.CA
From:
fishnet@island.net
===== A message from the 'fishfarm' discussion list =====
The following is the basis of the article which appeared in the National Post on Saturday, September 4th – this is the unedited version:
By Sarah Schmidt
Canada has a lot at stake in the debate over whether transgenic salmon should come to market
Behind the chain link fence, electronic alarm system, security guard and yet another lock, the caged fish live out their lives in double-screened tanks, custom-made to keep them from slipping down the drain and wreaking environmental havoc in the wild waters.
Fish don't usually warrant such tight security, but the ones at the federal Department of Ocean and Fisheries laboratory in West Vancouver aren't like other fish that wind up on the dinner table – yet. The silver-bodied coho, hand-feed as often as 20 times a day to satiated their extraordinary appetites, may not be able to swim as well as their siblings in the wild.
Their value lies elsewhere. The designer salmon, or super salmon, are genetically programmed to grow about eight times faster - and as much as 37 times larger - than normal during the first year of their lives.
The thousands of transgenic fish quietly tucked away for nearly a decade in Canada's own Fort-Knox for fish could soon swim into the public spotlight, as commercial interests are on the brink of taking their own superfish to market. By year's end, A/F Protein Canada Inc. of St. John's, Newfoundland, plans to seek Health Canada permission to provide local kitchens with its own trademarked AquAdvantage fish, rearranged bits of flounder and salmon genes designed to speed up salmon growth by 400 per cent.
The stamp of approval could come as early as 2001, according to the company, a subsidiary of A/F Protein Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts and headed by fish biologist Garth Fletcher, affiliated with Memorial University.
Talk of a "blue revolution" sweeping the fishing industry – the commercial quest to conquer the last wild frontier in the food chain – couldn't come at a more explosive time. Nor could mention of a genetically modified "saviour" to dwindling wild salmon stocks, as mounting controversy over genetic tinkering with the food supply sweeps across Canada and abroad.
At home, scientist Robert Devlin, creator of the genetically modified fish at the government lab in West Vancouver, is anxious about industry's push to commercialize the technology. The world authority on breeding super salmon wants to see exhaustive environmental risk-assessment research before Health Canada considers health risks associated with science's latest aquacreation.
Cautious and independent, Dr. Devlin has refused multiple offers to work with industry on his transgenic fish project. He prefers not to have deal with the pressures of making a profit.
"There's a real life pressure when you take the commercial route," says Dr. Devlin. "I'm not here to make money."
At home, salmon farmers, the net beneficiaries from any technology that shortens the long production cycles, are already on the defensive. Local fishermen and environmentalists, including the well-respected David Suzuki Foundation, blame fish farms for financial and environmental ruin. Mix genetically modified salmon into the toxic pot and the result would be an unmitigated environmental disaster, they say.
"They'd be Ben Johnson fish. The effects could be untoward," says Joe Cummins, genetics professor of emeritus at the University of Western Ontario. "They'll invade the natural population and pollute the gene pool."
Research shows that transgenic fish are much more aggressive and and out-eat wild stocks. "They've got a revved-up metabolism. They're hungry all the time,' says Dr. Devlin.
If placed in fish farms today, "they'd escape. There's no doubt about that," he admits. Regulators currently prohibit open-water tests of transgenic fish.
Already, farmed-raised Atlantic salmon, referred to "fugitive fish," have escaped in B.C. waters and spawned in the wild, raising questions about the impacts on the runs of wild Pacific salmon. The B.C. government has refused to lift its moratorium on fish farming.
In the United States, foreign marine life invading waters where it is not usually found costs government and industry $123-billion (US) a year. Exotic species, bacteria and viruses can alter the food chain and change whole ecosystems.
In Canada, fish farming disasters alone are costly. For example, Ottawa provided New Brunswick with a $13-million grant last December for the management and control of Infectious Salmon Anemia disease in the salmon aquaculture industry in the Bay of Fundy.
"The real doomsayers are the DFO and industry aquaculturalists that tell us that wild salmon are doomed and should be preserved only in DNA banks while they transform the oceans into a giant cultivation zone," says Howard Breen of the Georgia Strait Alliance.
***
Although nearly every other food group has already undergone genetic manipulation, fish stocks remain the last frontier with which to tinker. And playing with fish evolution is proving difficult for many to swallow.
"Canada was and still is a leader. Technically, we're ready. We can produce transgenic fish. The problem now is the public acceptance," says Shao Jun Du, a geneticist who undertook revolutionary transgenic fish research with world-renown scientist Choy Hew at the University of Toronto in the first half of the decade. Today, he is stationed at University of Maryland's Center for Marine Biotechnology, where the first successful transgenic fish in the United States was created.
Chris Baker, a vice-president with Environics Research Group, says any talk of the intertransfer of genes still stirs up negative emotions among Canadians.
"That's when the red flags are raised," says Mr. Baker, who conducted an attitudinal survey last November for the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Take Force.
In the case of transgenic fish, even natural allies – members the aquaculture industry, the commercial target of the trials – are busy distancing itself from the technology that could send their profits into the stratosphere.
The B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, for example, identifies reducing production cost as one of its top priorities. Yet, the association is officially opposed to the fast-growing superfish.
"Scientists are always at the forefront of research. It's up to the public, the market, to determine whether they want it," says executive director Anne McMullin.
The association certainly doesn't want to be caught in a situation akin to their New Zealand colleagues. The local Green Party wrecked havoc in April when it released documents from Communications Trumps, a public relations firm hired by New Zealand King Salmon, currently conducting trials on transgenic fish.
"Issues such as deformities, lumps on heads etc. should not be mentioned at any point to anyone outside – comments about those would create ghastly Frankenstein images and would be whipped up into a frenzy by Greenpeace," reads the document.
Says David Conley, spokesman for Canada's Office of the Commission of Aquaculture, created in December to facilitate industry development, including transgenics: "It's just such a pit, a public relations nightmare."
***
A nightmare, perhaps. But it's also lucrative.
In 1997, for example, farmed salmon became the dominant force in the world market for the first time, supplying more than half of the world production. And according to the International Salmon Farmers Association, increases in Atlantic salmon production among the seven largest producers (including Canada) is expected to increase more than three-fold between 1997 to 2010.
In British Columbia, where dwindling wild salmon stocks continue to devastate coastal communities, the landed value of farmed salmon production totalled $229.2-million in 1998, compared to $55-million worth of wild production. These numbers represent a reversal of roles from 10 years prior, when wild production of salmon equalled $410.4 million, compared to $52.1-million in farmed production.
The East Coast is even a step ahead. Six Prince Edward Island fish farmers recently formed OvaTech, a company to distribute A/F Protein's genetically modified fish as soon as they are available.
Meanwhile, Ottawa funds transgenic research through the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy and the National Science Engineering Research Council.
"There is the recognition that other people are doing this kind of work and Canada needs to be ready," says Don Noakes, director of DFO's Pacific Biological Station and head of the Aquaculture Division.
Already, numerous applications for international patents for growth acceleration in fish and other aquatic organisms have been made to the Canadian government, including the Crown itself (its patent applications in Canada, the U.S., Britain, Chile and Norway are for the growth factor genes and gene construct for the salmon developed by Dr. Devlin in the West Vancouver lab).
"We're not licensing it, at least not at the moment," says Ialo Price of DFO's Aquaculture and Oceans Science Branch.
Approximately a dozen industry players have approached the federal government for rights to the technology. The commercialization of biotechnology discoveries and products now in the pipeline is a key to boosting industry revenues by a factor of five (from $1.1-billion to $5-billion) between 1998 and 2005, a goal of Industry Canada's National Biotechnology Advisory Committee.
At the same time, Ottawa is currently in negotiations with the private sector and aquaculture agencies over its West Vancouver lab. One of the options being considered is handing over operations to the private sector.
***
Environmentalists, who argue that Canada is leading the international charge on the transgenic fish front, say that Ottawa's behaviour could result in a nasty showdown abroad.
Canada, the third larger producers of genetically modified crops, is already on a collision course over GMOs with the European Union, where any reference to transgenic fish usually includes a highly charged quip about "Frankenfish."
And as Canada prepares to walk into World Trade Organization talks in Seattle this fall with an aggressive plan to push for the removal of trade barriers for these high-tech crops, any overzealous public cheerleading for transgenic fish will raise international eye brows, says Jo Dufay, campaigns coordinator for the Council of Canadians.
Adds Mark Ritchie, president of the U.S.-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "Canada is blowing it's image as a bottle of pure water."
The most powerful reservations, however, may come from the creator of the West Vancouver creatures. Dr. Devlin, internationally renown for his work on risk-assessment of superfish, has much respect for the East Coast geneticists and fish biologists working to bring their transgenic AquAdvantage fish to market.
The pioneers of transgenic fish promise to introduce precautions to prevent genetically altered fish from upsetting the biosystem, including neutering the fish.
Like A/F Protein Inc., Dr. Devlin is working on sterilization solutions to solve the potential gene-pollution problem. However, he says even more risk-assessment work needs to undertaken.
Unaffected by commercial pressures, Dr. Devlin is the first to admit that the thousands of transgenic fish (10 strains) tucked away in his secured tanks look much better than they did a few years back, when the first batch of growth enhanced fish were "quite deformed."
"Commercial people don't like when I show the ugly fish [at conferences]," he says.
Today, after tweaking with the growth stimulation, the fish look normal. However, Dr. Devlin is now observing some abnormal behaviour in his genetically modified coho salmon (he used to work with chinook salmon).
"It's much much more aggressive. It was one of the things that made me wake up," he says.
"How do you take all that data, multiply it and come up with a risk statistic? I can't do that now."
And until he can, Dr. Devlin wants to keep his fish under lock and key while Health Canada wrestles with its first transgenic fish application.
Canadians, meanwhile, will have to decide whether they want to eat designer salmon.
-------------------------------------------------------
Peter Panek,
Graduate student
Simon Fraser University,
Institute of Fisheries Analysis
Burnaby, V5A 1S6
e-mail
ppanek@sfu.ca
P(604) 291-3062
P(604) 291-5801
F(604) 291-5716
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 4 Feb 2000 11:05:17 U
From: wytze
geno@zap.a2000.nl
By Claire Granger,
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Department of Plant Biology
claire@Andrew2.Stanford.edu
The technical feasibility of producing novel products in traditional crops has been demonstrated many times, but in very few cases have these discoveries been put into commercial use. This is due to a number of factors, largely economic in nature. Few transgenic plants produce the compound of interest at a high enough level to offset the cost of processing, and in many cases the infrastructure necessary for processing the novel product simply does not exist. Now, recent experiments describing fructan production in transgenic sugar beet seem to satisfy all the demands for commercial production along with the possible side benefit of enhanced agronomic performance under conditions of drought stress.
Fructans are fructose polymers of commercial interest due to their promise as replacements for high calorie sweeteners and fats. Short chain fructans have the same sweet taste as sucrose, but provide no calories as humans lack the fructan-degrading enzymes necessary to digest them. The same is true for the longer chain fructans, which form emulsions having fat-like textures. Humans may not be able to utilize fructans, but the natural bacterial flora of the human gut can, resulting in a stimulation of their growth and leading to an increase in overall digestive health.
Currently, commercial production of small fructans from sucrose is carried out enzymatically in bioreacters using a fructosyl transferase isolated from Aspergillus niger. This production method is extremely expensive, resulting in a final cost for the compound that is too high for use in general foodstuffs. However, fructans accumulate naturally in about 15% of flowering plant species, including a number of traditional crop species such as wheat, onion, chicory, and Jerusalem artichoke, where they function primarily as a storage carbohydrate. The latter two species have been used for commercial extraction of fructans, but poor yield and complications with processing and product quality have ultimately rendered both plants economically unfeasible as sources.
Part of the problem with using natural sources for fructan extraction lies in the enzymes that control the synthesis and accumulation of these molecules. In plants, fructan synthesis occurs in the vacuole and begins with the conversion of sucrose to short fructose polymers through the action of 1-sucrose:sucrose fructosyl transferase (1-SST). A second enzyme, 1-fructan:fructan fructosyl transferase (1-FFT), is responsible for producing the longer chain forms of fructan by transferring fructosyl residues from one fructan molecule to another or to sucrose.
The combined action of these two enzymes results in a mix of fructans of different lengths, and additional enzymes cause branching or hydrolyze the chains to varying degrees. This mix of fructan end products causes problems for commercial manufacturers because a fairly homogeneous product is desirable. Consequently, additional processing is often necessary with fructans obtained from endogenous sources, driving up the cost of production.
With the cloning of cDNAs for 1-FFT and 1-SST from plant and bacterial sources, interest has grown in introducing these enzymes into plant backgrounds that do not normally synthesize fructans. The rationale behind this is that by introducing a single fructosyl transferase into a plant species devoid of fructan biosynthetic enzymes, it should be possible to produce a particular class of fructan molecules. The feasibility of this approach has been demonstrated by the introduction of fructosyl transferases from both bacterial and plant sources into tobacco, corn, and potato plants. However, in all these cases, the levels of fructan produced were not high enough to be economically useful or had deleterious effects on plant growth and development.
All photosynthetic plants synthesize sucrose, so any crop plant potentially could be engineered to produce fructan. However, sugar beet has several features that make it a logical choice. Sugar beet is bred to produce and store large amounts of sucrose, the precursor of fructan, and the majority of the sugar produced is stored in taproot cell vacuoles, the site of fructan synthesis. From a processing standpoint, the infrastructure already exists to extract and purify sugar compounds from beets. On the other hand, sugar beets are notoriously difficult to transform, a feature that has dissuaded a number of researchers from working with this species.
In an article in Nature Biotechnology, Koops and his colleagues described how they were able to overcome this hurdle by creating a transgenic line of sugar beet in which 40% of the taproot dry weight was converted to short chain fructans without discernible impact on plant growth or phenotype(1). They utilized a stomatal guard cell-based method of transformation to introduce a construct containing a cDNA encoding 1-SST from Jerusalem artichoke. After regeneration of intact plants, eight independently transformed lines were recovered and demonstrated to contain between one and greater than eight copies of the transgene.
Biochemical analysis confirmed that the inserted gene was expressed and functional in six of the eight lines. To verify that the plants were producing fructans, Koops and his colleagues performed both thin layer chromatography and high pressure anion exchange chromatography on extracts from taproot, the site of maximal sucrose production in wild type plants. They found that over 90% of the endogenous sucrose had been converted to small fructan molecules when compared with wild type lines, resulting in a yield of 110 umol/g fresh weight. This impressive yield has led the authors to refer to their transgenic plants as "fructan beets" instead of sugar beets.
In a recent paper in Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, Pilon-Smits and her colleagues described a related set of experiments that point to a possible added agronomic benefit of these plants(2). They also created fructan-producing sugar beets, this time using a bacterial fructosyl transferase instead of a plant fructosyl transferase. This enzyme, SacB, obtained from Bacillus subtilis, successfully catalyzed the production of long chain fructans in the transgenic plants. Though these plants displayed a relatively low level of fructan accumulation (0.5% dry weight in the highest-producing lines), they performed significantly better under conditions of drought stress when compared to wild type plants.
Similar results were also reported previously for tobacco transformed to express fructan. The discovery of the drought tolerance benefit is not surprising as it has long been suggested that fructans of all lengths have a role in defending plants against drought stress in species that naturally accumulate these compounds. However, in most cases, it has been difficult to correlate increased levels of fructans with drought tolerance.
With this in mind, it will be interesting to establish whether the "fructan beets" created by Koops and co-workers will display an increase in drought tolerance to accompany their altered biochemical makeup. If not, the findings by Pilon-Smits may provide important insights into the chemical requirements of fructan-mediated drought tolerance. Either way, it seems that transgenic sugar beet may hold the promise of finally making useful compounds such as fructans more economically available.
Information Systems For Biotechnology (ISB), News Report (from Agnet 3 Feb '00) February 2000
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 4 Feb 2000 12:47:31 U
From: "j.e. cummins"
jcummins@julian.uwo.ca
The advocates of putting genes into crops and trees so that the mercury in soil will be released to the atmosphere from the crops continue to ignore the deposition of mercury at high levels from atmosphere to rain in US cities (earlier I circulated the reports showing toxic levels in rain). The bulk of the mercury released by GM crops seems destined to be deposited in cities in rain and snow and in the arctic by cold condensation.I do not agree with the "science" writer from Nature that theGM mercury crops are a beneficial form of GM, in fact, it seems bad for cities! The abstract below is from Nature:
Wednesday 2 February 2000
By Sara Cross
The much-maligned science of genetic engineering may be invaluable in aiding otherwise intractable environmental problems. For example, researchers announce in Nature Biotechnology1 how the tiny weed, thale cress (Aribidopsis thaliana), can be genetically modified to remove the toxin 'methylmercury' from contaminated soil.
'Bioremediation', as the use of plants or bacteria to mop up human detritus is technically known, is attracting a lot of interest as a cheap and relatively simple method of dealing with contaminated soils or waters.
Unfortunately, the plants which naturally extract such poisons are slow growing and small, whereas the bacteria that can detoxify pollutants are generally less robust than the plants. Now Scott Bizily at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA and colleagues get round these problems by putting a couple of bacterial genes into a plant.
Mercury occurs naturally at relatively safe levels. But industrial activities have produced vast quantities of a toxic, 'ionic' form of mercury that water-borne bacteria can easily convert into the even more deadly methylmercury.
Previous research has shown that plants engineered to contain the bacterial gene merB transform methylmercury to ionic mercury. Another bacterial gene, merA, when inserted into plants, causes plants to convert ionic mercury to elemental mercury that dissipates into the atmosphere. These genes cause plants to produce a protein that acts as a catalyst, converting one form of mercury to another.
Bizily's team developed a new variant of thale cress with both genes. These plants absorb methylmercury and convert it to ionic mercury through the action of proteins programmed for by the merB gene. The presence of the merA gene then enables the plant to convert this ionic mercury into the less harmful elemental mercury.
Unfortunately, outside the lab, things are more complicated. Elemental mercury is not as harmful as methylmercury but it is still a toxin and ideally should be destroyed. Also, contaminated land usually contains a mixture of pollutants requiring treatment. Many sites, used for the disposal of nuclear waste for example, are radioactive or may contain other noxious wastes that would kill the plants before they could extract any methylmercury.
Also, the conversion outlined above is likely to be a slow process simply because of the scale of methylmercury pollution. Further research into modifying large, fast-growing plants such as trees may be useful. Trees have a highly developed and extensive root system, which might extract toxins from the deeper parts of the soil, that the roots of thale cress cannot reach.
1.Bizily, S.P., Rugh, C.L. & Meagher, R.B. Phytodetoxification of hazardous organomercurials by genetically engineered plants. Nature Biotechnology 18, 213 - 217 (2000).
© Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2000 - NATURE NEWS SERVICE
Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2000 Reg. No. 785998 England.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 4 Feb 2000 14:28:31 U
From: Robert Mann
robt_m@talk.co.nz
Laurel Hopwood wrote:
I recently posted Dr Michael Fox's piece MORE HELP OR MORE HARM? Genetically Engineered Crops and World HungerSomehow CAST saw his piece (which isn't a surprise because we know they're spying on us.) Here's what they sent Dr Fox:
For Michael Fox,Having just read parts of your critical review of the Green Revolution and Doubly Green, I must ask if you:
travel by car? travel by air? eat more than the required number of calories to simply sustain life? shower more than once a month? If the answer to any of these questions are "Yes" then I believe you are = guilty of a double standard and truly not putting the earth first!
Richard E. Stuckey, Executive Vice President rstuckey@cast-science.org
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
4420 West Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50014-3447
Phone: 515-292-2125, ext. 25; fax: 515-292-4512
World Wide Web: http://www.cast-science.org
The item is of psychological interest only - but, within that category, of considerable significance.
This CAST has a history of distortions regarding pesticides and other chemical health hazards over at least two decades. That they now go on in such a silly fashion is evidence (like the would-be bovine engineer Phil l'Huiller claiming that the double helix was the start of GE) that the gene-jockeys and their venture-capitalist dupes are still riding along on the crest of an euphoric wave, thoroughly arrogant, supposing 'nothing can stop us now, 'cause we're the Dukes of Earl'.
Time will tell.
R
------------
Robt Mann
Mulgoon Professor emeritus of Environmental Studies, U of Auckland
consultant stirrer & motorcyclist
P O Box 28878, Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 4 Feb 2000 20:06:57 U
From: wytze
geno@zap.a2000.nl
This is the comment of Suzanne Wuerthele (from the US-EPA) on these mercury plants wytze
Wuerthele.Suzanne@epamail.epa.gov wrote:
4 Feb 2000 09:54:57 -0500 (EST) @
The concept of engineering plants to take up chemical pollutants sounds great, and could be - theoretically. But, as always, one must consider hazards as well as benefits.
One research project I read about (Univ. of Georgia) is creating GE trees which it is claimed will convert the mercury to "less toxic" elemental mercury, which will be transpired into the atmosphere. That could be a big problem. Of course, elemental mercury is well-absorbed, and quite toxic when inhaled, but the ecological effects of this scenario are more worrisome. Atmospheric transport (from power plants and incinerators) is the most likely source of mercury contamination in the Great Lakes. There the elemental mercury settles into sediments where bacteria convert it to the organic forms which cause reproductive effects in wildlife and make fish dangerous to eat. So a GE plant which simply transfers pollution from soil to air won't be desirable.
Could GE plants concentrate the mercury, then be harvested, perhaps even be a profitable source of recoverable metal? That would be nice, if the plants aren't attractive to, and toxic to wildlife, and if they can't transfer the genes which allow them to concentrate the metal to native plants which in turn might make them toxic or otherwise alter ecological balance. Or if they don't escape to become exotic pests like water hyacinth in the Southern U.S.
Because it's difficult to answer these questions, there is always value in asking if there is a native plant which might perform the same function. For some metals, there are plants which might be useful. The problem has been getting them to grow on tailings piles and other disturbed sites. This suggests that to get a GE plant to grow in such a site, it might have to be quite vigorous, perhaps have a selective advantage over other plants. And that raises the exotic weed question.
None of this is brought up to suggest that people shouldn't try to solve problems, but rather as a reminder that every "problem-solving" technology presents its own problems, and the magnitude of those problems is a function of the power and nature of the technology. Genetic engineering is a powerful, and biologically-based technology. In the world of physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In the world of biology, every action produces a reaction, but biological systems can multiply, magnifying and perpetuate effects.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 5 Feb 2000 01:17:05 U
From:
BluPiaf@aol.com
Hello to all, please forgive me for cluttering your box if this has already made the rounds, but oh my, after Stossel's "acid trip" as one of you summed up so well, a reality check is needed.
By MARIAN BURROS, February 17, 1999 The New York Times
Dennis T. Avery wants organic food to go away. And he doesn't care what it takes. Four years ago, he said that organic food could not feed the world without destroying the environment. Now, he says it's lethal.
In an article in the fall issue of American Outlook magazine, published by his employer, the Hudson Institute, a conservative research group, Avery wrote, "Organic foods have clearly become the deadliest food choice." This is the case, he said, because organic farms use animal manure and do not use chemicals or permit pasteurization. The last assertion is untrue, as were several other statements in the article.
The accusation might have gone unnoticed, but excerpts from the article were published in The Wall Street Journal and continue to be picked up around the country, by The Associated Press, The Tampa Tribune and trade industry publications.
The simplest definition of "organic" is food grown without hormones, pesticides or synthetic fertilizers. Avery, however, used the terms "organic," "free-range," "natural" and "unpasteurized" interchangeably.
"I grant you that I've mixed together natural and organic," Avery, the author of "Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastic" (Hudson Institute, 1995), said in an interview last week. "But to me they are distinctions without significant difference in terms of public health."
His most combative accusation is based, he said, on 1996 data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, showing that "people who eat organic and 'natural' foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (O157:H7)."
Yet some of the foods that caused the outbreak, which he called organic, were not, like unpasteurized Odwalla apple juice.
Avery's claim that "consumers of organic food are also more likely to be attacked by a relatively new, more virulent strain of the infamous salmonella bacteria" was based on a Consumers Union study in 1998 showing that "premium" chickens had higher levels of salmonella than regular supermarket chickens. But the premium chickens were not organic.
In the article, Avery took the Food and Drug Administration to task for failing "to issue any warnings to consumers about the higher levels of natural toxins their researchers regularly find in organic foods." In the interview, he said that that assertion was based on a statement by Dr. Robert Lake, an official in the agency's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition.
Lake denied making such a statement, saying, "We don't go out of our way to sample organic food, and hence I don't think we are in a position to say anything one way or another about it."
Avery wrote that because "organic farmers use animal manure as the major source of fertilizer," there are higher levels of harmful bacteria in organic food. Katherine DiMatteo, the executive director of the Organic Trade Association, said that manure is not the major source of fertilizer on organic farms (it is also used in conventional farming) and that, when it is used, certain rules must be followed for safety.
Avery said he had never "bothered that much about consumer safety aspects of organic food until O157:H7." His real goal, he said, is to prevent organic agriculture from becoming the norm. "My big concern is that we do not have room on the planet to feed ourselves organically," he said.
The attack on organic food by a well-financed research organization suggests that, even though organic food accounts for only 1 percent of food sales in the country, the conventional food industry is worried.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 5 Feb 2000 02:56:36 U
From:
jim@niall7.demon.co.uk
Reuters Story - February 04, 2000 08:28
http://www.marketwatch.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=CojPC0b8ZtJa ...
ST. LOUIS, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Life sciences firm Monsanto Co. said on Friday it agreed to sell its sweetener business, which includes the NutraSweet and Equal brands, to an investment group for $570 million in cash.
Monsanto, which had said last year it was looking for a buyer for the unit as part of a restructuring plan aimed at reducing debt, said it signed a definitive agreement with Tabletop Acquisition Corp., whose institutional investors include Pegasus Capital Advisors and MSD Capital.
Monsanto said proceeds from the sale of the sweetener business would be used to pay down debt and for other corporate purposes. All employees of the sweetener unit will be offered jobs with the new owners, Monsanto said.
St. Louis-based Monsanto, which agreed in December to a merger with U.S.-Swedish drug group Pharmacia & Upjohn , incurred billions of dollars in debt after it acquired several seed companies in recent years. The purchases catapulted Monsanto into the No. 2 spot in the U.S. seed industry, but left it saddled with debt.
"As we stated last year, the tabletop sweetener business, as well as the sweetener ingredients and biogums businesses, are excellent revenue-generating businesses that are not in line with Monsanto's strategic direction," Gary Crittenden, Monsanto's chief financial officer, said in a statement.
Monsanto has chosen agricultural products and pharmaceuticals as its two key markets. Its arthritis treatment Celebrex became the best-selling new drug in 1999, and its Roundup herbicide is among the top selling crop inputs.
Ahead of the news, shares in Monsanto closed Thursday at 42.
| Top | Previous | Front Page |
Date: 5 Feb 2000 11:06:54 U
From: wytze
geno@zap.a2000.nl
From List: Biotech Activists
biotech_activists@iatp.org
Posted by:
farmer.to.farmer@sk.sympatico.ca
Biotech Activists wrote:
I found this on the web. It claims to be the Final Draft of the Protocol from Montreal.
Sections:
The Parties to this Protocol
Article 1: OBJECTIVE
Article 2: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 3: USE OF TERMS
Article 4: SCOPE
Article 5: PHARMACEUTICALS
Article 6: TRANSIT AND CONTAINED USE
Article 7: APPLICATION OF THE ADVANCE INFORMED AGREEMENT PROCEDURE
Article 8: NOTIFICATION
Article 9: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATION
Article 10: DECISION PROCEDURE
Article 11: PROCEDURE FOR LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS INTENDED FOR DIRECT USE AS FOOD OR FEED, OR FOR PROCESSING
Article 12: REVIEW OF DECISIONS
Article 13: SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE
Article 14: BILATERAL, REGIONAL AND MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS
Article 15: RISK ASSESSMENT
Article 16: RISK MANAGEMENT
Article 17: UNINTENTIONAL TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENTS AND EMERGENCY MEASURES
Article 18: HANDLING, TRANSPORT, PACKAGING AND IDENTIFICATION
Article 19: COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AND NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS
Article 20: INFORMATION-SHARING AND THE BIOSAFETY CLEARING-HOUSE
Article 21: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Article 22: CAPACITY-BUILDING
Article 23: PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION
Article 24: NON-PARTIES
Article 25: ILLEGAL TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENTS
Article 26: SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Article 27: LIABILITY AND REDRESS
Article 28: FINANCIAL MECHANISM AND RESOURCES
Article 29: CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES SERVING AS THE MEETING OF THE PARTIES
Article 30: SUBSIDIARY BODIES
Article 31: SECRETARIAT
Article 32: RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONVENTION
Article 33: MONITORING AND REPORTING
Article 34: COMPLIANCE
Article 35: ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW
Article 36: SIGNATURE
Article 37: ENTRY INTO FORCE
Article 38: RESERVATIONS
Article 39: WITHDRAWAL
Article 40: AUTHENTIC TEXTS
Annex I: INFORMATION REQUIRED IN NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLES 8, 10 AND 13
Annex II: RISK ASSESSMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15
Annex III: INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS INTENDED FOR DIRECT USE AS FOOD OR FEED, OR FOR PROCESSING UNDER ARTICLE 11
The Parties to this Protocol, Being Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"
--- Article 1 ---
In accordance with the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Protocol to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements.
--- Article 2 ---
Protocol, provided that such action is consistent with the objective and the provisions of this Protocol and is in accordance with its other obligations under international law.
--- Article 3 ---
For the purposes of this Protocol:
--- Article 4 ---
The Protocol shall apply to the transboundary movement, transit, handling and use of all living modified organisms that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health.
--- Article 5 ---
Notwithstanding Article 4 and without prejudice to any right of a Party to subject all living modified organisms to risk assessment prior to the making of decisions on import, this Protocol shall not apply to the transboundary movement of living modified organisms which are pharmaceuticals for humans that are addressed by other relevant international agreements or organisations.
--- Article 6 ---
--- Article 7 ---
--- Article 8 ---
--- Article 9 ---
--- Article 10 ---
--- Article 11 ---
--- Article 12 ---
--- Article 13 ---
--- Article 14 ---
--- Article 15 ---
--- Article 16 ---
--- Article 17 ---
--- Article 18 ---
--- Article 19 ---
--- Article 20 ---
--- Article 21 ---
--- Article 22 ---
--- Article 23 ---
--- Article 24 ---
--- Article 25 ---
--- Article 26 ---
--- Article 27 ---
The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first meeting, adopt a process with respect to the appropriate elaboration of international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified organisms, analysing and taking due account of the ongoing processes in international law on these matters, and shall endeavour to complete this process within four years.
--- Article 28 ---
--- Article 29 ---
--- Article 30 ---
--- Article 31 ---
--- Article 32 ---
Except as otherwise provided in this Protocol, the provisions of the Convention relating to its Protocols shall apply to this Protocol.
--- Article 33 ---
Each Party shall monitor the implementation of its obligations under this Protocol, and shall, at intervals to be determined by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, report to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol on measures that it has taken to implement the Protocol.
--- Article 34 ---
The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first meeting, consider and approve cooperative procedures and institutional mechanisms to promote compliance with the provisions of this Protocol and to address cases of non-compliance. These procedures and mechanisms shall include provisions to offer advice or assistance, where appropriate. They shall be separate from, and without prejudice to, the dispute settlement procedures and mechanisms established by Article 27 of the Convention.
--- Article 35 ---
The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall undertake, five years after the entry into force of this Protocol and at least every five years thereafter, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Protocol, including an assessment of its procedures and annexes.
--- Article 36 ---
This Protocol shall be open for signature at Nairobi by States and regional economic integration organizations from 15 to 26 May 2000, and at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 5 June 2000 to 4 June 2001.
--- Article 37 ---
--- Article 38 ---
No reservations may be made to this Protocol.
--- Article 39 ---
--- Article 40 ---
The original of this Protocol, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
--- Annex I ---
--- Annex II ---
--- Annex III ---