Genetically
 Manipulated 


 

 
 
 Food


 News

9 January 2001

Table of Contents

Human Gene For Potato Multiherbicide Tolerance
several human gens for more herbicide tolerance
GM barley and beer the final advance of biotech
GM contamination in Germany
Mouse Gene in Corn
Dutch company plans to raise GE cows in Canada
The Missing Synergy That's Killing Life Sciences
Enola Bean Patent Challenged
Herbicide-resistant Turfgrass Alert
Pusztai on Morton and is GM food safe + research References

Top NextFront Page

Date: 4 Jan 2001 19:52:03 -0600
From: jcummins jcummins@julian.uwo.ca

The article below shows how human cytochrome genes in potato create multiple herbicide tolerance. Cytochrome genes are involved in cancer induction as they activate procarcinogen chemicals to their final gene damaging form. Human DNA in the diet does not seem like a good idea,anyhow.

Human Gene For Potato Multiherbicide Tolerance

ET:Herbicide metabolism and cross-tolerance in transgenic potato plants expressing human CYP1A1.
AU:Inui, H.; Ueyama, Y.; Shiota, N.; Ohkawa, Y.; Ohkawa, H.
AA:Department of Biological and Environmental Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kobe University, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501, Japan.
SO:Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 1999, Vol.64, No.1, pp.33-46, 43 ref.
AB:In laboratory studies using transgenic and control potato plants treated with [14 C]atrazine, four metabolites were produced by each.

However, the deisopropylated metabolite DIDE, which is nonphytotoxic, was produced to a greater extent in the transgenic varieties S1384 and F1515. In herbicide tolerance tests, S12384 showed tolerance to both atrazine and pyriminobac methyl [pyriminobac], and F1386 and F1515 were tolerant to pyriminobac, whereas the controls died following treatment with either herbicide. Transgenic potato plants expressing human CYP1A1 (S1384, F1386 and F1515) metabolized chlortoluron [chlorotoluron] and atrazine, and exhibited cross resistance to both herbicides as well as pyriminobac.

DE:herbicides; transgenic plants; potatoes; herbicide resistance; phytotoxicity; metabolism; atrazine; chlorotoluron; cross resistance; genetic transformation; gene expression; root crops

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 4 Jan 2001 20:02:10 -0600
From: jcummins jcummins@julian.uwo.ca

several human gens for more herbicide tolerance

More human cytochrome genes in potato make better herbicide tolerance. May also add enough protein to make fish unneeded with chips :-)

Herbicide metabolism and cross-tolerance in transgenic potato plants co-expressing human CYP1A1, CYP2B6, and CYP2C19.

Inui, H.; Kodama, T.; Ohkawa, Y.; Ohkawa, H.

Department of Biological and Environmental Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kobe University, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501, Japan. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2000, Vol.66, No.2, pp.116-129, 30 ref.

Abstract

Three human cytochrome P-450 species, CYP1A1, CYP2B6 and CYP2C19, were expressed in potato plants. The transgenic plants, T1977, S1972 and S1974, expressing CYP2B6 and/or CYP2C19 were tolerant to the herbicides tested.

Keywords

transgenics; genetic engineering; transgenic plants; potatoes; herbicides; herbicide resistance; tolerance; cytochrome P-450; root crops Solanum tuberosum
Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 4 Jan 2001 20:52:47 -0600
From: jcummins jcummins@julian.uwo.ca

I had not dreamed that GM barley had finally reached beer! Be careful, nothing seems sacred in biotechnology, not even the beer. Its not just beer, its fungal thermotolerant glop.

GM barley and beer the final advance of biotech

Expression of fungal thermotolerant endo-1,4- [beta] -glucanase in transgenic barley seeds during germination.

Nuutila, A. M.; Ritala, A.; Skadsen, R. W.; Mannonen, L.; Kauppine VTT

Biotechnology and Food Research, POB 1500, Tietotie 2, 02044 VTT (Espoo), Finland. Plant Molecular Biology, 1999, Vol.41, No.6, pp.777-783, 22 ref.

Abstract

The malting quality of two barley cultivars, Kymppi and Golden Promise, was modified to better meet the requirements of the brewing process. The egl1 gene, coding for fungal thermotolerant endo-1,4- [beta] -glucanase (EGI, cellulase), was transferred to the cultivars using particle bombardment, and transgenic plants were regenerated on bialaphos [bilanafos] selection. Integration of the egl1 gene was confirmed by Southern blot hybridization.

Transgenic seeds were screened for the expression of the heterologous EGI. Under the high-pI [alpha] -amylase promoter, the egl1 gene was expressed during germination. The heterologous enzyme was thermotolerant at 65 deg C for 2 h, thus being suitable for mashing conditions. The amount of heterologous EGI produced by the seeds (ca. 0.025% of soluble seed protein) was sufficient to reduce wort viscosity by decreasing the soluble [beta] -glucan content. A decrease in the soluble [beta] -glucan content in the wort improves the filtration rate of beer.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 4 Jan 2001 21:03:54 -0600
From: jcummins jcummins@julian.uwo.ca

Finding GM contamination in German corn seeds is news to me. How could the german corn have been contaminated? Furthermore, 5 contaminating seeds per thousand is not insignificant in the world of genetics. With selection from herbicide the genotype may predominate in quick time. Genetically modified maize in seeds – the latest results and their interpretation.

GM contamination in Germany

Gentechnisch veränderter Mais in Saatgut – Aktuelle Befunde und deren Interpretation.

Waiblinger, H. U.; Pietsch, K.; Ungermann, A.; Kroh, R. A.

Chemische Landesuntersuchungsanstalt Freiburg, Bissierstrasse 5, D-79114, Freiburg, Germany.

Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau, 2000, Vol.96, No.1, pp.1-3, 11 ref.

Abstract

A This paper reports on the first findings of genetically modified maize in conventional seed maize in 1999. In a few seed maize samples contaminations of transgenic maize, especially with Events Mon 810, were detectable. The concentrations of transgenic maize in the positive samples were lower than 0.5%. The problem of interpretation of the findings is discussed from the view of seed and genetic law.
Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 4 Jan 2001 22:09:44 -0600
From: jcummins jcummins@julian.uwo.ca

In the article below a mouse gene is added to corn to aid in the selection of corn cells that had taken up other genes desired by the researcher. The changed corn cells are used to grow corn plants with mouse genes, but, the mouse genes had served their purpose and serve no function in the corn crop. The researchers promoting the technique seem to have given no thought to the consequences of introducing the mouse gene for use in food for animals and humans. Dow does not have much use for human safety and well being.

Mouse Gene in Corn

Expression of murine adenosine deaminase (ADA) in transgenic maize.

Petolino, J. F.; Young, S.; Hopkins, N.; Sukhapinda, K.; Woosley, A.; Hayes, C.; Pelcher, L.

Biotechnology and Plant Genetics, Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46077, USA. Transgenic Research, 2000, Vol.9, No.1, pp.1-9, 35 ref.

Abstract

A murine adenosine deaminase (ADA) gene, driven by the maize ubi-1 promoter and intron region, was transformed into embryogenic maize callus, along with a bar and gusA gene-containing plasmid, using microparticle bombardment. Selection in the presence of either the herbicide Basta(R) [glufosinate] or the adenosine analogue 2'-deoxyadenosine resulted in transgenic cultures that expressed GUS and accumulated a 41-kDa protein that immunoprecipitated with an ADA-specific polyclonal antibody.

ADA enzyme activity was observed in extracts from transgenic callus as well as regenerated plants and progeny. Cultures expressing ADA grew in the presence of 200 mg/l 2'-deoxyadenosine, a concentration which completely inhibited the growth of non-transgenic cultures. ADA activity appeared to segregate in progeny of regenerated plants as a single, dominant Mendelian trait. These results suggest that ADA, in combination with adenosine analogue selection, represents a potentially viable selectable marker system for transgenic maize production.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 5 Jan 2001 08:36:40 -0600
From: geno@zap.a2000.nl

Dutch company plans to raise GE cows in Canada

Quebec in talks on farm for genetically modified cows

SOURCE: Reuters, by Julie Remy, DATE: December 29, 2000

A Netherlands biotech company is in talks with Quebec government's investment agency to develop genetically modified cows' milk that could be used to treat diseases in humans. Jean-Yves Duthel, vice-president of the Societe generale de financement du Quebec (SGF), said his agency has started "exclusive" talks with Pharming Group NV to study the feasibility of a farm in southeastern Quebec that would raise the genetically modified cows.

According to the plan, "transgenic" cows raised in Pharming's labs in Wisconsin would be transferred to the farm when they reach milking age. The milk would then be collected to extract human proteins used in the treatment of genetic diseases, blood conditions or infectious diseases. One of the proteins, for example, could help the body stop internal or external bleeding, an application especially useful in surgery, Pharming spokeswoman Tonua Fedusenko said.

Duthel said the Quebec government would be ready to invest a minimum of C$10 million in the project. He added that several Montreal companies have the expertise needed to develop Pharming's products, he said. "All of this is part of the negotiations," he told Reuters.

The results of the talks are not expected to be announced for five or six months, Duthel said. Pharming is also in talks with the states of Wisconsin, Maryland and Virginia for its transgenic operation.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 6 Jan 2001 05:41:22 -0600
From: jim@niall7.demon.co.uk

The Missing Synergy That's Killing Life Sciences

BusinessWeek.com, Tuesday January 2, 3:00 am Eastern Time
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/010102/r.html

Sections:
WHITE FLAG.
UNSTABLE COMBINATIONS.
OFF THE CLIFF
SELLING THE STORY.

When biotechnology and agriculture expert Sano Shimoda explains the much-touted life-sciences strategy of chemical companies, the native New Yorker wants you to imagine a well synchronized baseball team playing at Yankee Stadium. Shimoda, the president of BioScience Securities, a San Francisco Bay-area brokerage/investment bank that focuses on industrial and agricultural biotechnology, explains: In right field, you have the health and drug guys, in left field, food and agriculture. The game plan: Take advantage of synergies in intersecting operations of agriculture, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals.

One hypothetical synergy, for example: Creating industrial-strength genetically altered plants with derivatives that could be used to create blockbuster drugs. It's beautiful in theory. Unfortunately, the concept hasn't produced any grand slams. And disappointment over the lack of success has led to an industrywide trend of backing off the life-sciences strategy.

WHITE FLAG.

The latest example came in mid-December, when the board of DuPont approved a plan to divest its pharmaceuticals unit and focus on its core chemicals business. The drug business, which includes its HIV/AIDS drug Sustiva and blood-thinner Coumadin, could fetch around $7 billion, analysts estimate. Company officials are still mulling a sale or spin-off through an initial public offering, most likely sometime in 2002. The move essentially ends the efforts of DuPont CEO Charles O. Holliday to transform the chemicals giant into a life-sciences powerhouse.

DuPont has plenty of company. In the last 18 months, other chemical companies have abandoned their drug businesses, has fizzled. Stocks of drug companies with exposure to life sciences are no longer trading at 24 times earnings or higher. Chemical stocks once again are trading like hings have not gone the way says BioScience Securities' Shimoda. The reasons for the strategy shift vary, including lack of profits, the inability to get new products to market, consolidation in the drug business, and consumer uneasiness with genetically modified foods.

The trend has a wealth of examples. In December, German chemical giant BASF agreed to sell its Knoll Pharmaceutical unit to Abbott Laboratories, a Chicago-based health-care-products maker with well-known brands including infant formula Similac and nutrition supplement Ensure. Earlier last year, life-sciences company Monsanto and drugmaker Pharmacia & Upjohn merged. The new company, called Pharmacia, kept the drugs and on Dec. 18 spun off Monsanto's agricultural-biotechnology business. The new Monsanto is an autonomous subsidiary of Pharmacia.

UNSTABLE COMBINATIONS.

Meanwhile, European drug giants Novartis and AstraZeneca spun off and merged their respective agribusiness and agrochemicals business to create Syngenta. The transaction was completed in November. Dow Chemical, based in Midland, Mich., may have been ahead of its time when it sold its drug businesses says John Moten, a Deutsche Bank Securities chemicals analyst.

A key factor in this movement has been the major consolidation in the drug business, which has made it very difficult to be a small drug player in a pond full of big outfits. Richard U. DeSchutter, who will oversee DuPont's divestiture of its pharmaceuticals business, says the company shelled out roughly $500 million annually for its drug unit's research and development.

While that was money well spent, DeSchutter notes, the figure was expected to climb to $800 million in a few years. DuPont spends about $1.8 billion annually on R&D in total. DeSchutter says. A first-hand witness to the changing tide of life sciences, DeSchutter is the former chief executive of the old Monsanto drug unit, G.D. Searle & Co., which was sold to the recently created giant Pharmacia.

Consolidation aside, selling the life-sciences concept grew more difficult as consumers became wary –- and in some countries, fearful and angry –- about bioengineered foods. Environmentalists and other opponents of bioengineered foods were gaining leverage from the StarLink corn episode in late 2000.

StarLink, a variety of genetically modified corn developed by Franco-German group Aventis and approved only for animal consumption in the U.S., was discovered in various products including taco shells in U.S. stores. The public was outraged. While life-science advocates believed the new research's achievements would speak for itself and gain acceptance with time, the public-relations backlash against bioengineered foods has only escalated.

OFF THE CLIFF

Stagnant earnings growth –- particularly at DuPont -- have also pushed chemical companies and investors alike to rethink the life-sciences strategy. According to Moten of Deutsche Bank, DuPont's drug-divestiture decision was probably brought to the forefront after it disclosed in the third quarter that pharmaceuticals sales would be down $300 million the next three quarters.

BioScience Securities' Shimoda also points to faltering earnings as a driver of the drug divestiture. DuPont's agricultural-chemicals business, including crop protection, which ell off the says Shimoda. Indeed, competitor Monsanto's Roundup herbicide franchise has cornered the market. And with agricultural chemicals' profits off, DuPont had to be very selective about where to spend money. Life sciences' results hat was Shimoda notes.

But ever the sports fan, Shimoda says it's easy to play Monday-morning quarterback and wonder what DuPont and other companies were thinking when they started to gobble up pharmaceutical investments about a decade ago.

SELLING THE STORY.

Still, you really can't blame the chemical companies for trying: The life-sciences concept gave them higher valuations. Traditionally measured by hard assets such as manufacturing facilities, analysts began assessing chemical outfits on variables usually associated with pharmaceutical companies, such as product pipelines. Wall Street pitched the enticing life-sciences story, and investors bit. More than a year ago, DuPont was trading in the $70 range. It's now trading under $50, closer in valuation to its peers.

So, is this the end for life sciences and bioengineered foods? No, analysts say. It's just shelved for a couple of years, perhaps until after the economy regains momentum. Shimoda predicts:


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 6 Jan 2001 05:49:38 -0600
From: jim@niall7.demon.co.uk
RAFI
Rural Advancement Foundation International
http://www.rafi.org | rafi@rafi.org

News Release
5 January 2001

Enola Bean Patent Challenged

International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) Upholds FAO Trust Agreement and UN Biodiversity Convention by Challenging US Patent on Mexico's Yellow Bean

"This patent has caused great economic hardship for farmers in northern Mexico, and we welcome attempts to overturn it," said Miguel Tachna Felix, spokesman for the Agricultural Association of Rio Fuerte in Sinaloa, Mexico which represents 22,000 farmers in northern Mexico. Felix is referring to a legal challenge of a US patent on a yellow bean of Mexican origin.

On 20 December 2000 the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT – based in Cali, Colombia) filed a formal request for re-examination of US patent no. 5,894,079 – also known as the yellow bean or "Enola bean" patent –- at the US Patent & Trademark Office in Washington, DC. CIAT is one of 16 international research centers supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) – the world's largest network of developing country agricultural researchers. CIAT's gene bank holds more than 27,000 samples of Phaseolus (dry bean) seeds, among other crop species.

"CIAT's action strikes a blow against biopiracy and protects the integrity of designated germplasm, which it holds in-trust for the world's farming community," observes Hope Shand of RAFI, "The legal challenge is a very positive step," said Shand. Joachim Voss, Director General of CIAT, and his staff have energetically pursued the patent challenge, which is also supported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Almost one year ago, RAFI denounced the yellow bean patent as "Mexican bean biopiracy" and demanded that the patent be legally challenged and revoked. RAFI formally requested that FAO and the CGIAR investigate the patent as a likely violation of their 1994 Trust agreement that obliges them to keep designated crop germplasm in the public domain and off-limits to intellectual property claims. (For further background, please see "Mexican Bean Biopiracy," RAFI Geno-Types, 15 January 2000.)

The Enola bean patent is especially controversial because its owner, Larry Proctor, the president of a Colorado (USA) based seed company, POD-NERS, purchased yellow bean seeds in Mexico in 1994, and filed for an exclusive monopoly patent less than two years later. Proctor won a US patent in April 1999 and subsequently brought legal suits against two companies that were selling Mexican yellow beans in the US, claiming that the beans infringed his monopoly patent.

According to Miguel Tachna Felix, "We had been exporting this yellow bean (Mayocaba) and others to the United States for over four years when POD-NERS received their patent –- based on erroneous claims. When they got the patent they sent a letter to all the importers of Mexican beans in the United States, warning that this bean was their property and that if they planned to sell it they would have to pay royalties to POD-NERS. For us, this meant an immediate drop in export sales, over 90%, which affected us tremendously. And it wasn't only one bean variety, but also others, because it created fear among bean importers," explained Felix.

CIAT's official request for re-examination of US Patent No. 5,894,079, which includes a letter of support from RAFI, refutes all of the patent's 15 claims as invalid. CIAT charges that the claims fail to meet the statutory requirements of novelty and non-obviousness, and ignore prior art widely available in the literature.

The challenge is especially critical of the patent's claim of exclusive monopoly on any Phaseolus vulgaris (dry bean) having a seed color of a particular shade of yellow, pointing out that "it will make a mockery of the patent system to allow statutory protection of a color per se." Although the patent owner did not obtain his yellow beans from CIAT's gene bank, the patent challenge notes that CIAT maintains some 260 bean samples with yellow seeds, and 6 accessions are "substantially identical" to claims made in US patent 5,894,079.

CIAT's patent challenge also points out that the yellow bean was "misappropriated" from Mexico, and violates Mexico's sovereign rights over its genetic resources, as recognized by the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Miguel Tachna Felix of the Agricultural Association of Rio Fuerte and other farmers in northern Mexico are hopeful that the legal challenge will go beyond a single patent to stop biopiracy and life patenting: "Our farmers have suffered great economic losses, but what really matters to us is that this legal challenge establishes a precedent to prevent similar injustices, so that it won't be possible to continue patenting public germplasm, the patrimony of all humanity, and that it will prevent these materials from being patented by anyone."

The US Patent & Trademark Office is expected to make a ruling on the patent challenge within 3 months.

For further information, please contact:

Hope Shand – hope@rafi.org 919 960-5223
Silvia Ribeiro – silvia@rafi.org (in Mexico)
Julie Delahanty – julie@rafi.org 819 827-9949


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 6 Jan 2001 13:53:31 -0600
From: Ericka doodles@netins.net
From: Laurel Hopwood lhopwood@earthlink.net

Herbicide-resistant Turfgrass Alert

edited from Diversity, a News Journal for the International Genetic Resources Community, Volume 16, Nos. 1& 2, 2000:

As of March 2000, 48 notifications and 12 permits were filed with USDA-APHIS for commercially transformed creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera); and 10 for Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Successful commercialization depends on this herbicide-resistant grass being deregulated by APHIS.

This is no small matter for several reasons:

  1. The size of the turfgrass seed industry is second only to that of hybrid seed corn.

  2. Creeping bentgrass is the first perennial, stoloniferous, wind-pollinated, outcrossing transgenic crop to be grown next to naturalized and native populations of cross-compatible perennial relatives and native species.

  3. Agrostis species are notorious for hybridizing freely. Six non-native Agrostis species in the testing area alone (Oregon's Willamette Valley) have become established along roadsides and other disturbed areas, forming "hybrid swarms."

  4. As of the article date, no research had been published on possible interspecific hybridization with native Agrostis species.

  5. We know little of the potential risks from the sale and large-scale seed production of such altered crops. (And these may end up on a lot of golf courses in America.)

  6. Under a permit from APHIS, Pure Seed Testing, Inc. conducted a study to, among other things, gather initial data on pollen movement and stud interspecific gene flow into five introduced species of bentgrass.

    Results from the study showed that:

    1. the transgenic gene can pass to other introduced (non-native) Agrostis species
    2. the transgenic gene may be spread for much longer distances than previously theorized
    3. the transgenic plants were fertile and stable
    4. cereal rye (which has acted as a successful pollen barrier for other turfgrasses) was not an effective barrier for the genetically-altered Agrostis.

  7. In February 2000, the first natural TRIPLE-HERBICIDE-resistant weeds were reportedly discovered in Canada.

  8. Transgenic creeping bentgrass may be the tip of the iceberg. Other species, known for their weediness in natural areas are sure to come. Some of genetically-altered turfgrass cultivars also may eventually be endophyte-enhanced. (Endophytes are naturally occurring fungi. They are implicated, however, in stillbirths and fetal deformities in ungulate animals.) The end result may be turfgrass weeds that are harder to kill...and a lot of sick animals. (I'm checking on this angle.)

  9. Plans are under way for the possible sale of herbicide-resistant turfgrass species through, you guessed it, HOME DEPOT.

Top PreviousFront Page

Date: 8 Jan 2001 06:13:49 -0600
From: geno@zap.a2000.nl
From: ngin@icsenglish.com

Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin), http://members.tripod.com/~ngin

Here is Dr Arpad Pusztai's second response to the claims of CSIRO biotechnologist, Dr Roger Morton, that GM foods are well tested and that there is a significant body of scientific literature supporting the safety of these foods.

This is highly recommended reading, raising many important questions about the adequacy of GM food testing and regulation. Amongst much else, Dr Pusztai deals illuminatingly with the controversial principle of "substantial equivalence" used to approve GM foods.

Pusztai on Morton and is GM food safe + research References

Sections:
ngin intro on the Morton – Pusztai debate
Dr Arpad Pusztai: Re – "Response to Pusztai and apology"
53 References

ngin intro on the Morton – Pusztai debate

In Dr Pusztai's first critique of certain of the claims made in a piece published on the AgBioView list by Dr Roger Morton, he showed the somewhat dubious nature of many of the 56 published 'papers' which Morton had assembled in support of his argument that GM foods are well tested.

Morton had claimed the items on his list were in the "vast majority" of cases "full peer-reviewed publications in journals" but Dr Pusztai carefully dissected the list to reveal that not only were the vast majority not peer-reviewed but that part of the list was actually made up by duplication and even triplication of certain papers.

Dr Pusztai showed that amongst Morton's 56 "papers" there were, in reality, only a handful of "full peer-reviewed" animal studies, ie the type of study most directly relevant to testing GM food safety:

This makes a total of FOUR PEER-REVIEWED animal study papers. It is somewhat different from the 56 claimed. Even when one considers the 6 not truly relevant compositional papers the grand total comes to 10. I am afraid, if Morton is a true scientist he should know that the other 46 so-called papers making up the rest and the bulk of his "bibliography" would not be considered by anyone as proper peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Dr Pusztai also pointed out that a number of relevant published animal studies had actually NOT been inluded in Dr Morton's list, and speculated as to whether, given that they were fully peer reviewed, their exclusion reflected the fact that they did not necessarily support Morton's thesis as to the safety of GM foods.

In his repsonse to Dr Pusztai, "Response to Pusztai and apology", Dr Morton apologised for the duplication of papers which he said had been accidental. Morton also said he had adjusted his list accordingly and that it now contained 53 rather than 56 papers [Morton's revised list is given at the end of this mail]. Dr Morton disputed Dr Pusztai's comments about the number of properly peer reviewed animal studies and claimed that when one included abstracts to meetings and compositional studies this made for a "substantial" number of "publications with actual data":

"I come up with 12 are publications in peer-reviewed journals that definitely report experimental data to back up their results – a little different to Pusztai's figure of 4. Another 8 of them are abstracts to meetings where it would appear from the title the authors are reporting experimental results. Presenting data at a meeting is a form of peer review. When one considers how few GM crops are in the market place I think 20 publications with actual data is quite substantial. It seems to me that these publications cover the GM technologies that are in use commercially at the moment."

In his original piece on the AgBioView list, Dr Morton had also made particular reference to one of two published studies on GM foods by Dr Pusztai – J Nutr 129:1597-1603 – and, in his repsonse to Dr Pusztai's comments, Morton returned to this paper and challenged its title, "Expression of insecticidal bean a-amylase inhibitor transgene has **minimal detrimental effect** on the nutritional value of peas in the rat at 30% of the diet" [Morton's emphasis].

Morton claimed that the study in fact showed "no detrimental effect on the rats of the GM peas" even at 65% of the diet and challenged Dr Pusztai as to "where is the detrimental effect of the transgenic peas implied in the title? Why doesn't the paper have a title saying "Expression of insecticidal bean a-amylase inhibitor transgene has *no detectable* detrimental effect on the nutritional value of peas in the rat at 65% of the diet"?" Morton repeated a comment of Dr Pusztai's, asking, 'did he forget that "the scientist must report his findings as he finds them and not what he/she thinks that he/she ought to have found." '

Finally, Morton queried "comments he [Pusztai] has reportedly made concerning the 35S promoter [used in most GM foods]', asking if Pusztai really regarded the promoter as the source of problems in his study on GM potatoes.

Dr Pusztai's latest response to Morton, which we are also forwarding to the AgBioView list, is given below.

For the full text of Dr Pusztai's first response to Morton: http://www.biotech-info.net/morton_claim.html

For the full text of Morton's reply, '"Response to Pusztai and apology": http://agbioview.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_message&list....

We will shortly be putting both Dr Pusztai's responses to Morton on the ngin website – url to follow.

One final comment of our own. For Dr Morton to persist in excluding from his list Dr Pusztai's fully peer-reviewed Lancet-published study on GM potatoes, not to mention other peer-reviewed studies which may raise questions about GM food safety, while including such items as the Royal Society's attack on Dr Pusztai's work (item 49 in Morton's revised list) and many non peer-reviewed general review articles on GM foods and their safety, seems extraordinary, not least given that:

  1. the motives and behaviour of the Royal Society have been brought seriously into question see: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Pusztai/puszta_1.html

  2. the Royal Society reviewers, none of whom were nutritionists, did not even have access to a full account of Dr Pusztai's methodology see: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Pusztai/puszta_1.html

  3. Morton's implied reason for exclusion is that the list focuses on 'publications [which] cover the GM technologies that are in use commercially at the moment' BUT if you exclude Dr Pusztai's paper on that basis, you can hardly then include the Royal Society's earlier review.

Clearly, Dr Morton's claimed rationale for compiling his list of research on GM food safety makes little sense. But then, as Dr Pusztai so ably exposes in his response below, what we are really dealing with, as so often with the defence of this technology, is in reality a propaganda exercise in the guise of science and rationality.

ngin

Dr Arpad Pusztai: Re – "Response to Pusztai and apology"

Dear Dr Morton,

We now seem to be playing silly games with numbers and other unfortunate deviations from what we really ought to be focusing on. So let's first call an end to the numbers' game.

There were 56 so-called references in your initial piece, 5 of which were in fact duplicates or triplicates. So, in the new list there should have been 51. It took me half an hour to establish how 56 – 5 came to equal 53. It appears that our J. Nutrition paper has been added to the list and a previously listed paper, which lacked a reference no. in the original list, has now acquired one. However, otherwise the references were still the same as in the original list (although numbered differently), despite my rather commonsense criticisms.

For a moment I thought that our Lancet paper might have now been included in the new list, as one of these two extras. Alas, it was not to be because it was deemed to be "irrelevant to the discussion as to whether the GM food on the market is safe or not". Clearly, even though this article and a few others in Domingo's list in Science were most definitely peer-reviewed papers, they obviously did not come up to the pro-GM scientists' standards, as exemplified by the 41 non peer-reviewed references in the original and in the amended list.

I am afraid, even now I and, I guess, a lot of other scientists would regard the contents of these 41 "references" as little more than opinions. I pick out a few glaring examples at random. How could articles such as that published in the FDA Consumer magazine (no. 45), the R&D Magazine (no. 48), or Canadian Newswire Oct 25 (no. 52), etc be regarded as superior to the peer-reviewed papers in Domingo's references in Science?

This, I am sure, would require an explanation for most unbiased people. Even abstracts given at scientific meetings are not much use because they very seldom contain much hard data and information and are of limited circulation. In fact, regarding them as peer-reviewed publications places Dr Morton on very dangerous ground because most of our GM potato work has also been presented at scientific meetings and their abstracts were published in the proceedings prior to my talking about it during the TV interview. Therefore, the original charge against us, i.e. that I prematurely gave details of our work without their having been first peer-reviewed, seems to lose its validity.

While reading the Morton "Response" I realised why it is so difficult to find common ground between the pro-GM believers and those scientists who take a more sceptical view of the soundness of the GM science and technology. I would recommend that people should read the original piece posted on the AGBIOVIEW website at the beginning of December as it clearly describes a novel idea of refereeing:

"Look at the bibliography above and you will see the vast majority of the [56] publications mentioned are full peer-reviewed publications in journals. Some reports submitted to FDA, EPA etc are not peer-reviewed by journal editors but you can be sure they are peer-reviewed by the people at FDA and EPA."

Most scientists regard publishing their results in peer-reviewed journals as a difficult, sometimes painful and laborious job. However, they still do this because we have not come up yet with a better and more responsible system for the dissemination of new results, ideas and concepts, so that other scientists could use them for their own work. This is the way science has progressed through the ages. True, it is not foolproof but it is the best we have for the time being.

Personally, I would be extremely grateful if the biotechnology companies could prevail on their scientists to properly publish their work instead of using these bits of communications, articles etc, as typified by 41 references on the list. Currently they are preventing other scientists from incorporating the data in their own research and checking it.

It would also be useful because then we would not have to play this silly numbers game. I am sure, Dr Morton knows perfectly well that I am right. Let us all hope that science will win out at the end.

Incidentally, it is rather revealing that, in line with what has been maintained by the GM biotechnology industry, pro-GM scientists apparently do not expect to find any differences between GM and non-GM crops under any conditions in their research. Otherwise the following passage in the Morton piece which states that "publishing the results of experiments where there is no difference between the treatments is very difficult – because there is not a Journal of Boring Results", would be meaningless.

There is a second essential point about the perspective of pro-GM enthusiasts which needs to be understood. In Dr Morton's list, with the addition of our J. Nutrition paper there are now 5 peer-reviewed publications describing animal feeding studies done with diets containing GM crops. Although one may not agree with some of the findings described in these papers and even criticise them, these are now part of the scientific debate on GM foods and I welcome that. However, it appears that the GM enthusiasts cannot embrace the idea of reciprocity or that there are usually two sides to any debate. Indeed, the word "to debate" in the pro-GM scientist's vocabulary apparently means "to agree" with the pro-GM point of view. Dr Morton's piece has demonstrated this, if it has demonstarted nothing else, by leaving out the more sceptical references (including the Lancet paper and some others) from the list.

Moreover, as I mentioned previously, the direct relevance of the 7 peer-reviewed compositional studies to the safety of GM food is somewhat debatable and the sooner this is realized by the pro-GM lobby the better it will be all round. It needs to be understood that establishing compositional equivalence of macronutrients between GM and conventional crops, though important, is of rather limited value.

As the present technology of genetic crop transformation cannot deliver GM crops which are predictably safe and have no unintended effects, some sceptics, quite rightly in my opinion, regard the use of the word "technology" as a misnomer. Provision of tonnes of analytical data will not make up for the uncertainty as to whether the GM product is safe or not.

A distinguished French scientist and regulator who was invited to give an official contribution at the OECD Conference in Edinburgh (incidentally he is not included in the "list" either) gave a brilliant example of the basic fallacy of "substantial equivalence" in macronutrient composition. He said that although a BSE cow is substantially equivalent to a healthy one nobody would be happy to eat it. Before scientific work had revealed the reason for the difference between the two animals nobody knew what to look for. Having identified that, when scientists try to identify which cow is infected with BSE they do not measure the macronutrient content of the cow but will look for the appropriate prion proteins (0.0000....% of the cow's weight) that makes the cow potentially lethal for herself and the humans eating it.

The message is that you must first establish whether there is a difference between the GM crop and its conventional counterpart by short- and long-term laboratory animal testing and then, if there is, look for what chemical component(s) is/are responsible for this difference. From there on, just like with the prions, it is relatively plain sailing: scientists will determine the changes in the content of this component(s) in the various lines of GM crops and then physiologists/nutritionists/toxicologists will establish whether predictions based on the content of these (toxic, antinutritive, antihormonal, etc) components will be borne out by animal tests. This is how science has worked in the past and I need to be persuaded by logical and factual arguments why this should not apply to GM crops.

I am glad to say that at least in one respect Morton's views and mine are similar. No true scientist can (or will) ever say that a food is 100% safe regardless of whether its a GM or non-GM variety although we have in the past two years been bombarded by politicians telling us that, based on the best scientific advice, it is inconceivable that GM foods are not safe.

Unfortunately, it is the food processing industry's (and the regulators') cutting corners which is responsible for not properly testing novel foods and processes before allowing them onto the market. However, as we know well, two wrongs do not make a right. Again we come back to BSE. Why were those re-processed animal remnants not properly tested before feeding them to cows? Or, why for that matter were the tryptophan supplements not properly tested before they poisoned and maimed so many people? It is immaterial whether this effect was due to genetic modification or cutting corners with the purification of the product or both. A novel production method was introduced without testing the outcome. Incidentally, the newly produced tryptophan was also "substantially equivalent" to the non-toxic tryptophan produced by all other manufacturers (99% or better).

At this point we must also confront this business about how, by demanding independent verification of GM safety, the "activists" imply that the industry-financed "laboratories are fraudulently producing results showing the food is safe when in fact it is unsafe". In such a light Sir John Krebs' and the OECD Edinburgh Conference's final motto of "openness, transparency and inclusiveness" can also be regarded as questioning the GM industry's credibility.

The fact is that when one buys a second hand car one does not exclusively rely on the seller's assurance but, if one has any sense, also asks for an independent opinion. Obviously, the industry does test their products but that also leaves room for independent testing. The idea that there is a terrible quandry as to who is going to pay for this, because the public will not, rings rather hollow in the wake of the Cry9 Taco shell disaster because it was testing by a public NGO and not Aventis' scientists which alerted everyone to the problem of contamination.

Perhaps the industry ought to set up a fund from which money could be used to support independent scientific investigations. It would not only be in the interest of public safety but the GM companies would also clearly benefit if independent research workers found that their products presented no unacceptable health or environmental safety risks. Industry could only gain by such an endorsement, which inevitably leads one to ponder why there is so much difficulty about achieving such "openness, transparency and inclusiveness". Are the companies, in reality, afraid that the independent research scientists might find something negative about their GM products? Certainly I (and I am told many others) had a great deal of difficulties in the past when we tried to obtain bona fide samples of GM and parent line crops from biotech companies for our testing. And we did not even ask for their money, just for the samples.

In the Morton "Responses" there was a return to our GM pea paper. It was quite revealing that, apparently, it was envisaged that there could be no possible detrimental effects of these peas on the rats. Thus, there was a plea that the paper's title should have said that the GM peas had "NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECT" rather than minimal detrimental effect.

First of all, I should point out that the title was coined by T.J. Higgins and seconded by Maarten Chrispeels, neither of whom are known to be rabid anti-GM scientists. Of course, they were right because although Dr Morton may think that the differences found could not be regarded as potentially detrimental, some more cautious scientists might regard the changes as potentially harmful. Now there are two peer-reviewed papers, in addition to the FDA's own FLAVR SAVR tomato study, in which gut lesions have been found with GM foodstuffs in three different labs. In this light, even though in the GM pea study there was no histology, the significant weight and compositional differences in the caecum (large intestine) and the increased weight (not significant) of the small intestine should have at least cautioned anyone against claiming no detrimental effects and suggested doing further and more relevant (histological, immunological, etc) studies to investigate whether these differences had any physiological significance.

This is of particular importance when one takes into account that in practically all biological testing of GM crops the scientists use SPF and fully healthy rats or other animals. No tests have ever been performed with animals which had problems with their digestive system, despite the fact that a very sizeable proportion of the human population has diseases of the alimentary tract, such as Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, intestinal and pancreatic tumours of all kinds, H. pylory and other bacterial infections, and a compromised immune system, etc.

Can anyone from the GM fraternity assure these people that they will suffer no ill effects when animal studies have already indicated the possibility of such? I do not want to appear to be pedantic but we all must be reminded of the fact that once a GM crop is released we lose all control over it. If the Taco shell disaster proved nothing else, it showed that neither the industry, nor the EPA or FDA are equipped to deal with a recall. This places extra responsibility on scientists to be ultra cautious and not to claim that something has no detrimental effects just because their experiences are not wide enough to see possible problems.

In the "Response" document, in addition to an interpretation of the word "commercialization", there were again references to our potato study. As I previously dealt with this point, I have nothing further to add apart from asking a question as to who would have done a "proper safety assessment including animal feeding studies" (on these GM potatoes) in the UK. After all, ACNFP, our regulatory authority, have no labs of their own and only ask for the companies to submit the results of their own testing. Incidentally, even this level of regulation is more rigorous than that in the USA where there is self-regulation and the FDA would not have required any such documentation, just a notification of the impending release of a new GM food crop.

There was also some query at the end of the "Response" document about the comments I have reportedly made about the CaMV 35 s promoter. According to (as it is claimed in the document) some unidentified activists (who keep popping up), I claimed that the transgenic potatoes behaved differently to non-transgenic potatoes spiked with the transgene product because of the 35 s promoter.

I am now going to quote from our Lancet paper: "The possibility that a plant vector in common use in some GM plants can affect the mucosa of the gastrointestinal tract and exert powerful biological effects may also apply to GM plants containing similar constructs, particularly those containing lectins..." Or as in the Abstract: "Other parts of the construct or the genetic transformation (or both) could have also contributed to the overall biological effects...". Perhaps, after all it may have been useful to include the Lancet paper in the list and quote its Abstract to prevent any misunderstandings. One thing is, however, crystal clear that any mentioning of the 35 s promoter was conspicuosly absent from the paper even though that construct would have, of course, contained the promoter too. However, a scientist can only refer to facts revealed by his/her studies and not, as it is often found nowadays, to his/her opinions.

Finally, as referred to above, I do not necessarily agree with the view that we found no potentially detrimental effects with our GM peas. We are back to the old claim by the GM protagonists that as there is no proof that human health is affected by GM food, it must be safe! According to this line of argument, the only thing the GM biotech industry needs to do in future is not do any testing as then the myth of the safety of GM food will be maintained for eternity. I am sure, to judge by present standards, that they are well on their way to achieving this. --- 3. Dr Morton's "Corrected Bibliography - with some excerpts from Abstracts indicating papers where data has definitely been collected."

53 References

1. Brake, J. and D. Vlachos. 1998. Evaluation of event 176 "Bt" corn in broiler chickens. J. Poultry Sci. 77:648-653. A 38-d feeding study evaluated whether standard broiler diets prepared with transgenic Event 176-derived "Bt" corn (maize) grain had any adverse effects on male or female broiler chickens as compared to diets prepared with nontransgenic (isogenic) control corn grain. No statistically significant differences in survival or BW were observed between birds reared on mash or pelleted diets prepared with transgenic corn and similar diets prepared using control corn.

2. Pusztai A, Grant G, Bardocz S, Alonso R, Chrispeels MJ, Schroeder HE, Tabe LM, Higgins TJV (1999) Expression of insecticidal bean a-amylase inhibitor transgene has minimal detrimental effect on the nutritional value of peas in the rat at 30% of the diet. J Nutr 129:1597-1603. The effect of expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor (alpha-AI) transgene on the nutritional value of peas has been evaluated by pair-feeding rats diets containing transgenic or parent peas at 300 and 650g/kg, respectively, and at 150 g protein/kg diet, supplemented with essential amino acids to target requirements

3. {Hammond, Vicini, et al. 1996 3399 /id}Hammond, B., J. Vicini, G. Hartnell, M.W. Naylor, C.D. Knight, E. Robinson, R. L. Fuchs, and S.R. Padgetteet al. 1996. The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J. Nutr. 126: 717-727. Animal feeding studies were conducted with rats, broiler chickens, catfish and dairy cows as part of a safety assessment program for a soybean variety genetically modified to tolerate in-season application of glyphosate. These studies were designed to compare the feeding value (wholesomeness) of two lines of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (GTS) to the feeding value of the parental cultivar from which they were derived.

4. Padgette, S., N. Taylor, D. Nider, et al. 1996. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seed is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J. Nutr. 126: 702-716. The composition of seeds and selected processing fractions from two GTS lines, designated 40-3-2 and 61-67-1, was compared with that of the parental soybean cultivar, A5403. Nutrients measured in the soybean seeds included macronutrients by proximate analyses (protein, fat, fiber, ash, carbohydrates), amino acids and fatty acids. Antinutrients measured in either the seed or toasted meal were trypsin inhibitor, lectins, isoflavones, stachyose, raffinose and phytate. Proximate analyses were also performed on batches of defatted toasted meal, defatted nontoasted meal, protein isolate, and protein concentrate prepared from GTS and control soybean seeds. In addition, refined, bleached, deodorized oil was made, along with crude soybean lecithin, from GTS and control soybeans. The analytical results demonstrated the GTS lines are equivalent to the parental, conventional soybean cultivar

5. Sidhu, R.S., B.G. Hammond, R.L. Fuchs, J.N. Mutz, L.R. Holden, B. George and T. Olson. 2000. Glyphosate-Tolerant Corn: The Composition and Feeding Value of Grain from Glyphosate-Tolerant Corn is Equivalent to That of Conventional Corn (Zea Mays L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 48:2305-2312. The nutritional safety of corn line GA21 was evaluated in a poultry feeding study conducted with 2-day old, rapidly growing broiler chickens, at a dietary concentration of 50-60% w/w. Results from the poultry feeding study showed that there were no differences in growth, feed efficiency, adjusted feed efficiency, and fat pad weights between chickens fed with GA21 grain or with parental control grain.

6. Characterization of phospholipids from glyphosate-tolerant soybeans List, G. R.; Orthoefer, F.; Taylor, N.; Nelsen, T.; Abidi, S. L. (Food Quality and Safety Research, NCAUR, USDA, ARS, Peoria, IL, 61604, USA). J.Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 76(1), 57-60 1999 The phospholipids from 3 control and 2 glyphosate-tolerant soyabean cultivars were isolated by extraction of soya flakes with hexane and characterised after separation by HPLC. Several lots of commercial fluid lecithin were also analysed and the results were compared with values published in the literature. Phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylinositol and phosphatidic acid were identified as major components in these cultivars and in the commercial lecithin samples. The results showed that glyphosate-tolerant soyabeans yield lecithin comparable and equivalent to conventional soyabean cultivars

7. Compositional Analysis of Glyphosate -Tolerant Soybeans Treated with Glyphosate Taylor, Nancy B.; Fuchs, Roy L.; MacDonald, John; Shariff, Ahmed R.; Padgette, Stephen R. (Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, 63198, USA). J.Agric. Food Chem., 47(10), 4469-4473 1999 The composition of the seed from soybeans sprayed with glyphosate was compared to that of a nonsprayed parental control cultivar, A5403. The nutrients measured in the seed included protein, oil, ash, fiber, carbohydrates, and amino acids. The concentration of isoflavones (also referred to as phytoestrogens) was also measured as these compounds are derived from the same biochemical pathway that was engineered for glyphosate tolerance. The analytical results from these studies demonstrate that the GTS soybeans treated with glyphosate were comparable to the parental soybean cultivar, A5403, and other conventional soybean varieties

8. Harrison, L.A., M.R. Bailey, M. Naylor, J. Ream, B. Hammond, D.L. Nida, B. Burnette, T.E. Nickson, T. Mitsky, M.L. Taylor, R.L. Fuchs and S.R. Padgette. 1996. The Expressed Protein in Glyphosate-tolerance Soybean, 5-Enolpryruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate Synthase from Agrobacterium sp. Strain CP4, is Rapidly Digested in vitro and is not Toxic to Acutely Gavaged Mice. J. Nutrition 126:728-740. There were no deleterious effects due to the acute administration of CP4 EPSPS to mice by gavage at a high dosage of 572 mg/kg body wt, which exceeds 1000-fold tha anticipated consumption level of food products potentially containing CP4 EPSPS protein.

9. Assessment of the endogenous allergens in glyphosate -tolerant and commercial soybean varieties Burks, A. W.; Fuchs, R. L.. Arkansas Children's Hospital, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72202, USA.. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (1995) Vol. 96, No. 6, 1, pp. 1008-1010

10. Berberich S.A., J.E. Ream, T.L. Jackson, R. Wood, R. Stipanovic, P. Harvey, S. Patzer, and R.L. Fuchs. 1996. Safety Assessment of Insect-Protected Cotton: The Composition of the Cottonseed is Equivalent to Conventional Cottonseed. J. Agric. Food Chem. 41:365-371. A comparison was made of the nutrient and antinutrient levels in the seed both to the parental variety and to published values for other commercial cotton varieties, as part of the safety and product assessment of these lines. Compositional equivalence confirmed the appropriateness of these cotton lines (531, 757 and 1076) for use in food and feed products. The insect-protected lines and the parental control were shown to contain levels of nutrients comparable to those of other commercial varieties. The levels of the antinutrients gossypol, cyclopropenoid fatty acids and aflatoxin in the seed from the insect-protected lines were similar to or lower than the levels present in the parental variety and reported for other commercial varieties.

11. Nida, D.L., S. Patzer, P. Harvey, R. Stipanovic, R. Wood and R.L. Fuchs. 1996. Glyphosate-tolerant Cotton: The Composition of the Cottonseed is Equivalent to Conventional Cottonseed. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:1967-1974. The composition of the cottonseed and oil from two glyphosate-tolerant lines, 1445 and 1698, was compared to that of the untransformed Coker 312 and to published values for other commercial cotton varieties. The nutrients measured were protein, fat, fibre, carbohydrate, calories, moisture, ash, amino acids, and fatty acids. The antinutrients measured included gossypol, cyclopropenoid fatty acids, and aflatoxins. In addition, the fatty acid profile and alpha – tocopherol levels were measured in the refined oil. These analyses demonstrated that the glyphosate-tolerant cotton lines are compositionally equivalent to the parental and conventional cotton varieties commercially available

12. Reed, A.J., K.A. Kretzmer, M.W. Naylor, R.F. Finn, K.M. Magin, B.G. Hammond, R.M. Leimgruber, S.G. Rogers and R.L. Fuchs. 1996. A Safety Assessment of 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-Carboxylic Acid Deaminase (ACCd) Protein Expressed in Delayed Ripening Tomatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:388-394. Tomato plants with delayed fruit ripening have been produced by stable insertion of the gene encoding the 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase (ACCd) protein into the tomato chromosome.

Two approaches were used to assess the safety of the ACCd protein for human consumption. Purified Escherichia coli-produced ACCd protein, which is chemically and functionally equivalent to the ACCd protein produced in delayed ripening tomato fruit, was used in these studies. First, the ACCd protein was readily degraded under simulated mammalian digestive conditions. Second, the ACCd protein did not have any deleterious effects when administered to mice by acute gavage at a dosage of up to 602 mg/kg of bodyweight. This dosage correlates to greater than a 5000-fold safety factor relative to the average daily consumption of tomatoes, assuming that all tomatoes consumed contain the ACCd protein. These results in conjunction with previously published data, established that ingestion of tomato fruit expressing the ACCd protein does not pose any safety concerns

13. Biotechnology and the soybean. Rogers, Stephen G. (Monsanto, Brussels, Belg.). Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 68(6, Suppl.), 1330S-1332S 1998

14. Daenicke, R., D. Gadeken and K. Aulrich. 1999. Einsatz von Silomais herkömmlicher Sorten und der gentechnisch veränderten Bt Hybriden in der Rinderfütterung – Mastrinder -. 12, Maiskolloquium. 40-42.

15. Aulrich, K., I. Halle and G. Flachowsky. 1998. Inhaltsstoffe und Verdaulichkeit von Maiskörnen der Sorte Cesar und der gentechnisch veränderten Bt-hybride bei Legenhennen. Proc Einfluss von Erzeugung und Verarbeitung auf die Qualität laudwirtschaftlicher Produkte. 465-468.

16. Faust, M. 1998. Determining feeding related characteristics for Bt corn. 1998 Dairy Report. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

17. Faust, M. and L. Miller. 1997. Study finds no Bt in milk. IC-478. Fall Special Livestock Edition. pp 6-7. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa.

18. Faust, M. 1999. Research update on Bt corn silage. Four State Applied Nutrition and Management Conference. MWPS-4SD5. 158-164.

19. Folmer, J.D., G.E. Erickson, C.T. Milton, T.J. Klopfenstein and J.F. Beck. 2000. Utilization of Bt corn residue and corn silage for growing beef steers. Abstract 271 presented at the Midwestern Section ASAS and Midwest Branch ADSA 2000 Meeting, Des Moines, IA.

20. Folmer, J.D., R.J. Grant, C.T. Milton and J.F. Beck. 2000. Effect of Bt corn silage on short-term lactational performance and ruminal fermentation in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 83 (5):1182 Abstract 272.

21. Halle, I., K. Aulrich and G. Flachowsky. 1998. Einsatz von Maiskörnen der Sorte Cesar und des gentechnisch veränderten Bt-Hybriden in der Broiler mast. Proc. 5. Tagung, Schweine- und Geflügelernährung, 01,-03.12.1998, Wittenberg p 265-267.

22. Russell, J. and T. Peterson. 1999. Bt corn and non-Bt corn crop residues equal in grazing value. Extension News, June 30, 1999. Iowa State University Extension, Ames.

23. Russell, J.R., M.J. Hersom, A. Pugh, K. Barrett and D. Farnham. 2000. Effects of grazingcrop residues from bt-corn hybrids on the performance of gestating beef cows. Abstract244 presented at the Midwestern Section ASAS and Midwest Branch ADSA 2000 Meeting, Des Moines, IA.

24. Russell, J.R., D. Farnham, R.K. Berryman, M.J. Hersom, A. Pugh and K. Barrett. 2000. Nutritive value of the crop residues from bt-corn hybrids and their effects on performance of grazing beef cows. 2000 Beef Research Report -Iowa State University. p 56-61.

25. Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered plants: glyphosate tolerant soybean as a case study Fuchs, R. L.; Eisenbrand, G. [EDITOR]; Aulepp, H. [EDITOR]; Dayan, A. D. [EDITOR]; Elias, P. S. [EDITOR]; Grinow, W. [EDITOR]; Ring, J. [EDITOR]; Schlatter, J. [EDITOR]. Ceregen (Monsanto Co.), 700 Chesterfield Parkway North, St. Louis, MO 63198, USA.. Meeting info.: Food allergies and intolerances: symposium. Food allergies and intolerances: symposium (1996 ) pp. 212-221. 38 ref Publisher: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Weinheim. ISBN: 3-527-27409-X

26. Safety evaluation of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans Fuchs, R. L.; Re, D. B.; Rogers, S. G.; Hammond, B. G.; Padgette, S. R.. The Agricultural Group, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO 63198, USA. Meeting info.: Food safety evaluation. Proceedings of an OECD-sponsored workshop held on 12-15 September 1994, Oxford, UK. Food safety evaluation. Proceedings of an OECD-sponsored workshop held on 12-15 September 1994, Oxford, UK ( 1996 ) pp. 61-70. 32 ref Publisher: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Paris. ISBN: 92-64-14867-1

27. Herbicide tolerant soybeans: Why growers are adopting Roundup Ready varieties. Carpenter, J., Gianessi, L. AgBioForum 2(2), Spring, 1999

28. ACNFP (Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes). 1991. Department of Health Report on Health and Social Subjects, No. 38. Guidelines on the Assessment of Novel Foods and Processes. London (HMSO).

29. ADA. 1993. Position of the American Dietetic Association Biotechnology and the Future of Food. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Vol. 93 (2) pp 189.

30. ASEAN, 1998. Primary Production Company (ed) Regulations for Agricultural Products Derived from Biotechnology. Proceedings of the ASEAN Workshop, April 1-2, 1998, Singapore.

31. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association 1991. Biotechnology and the American agricultural industry. J Amer Med Assoc 266(3):363-263.

32. FAO/WHO, 1991. Strategies for Assessing the Safety of Foods Produced by Biotechnology. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation. World Health Organization, Geneva.

33. FAO/WHO. 1996. Biotechnology and food safety. Report of a Joint JAO/WHO Consultation. FAO, Food and Nutrition Paper 61, Rome Italy. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 1992. Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties. Notice, Federal Register 57:104; 22984-23005.

34. Health Council of the Netherlands. 1992. Safety of Food Produced by New Biotechnology. Publication No. 92.03E. The Hague.

35. Health Protection Branch. 1994. Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods. Vol. I and II. Health Canada, Ottawa. James, C. 1998. Global Review of Commericalized Transgenic Crops: 1998. ISAAA Briefs No. 8. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

36. Japan Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW). Guidelines for Foods and Food Additives Produced by the Recombinant DNA Techniques, 1996. (Japan)

37. Lavrik, P.B., Bartnicki, D.E., Feldman, J., Hammond, B.G., Keck, P.J., Love, S.L., Naylor, M.W., Rogan, G.J., Sims, S.R. and R.L. Fuchs. 1995. Safety Assessment of Potatoes Resistant to Colorado Potato Beetle. In Genetically Modified Foods, Safety Issues. K.H. Engel, G.R. Takeoka and R. Teranishi, eds. ACS, Washington, DC, pp 148-158.

38. Nordic Working Group on Food Toxicology and Risk Evaluation. 1991. Food and New Biotechnology – Novelty, Safety and Control Aspects of Foods Made by New Biotechnology. Nordic Council, Copenhagen, Nord 1991:18. Nutritional Center for Nutrition and Dietetics (NCND) 1996. Food Biotechnology: safe, nutritious, healthful, abundant, and tasty food. Nutrition fact sheet. Chicago, Illinois USA.

39. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 1993. Safety Evaluation of Foods Produced by Modem Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles. OECD, Paris.

40. OECD. 1996. OECD Documents: Food Safety Evaluation. OECD, Paris. Official Journal of the European Communities. January 27, 1997. Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of The European Parliament and of the Council. No L43-1 p 7.

41. Sanders, P.R., T.C. Lee, M.E. Groth, J.D. Astwood and R.L. Fuchs. 1998. Safety Assessment of the Insect-Protected Corn. In Biotechnology and Safety Assessment, 2nd edition (Thomas, J.A., editor)

42. Taylor and Francis, pp 241-256. WHO. 1995. Application of the Principles of Substantial Equivalence to the Safety Evaluation of Foods and Food Components from Plants Derived by Modern Biotechnology. Report of a WHO Workshop. World Health Organization, Geneva. WHO/FNU/FOS/95. 1

43. Institute for Economic Affairs. Genetically Modified Nonsense (comprehensive report on biotech food safety) Thomas R. DeGregori, University of Houston http://www.iea.org.uk/env/gmo.htm Science June 26, 199220 Vol. 256 ; No. 5065 ; Pg. 1747; ISSN: 0036-807520 The safety of foods developed by biotechnology; Policy Forum20 BY: Kessler, David A. ;

44. Taylor, Michael R. ; Maryanski, James H. ; Flamm, Eric L. ; Kahl, Linda Nutrition Today June, 1991 Vol. 26 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 15; ISSN: 0029-666X20 Food safety and technology; how engineered food additives might affect food industry and production to reduce toxins found in food

45. FDA Consumer magazine January-February 2000 Are Bioengineered Foods Safe?; by Larry Thompson OECD Reports October 1999 The Concept of Substantial Equivalence in the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods http://www.oecd.org

46. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC 1996 ACS Symposium Series 605 Genetically Modified Food: Safety Issues by Engel, Takeoko, Teranishi From symposium sponsored by the Division of Agriculture and Food Chemistry at the 208th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Washington, DC Aug 21-25, 1994. http://www.acs.org http://www.acs.org/government/publications/eip_biotechnology.html

47. Biotechnology and food safety FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 61 Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation Rome, Italy, 20 September – 4 October 1996 http://www.fao.org http://www.fao.org/es/esn/biotech/introduc.htm

48. R&D Magazine November 1999 Beachy Speaks About the Safety of Transgenic Foods; http://www.rdmag.com/features/11soy.htm20

49. Royal Society (UK) 1999 Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes Source: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/st_pol54.htm

50. Nutraceuticals International November 1, 1999 NFPA affirms biotech food safety to Senate US STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUES AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ON "BIOTECHNOLOGY: FOOD SECURITY AND SAFETY" November 2, 1999 Biotechnology: Food Security And Safety Focus, Economic Perspectives, October 1999

51. CHEMTECH. Safety consideration for food ingredients January 1998/ CHEMTECH 1998, 28(1), 40-46.

52. Canadian Newswire Oct 25, 199920 Genetically Enhanced Foods are Thoroughly Tested for Safety

53. Monsanto Company June 1998 Patricia R. Sanders, Thomas C. Lee, Mark E. Groth, Jim D. Astwood, and Roy L. Fuchs Safety-Assessment Of Insect-Protected Corn