Here's some articles and websites that I thought might interest some of you.

Innovation: Seed Spat

Technology Review, May 2001

By Alexandra Stikeman


AG Biotech

Over the past two decades, genetically modified plants have graduated from laboratory curiosities to crops planted on millions of hectares. But while major seed firms have struggled with public worries over environmental questions and food safety, they've also been locked in a more private fight over a central question: who owns one of the industry's principal
gene-insertion technologies?

The dispute is coming to a head. Last year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a broad patent to Washington University in St. Louis covering one of the industry's most basic tools: the use of a soil bacterium to insert desired genes into the DNA of broad-leafed crops like soybean,
cotton, potato and canola, conferring traits like herbicide tolerance and pest resistance. "That was the fundamental feature of our work," says Andrew Binns, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the inventors named on the patent. "It is the basis for practically all plant genetic engineering these days."

Agricultural biotech giant Syngenta, based in Basel, Switzerland, holds exclusive rights to the Washington University patent. Andrew Neighbour, director of the school's technology transfer office, says the patent
"certainly provides [Syngenta] with a strong position in the marketplace." But while the granting of the patent was a watershed event�coming 17 years after its first version was filed�the issued patent is a shadow of its
original self. Many of the claims originally filed are absent; these are still in dispute.

Syngenta isn't the only seed company interested in the patent's fate:
Monsanto, Pioneer and Dow AgroSciences also make heavy use of the technique. Syngenta says it is not yet trying to collect royalties on its patent. And none of the companies would comment on the claims being fought out in the patent office, what the technology is worth, or what the financial impact might be once ownership is resolved. The patent office could rule as early as next year. But given the technology's key role in a multibillion-dollar industry, the next stop may well be the courts.

Alexandra Stikeman is an associate editor at Technology Review.

__________________________________________________________________________________________


Textile AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER

Montioring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective

A.V. Krebs Editor\Publisher

Issue #116 May 16, 2001

ECOLOGICAL DISASTER AVERTED????

U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

TREATING THE WORLD'S SOIL LIKE DIRT


"In 1992 the Environmental Protection Agency was only a few weeks away from ending life on the planet as we know it," so writes George Lawton in the April, 2001 issue of Acres USA ("A Voice For Eco-Agriculture").


Lawton reports that the EPA, although only having done limited tests at that time on a variety of genetically engineered microbes, all of which had been approved for release into the atmosphere, were prepared to approve the release of a GE variant of Klepbsiella planticola (KP), one of the most common bacteria on the planet.


"This particular variety of KP," he writes, "had the unique ability to convert dead plant matter into alcohol. It was hoped that this would provide a way for farmers to transform their unused stalks, leaves and other types of compost material into alcohol, which could be used for washing, running vehicles, etc.


"The EPA had done a variety of tests on this organism, all of which indicated that it would not be toxic to humans or animals. They
were only a few weeks away from releasing these bacteria into the wild, when Michael Holmes, a graduate student at the University of Oregon, came looking for an interesting thing to study for his doctoral thesis."


Under the direction of his academic advisor, Elaine Ingham, Holmes elected to do his thesis on the effects of this genetically
engineered KP on plants, something which had not occurred to the EPA, as it was not required for the release of new genetically modified organisms, Lawton notes in his Acres USA expose.


Holmes study revealed, after testing samples of plants growing in sterile soil, soil with regular KP and soil with genetically engineered KP, that no plants in the latter soil were growing as the alcohol produced by the bacteria had killed them all.


At the time, Lawton notes, the EPA was envisioning that farmers would use these bacteria in a kind of fermenting process to convert plant material into a mixture of 17% alcohol and 83% mineral sludge, which could be poured off into the soil and reused.


"If that had occurred, the genetically engineered KP could have colonized the entire planet over the course of several years, turning all of the soil where it grew into barren dirt."


Ingham said that problem was and still is that the EPA only looks at the immediate impact of new genetically modified organisms on animals, and does not take into account the larger impact on the ecosystem as a
whole. That approach can work to a limited extent when working with chemicals, which can break down and dissipate over time. But living organisms have the ability to procreate and overwhelm the natural
ecosystem.


After the Holmes research, Ingham claims, the EPA didn't accept their findings. Further, she said that she received considerable flack from the EPA, which also objected to Holmes' graduation because they
thought his research was flawed. The EPA repeated the experiment but never released the results to the general public.


Ingham believes that the EPA was trying to hide the results because they were under pressure from chemical, seed, and biotech
companies. She feared, Holmes says, "If we had not done that testing, the EPA would have allowed its field use in two weeks. We just happened to be working on that for academic interest. What would have happened if we had not done that work? What kind of unexpected effects are already out there? Hopefully nothing as devastating as this organism, but we don't know because they have not been tested."


The EPA applied the rules mandated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, and
found no problems with the microbe, so it was approved for field testing.


Ingham explained, "Clearly the current regulatory methods are totally inappropriate. The work we were doing was not normal work for engineered organisms. The regulatory testing is appropriate for
chemicals, but not appropriate for biological things that reproduce. If we were going to do appropriate testing, we should use the system developed by the Edmonds Institute in Edmonds, Washington. They publish a biosafety handbook which goes through all of the testing that should be
required to assess the potential effects of genetically engineered
organisms.


"This was the first organism capable of surviving in the soil. KP is found in the root systems of all the plants we have looked at, and it exists in decomposing plant material everywhere in the world. It is one of the few organisms that is everywhere," she adds.


As Lawton points out, "the problem with any organism and particularly with bacteria is that there is no surefire way to recall
them once they have been released. Even plants pose a problem, despite the possibility of mechanical control. Imagine how hard it would be to selectively kill something that cannot even be seen with the naked eye" and Ingham observes, "We have never been good at recapturing any
organisms we have released into the world.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release:
May 16, 2001

Contacts:
Peter Jenkins, Center for Food Safety (202) 547-9359 ext. 23
Mark Worth, Public Citizen (202) 454-5123

Groups Call on FDA, International Officials to Halt Expanded Use of Food Irradiation

Officials Have Ignored Peer-Reviewed Research Indicating That Irradiated Food Could Pose Health Risks to Consumers

WASHINGTON, D.C. - - The Center for Food Safety and Public Citizen today filed formal comments with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and international officials opposing industry plans to significantly broaden the types of food that can be irradiated and increase irradiation doses. The groups charged the officials with overlooking substantial evidence that
irradiated food is not safe for human consumption and urged further research before more irradiated food goes on sale.

The FDA is currently considering five industry proposals that would legalize the irradiation of "ready-to-eat" foods (which represent more than a third of the typical Americans' diet) - - such as prepared meals, baby food, deli meats and pre-cut salads - - and other major items in the U.S. food supply, such as shellfish.

"Food irradiation is a vast uncontrolled experiment which is using millions of Americans as guinea pigs," said Center for Food Safety Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell. "Given the growing scientific evidence of potential genetic damage to consumers and their future children from
irradiated foods, expansion of this technology would be unconscionable."

The consumer groups told the FDA that more than one-third of the studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that looked at the question of genetic damage caused by consuming irradiated food showed genetic damage in animals, humans or cell cultures. The groups claim that these findings raise serious questions about the safety of eating irradiated food.

Additionally, FDA officials have ignored recent revelations concerning a chemical - - which does not naturally occur in any food - - that is formed when certain meats, fruit, eggs and other foods are irradiated. This chemical, called 2-dodecylcyclobutanone (or 2-DCB), has been shown to cause genetic damage in rats fed the substance and in human cell cultures exposed to it. The researchers who made this discovery have urged caution and said that further experiments are needed.

"The FDA has virtually no scientific evidence to justify approving these
proposals and should promptly reject them," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "The agency should pursue a comprehensive research program using modern techniques to determine - - once and for all - - whether irradiated food is safe for people to eat."

The groups have filed formal comments opposing industry proposals that would:

� Legalize the irradiation of ready-to-eat foods;

� Legalize the irradiation of crustacean shellfish, such as crabs, lobsters and shrimp;

� Legalize the irradiation of molluscan shellfish, such as clams, oysters and scallops;

� Legalize the irradiation of a variety of processed meats and byproducts, such as beef tongues, hearts and other internal organs (though irradiation does not kill the pathogen that causes mad cow disease); and

� More than double the allowed radiation dose for poultry.

Separately, the international Codex Alimentarius Commission, which sets food standards on behalf of more than 160 nations, is considering a proposal to eliminate the current maximum limit for irradiation doses. The Center for Food Safety and Public Citizen today also sent formal comments to Codex Commission Chair Thomas Billy of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture opposing this change. The groups also objected to Codex proposals that would substantially weaken food quality and nuclear safety standards by making them optional rather than mandatory.

The Center for Food Safety and Public Citizen are working to stop the proliferation of irradiated food and food irradiation technology through coordinated campaigns, featuring grassroots organizing, citizen petitions, legal action and efforts to ensure companies are honest with consumers
about the benefits and harms associated with irradiated food.

Earlier this year, 26 prominent doctors and researchers, in addition to numerous consumer, health and environmental protection leaders, endorsed an urgent warning about the dangers of irradiated food published in the International Journal of Health Services.

"A wide range of independent studies have clearly identified mutagenic and
carcinogenic products in irradiated food," the endorsement said. "Congress should focus on sanitation and not irradiation of the nation's food supply."

###

For more information about the Center for Food Safety, visit: www.centerforfoodsafety.org.

For more information about Public Citizen and to view the comments, visit: www.citizen.org/cmep.

__________________________________________________________________________________________


White House to Serve Genetically Modified Foods!
Jennifer C. Berkshire, AlterNet
May 14, 2001

The White House announced today that it plans to begin serving some genetically modified foods at official government functions. The move is intended to head off criticism by environmental and consumer groups that the altered foods are unsafe.


"You really can't tell the difference," said White House chef Daniel Arreido, the former executive chef at Laylo in Austin, Texas, who recently replaced long-time Clinton cook Walter Scheib III. "It may be genetically
altered but it tastes just the same," said Arreido, noting that the first family already consumes milk containing bovine growth hormone.


The White House plans to debut the new food items at a state dinner next month for French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin. According to Arreido, the menu for the dinner will include such delicacies as pan-seared genetically altered super salmon and Texas-style corn pudding made with Star Link corn. "These are traditional Texas recipes," said Arreido, "but with a special
twist."


A spokesman for the French Embassy claimed to be unaware of the changes to the White House meal plan.


Naomi Jurgen-Stoors, a spokeswoman for the activist group Healthy Planet, which supports mandatory labeling on all products containing genetically modified ingredients, said that the White House announcement had come as a surprise. "Our main problem with GM food, what we call 'franken food,' is
that its long-term impact on humans has never been tested," said Jurgen-Stoors. "Now I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens to the first family."


Not everyone in the Bush administration supports the new policy, which is said to have been the idea of Vice President Dick Cheney. Just last weekend, Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman voiced concern about the safety of the altered foods while appearing on the
weekly political talk show Meet the Press. "This administration plans to keep a watchful eye on these products," said Whitman.


For the first family, that "watchful eye" may be on the lookout for seconds. in the world.

__________________________________________________________________________________________