[Futurework] further on "Pharming"

[Darryl and Natalia]

Just a brief to keep a corner of the thoughts on the biotech industry. Link at bottom for the rest of story or contact me and I'll forward the whole page.   Darryl     USDA "RUBBER STAMPING" GE INDUSTRY EXPERIMENTS, PUTTING PUBLIC AT RISK PAUL ELIAS, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Coors Brewing Co., Frito-Lay and H.J. Heinz were among U.S. companies dabbling in genetically  modified crops in recent years even as consumer acceptance of such products remained in doubt. The experiments were among thousands of similar tests broadly outlined in a 600-page report critical of federal regulators that was released [June 18] by the advocacy group Environment California Research & Policy Center. The center is among environmental groups that claim poor government oversight of the open-air tests that could allow "genetic contamination" of the food supply. The report showed 15,400 gene-splicing experiments have been done involving more than 100 crops since 1987, when the Department of Agriculture first started permitting open-air experiments, the anti-biotech group said. The experiments took place at more than 40,000 locations in all but three states. .....     UNREGULATED "PHARMING" EXPERIMENTAL CROPS ON THE LOOSE CLAIRE HOPE CUMMINGS, CROP CHOICE COMMENTARY: New genetically modified  organisms (GMOs) are on the loose and they are causing trouble. These are not the GMOs most people hear about: soybeans that resist weed killers or corn that kills insects. These are experimental crops that contain pharmaceutical proteins, industrial chemicals, even human genes. They are being grown outdoors in hundreds of secret locations all over the country, in open-pollinated plants such as corn. This powerful new use of biotechnology is called "pharming," and it poses very real threats to our personal and environmental health. Cases of pharm contamination have already occurred, raising new criticisms of the regulatory system in the United States. When GMOs were first introduced into agriculture, farmers and consumer groups questioned the lack of basic protections. Since then, GMO contamination has spread from the corn fields in the Midwest to the birthplace of corn in the remote mountains of Mexico. Farmers have not been able to protect themselves from this genetic trespass. Instead of holding GMO manufacturers liable, the courts are upholding the patent rights of seed companies and making the farmers pay. Taxpayers are subsidizing the costs of GMO food recalls. While national polls show that well over 90% of U.S. consumers want GMO food labeled, government regulators still refuse to consider it. By almost any measure, regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology is failing to protect the public interest. The reason is, it was designed that way. Long before there were any products ready for market, the GMO manufacturers were in Washington, D.C. taking pre-emptive action to ensure that the regulatory climate would favor their interests. .... In 1986, then Vice-President George Bush hosted Monsanto executives at the White House to discuss the "deregulation" of biotechnology. Then, after he became President, the framework that had been constructed during years of behind-the-scenes negotiations was announced by his Vice- President, Dan Quayle. .... The system that was created then is still in force today, with only a few minor exceptions. ....   And they continue to be constrained by concepts developed with the best science available in the 1960s. The reporting system is essentially voluntary ....    If industry does not tell government what it knows or suspects about its GMOs, the government does not ask. Once crops are released, there is no monitoring or follow-up. ....    As a result, evidence of emerging human health and ecological problems is routinely disregarded. The federal government says that its processes are rigorous. It says that the lack of any reported human health problems associated with GMOs is evidence of its effectiveness. The biotech industry claims that their products are "the most studied" on the market. But the industry is simply referring to the studies they have done as they develop the product. They are not referring to any post-market evaluation. Underneath the government s claims of safety lies a little known but fundamentally flawed idea that undermines the whole system. The governing principle behind the regulation of GMO food and agriculture is a concept called "substantial equivalence." It means that a GMO crop can be considered to be just the same as a conventional crop. Unfortunately there is no scientific justification for this idea. According to an article in the prestigious scientific journal Nature, the concept of substantial equivalence is "pseudo-scientific." The article calls this idea a "commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific" and it was "created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests." Legislators have never agreed on the meaning of substantial equivalence. This ambiguity, according to the article, "acts as a barrier to further research into the possible risks of eating GMOs." ....    Getting a useful product out of that process depends on the use of viral vectors, anti-bacterial markers, promoters, switches and other genetically altered molecules to succeed. And it is these process-related molecules that should trouble us. They are the basis for some of the safety concerns of other countries and international biosafety protocols. .......    A study of over 8,000 field test results submitted to the USDA showed that not one resulted in an environmental assessment. The FDA uses the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to review GMOs. The substantial equivalence doctrine fits nicely with FDA logic. It goes like this: any "novel" substances in food must be tested and perhaps labeled. However, if something can be "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS), as most conventional foods are, then they are exempt. Since GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to conventional food, they are considered GRAS and thus they do not require testing or labels. ...... Claire Hope Cummings, M.A., J.D. was a lawyer for the USDA during the Carter Administration. She has farmed in California and in Vietnam where she had an organic farm along the Mekong River. As a print and broadcast journalist, she covers the environmental and cultural costs of industrial agriculture and follows the progress of the sustainable agriculture movement. Her latest work on agricultural biotechnology "Risking Corn, Risking Culture" was published in World Watch Magazine in December, 2002, and she has written "A Farmers Guide to GMOs" for Farm Aid and The National Family Farm Coalition, and the "Environmental Media Services Reporters and Editors Guide to Genetic Engineering in Agriculture."   : http://www.ea1.com/CARP/  June 20, 2003, Issue #260    and another headline from the same: RURAL GREAT PLAINS ONCE AGAIN LOWEST INCOME REGION IN U.S., SHOWS HOW PERVASIVE RURAL POVERTY IS IN U.S