 |
By Beverly Creamer Advertiser Staff Writer
A group of Big Island farmers opposed to genetically engineered plants dumped more than 20 papaya fruit into a trash bin on the University of Hawai'i-Hilo campus yesterday in a symbolic protest of what they say is "contamination" of their trees by plants created by UH scientists.
The group, which leaders say includes as many as 100 small farmers, including conventional, backyard and organic farmers on three islands, is calling on UH to create a plan to prevent cross-pollination of their papaya trees as well as offering liability protection for growers if their markets are lost.
The farmers say a new study they financed shows major contamination of their trees by genetically engineered plants that could potentially affect their ability to market papaya to Japan, deeply cutting into Hawai'i's export market of non-engineered papaya. The papaya industry is worth about $12 million annually.
"They're bringing out technologies that are not functional for all farmers," said Melanie Bondera, who heads Hawai'i Genetic Engineering Action Network and has a small organic farm on the Big Island. "For farmers there's a loss-of-market issue. For papaya, our market is primarily Japan and Europe, and they won't accept any genetically modified organism."
A top UH agriculture dean questioned the methodology of the group's research, but said the university would be happy to assess any scientific data they present regarding cross-pollination.
"If they're willing to explain their methodologies then we could have a conversation about the validity of the information about contamination and how it got there," said Andrew Hashimoto, dean of the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources.
"Since 1998 there's been 100 million pounds of transgenetic papaya in the state — the Rainbow and Sunup papaya — marketed ... so a lot of people in Hawai'i and on the Mainland have been eating this product with no documented health consequences."
|
By PHILIP BRASHER
REGISTER WASHINGTON BUREAU
Washington, D.C. - ProdiGene Inc. has withdrawn requests for government approval to grow its pharmaceutical corn crops in Texas.
ProdiGene is commercializing two medical products made from its bioengineered corn.
However, the company's applications to the U.S. Agriculture Department drew opposition from the Grocery Manufacturers of America, which said the government is not providing adequate oversight of such crops.
A subsidiary of Stine Seed Co. in Adel, Ia., owns a majority share of ProdiGene.
The Agriculture Department had taken the unusual step of writing environmental assessments of the ProdiGene crops because the company planned repeated plantings starting this year.
An Agriculture Department spokesman said he did not know why the applications were with- drawn.
A ProdiGene spokeswoman did not return telephone calls Wednesday.
ProdiGene embarrassed the biotech industry two years ago when the company was caught mismanaging field trials of its crops in Iowa and Nebraska.
|
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Making the genetic codes of dangerous pathogens a secret will not save anyone from bioterrorism and may make the population vulnerable to attacks from Mother Nature, scientists said on Thursday.
Scientists now freely share information on the genomes of all sorts of bacteria and viruses, many of them potential biowarfare agents, and that should continue, the National Research Council committee said.
"There is nothing singly more sinister about the genome of plague than there is about the genome of a lot of other microorganisms," said Dr. Stanley Falkow, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University in California, who chaired the committee.
"The current vitality of the life sciences depends on a free flow of data and ideas, which is necessary if science is to deliver new biodefense capabilities and improve our ability to fight infectious disease."
Falkow and a panel of biologists and experts on bioweapons, genomics and security were asked to study whether there should be restrictions on this free flow of information and if so, how to do it.
"How do we apply criteria to determine what is legitimate research or what is sensitive information or what can and cannot be published?" he asked in a forward to the group's final report.
"It could be argued that the availability of the complete genome sequence of human isolates of SARS could be used by a very sophisticated bioterrorist as a pathway to synthesize a new version of the SARS virus," he added. "Which do we fear more, nature or bioterrorism?"
|
Gretchen Vogel
President George W. Bush may end up doing California stem cell researchers a huge favor. Spurred by the Bush Administration's restrictions on funding for human embryonic stem (ES) cells, patient advocates, venture capitalists, and research leaders have launched a campaign to persuade California voters to pass an unprecedented ballot proposal, called Proposition 71, that would allocate $3 billion for the field over the next 10 years.
If the measure passes in November--and early polls say it's still too close to call (Science, 27 August, p. 1225)--California would spend nearly $300 million a year on human ES cell research, almost 50% more than the $214 million the National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent on all human stem cell research--both embryonic and nonembryonic--in 2003. "It will change the landscape of where this work is done," says Douglas Melton of Harvard University, who because of the White House's restrictions has had to set up a privately funded lab to derive new human ES cell lines. "California will become a hotbed of stem cell research."
Supporters of Proposition 71 have raised more than $11 million from donors such as Microsoft's Bill Gates and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife, Pamela. In the coming weeks, they plan to make their case for the measure with television, radio, and newspaper ads arguing that the investment will speed discovery of cures for dozens of diseases, cut health care costs, and boost California's economic recovery.
But some skeptics, including supporters of public funding for human ES cell research, say the plan is too expensive for a state facing multibillion-dollar budget deficits. A group called Doctors, Patients and Taxpayers for Fiscal Responsibility has led opposition to the measure, objecting to its cost as well as its focus on embryo-derived cells.
While Proposition 71 proponents say the opportunity for citizens to vote directly for science funding is an unprecedented chance for outreach, others worry that the political slogans could mislead voters and raise unrealistic expectations for miracle cures. "The argument that they use is that it's going to save lives. That's a good argument, politically, but in reality that's nuts," says George Annas, a bioethicist at Boston University. "Someday, hopefully, that's going to happen, but not in the next year or 2 or 10."
|
Kazuo N. Watanabe,1,2* Mohammad Taeb,3 Haruko Okusu3
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was enacted in 2003 to regulate transboundary movement of genetically modified organisms or LMOs (living modified organisms, the legal term defined by the protocol) (1). The Japanese Diet approved a bill that made drastic changes to existing national guidelines to fulfill the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol (2). Ministries associated with aspects of biosafety discussed the bill and its integration with the overall system for environmental and laboratory safety (3), and the Japanese law entered into force in February 2004.
This law has made legal procedures more comprehensive and consistent. However, operational details have not yet been digested by stakeholders, especially commercial traders and academic researchers. Furthermore, Japan is at a critical stage in dealing with negative public reaction to modern biotechnology and its products.
Under the new law, there are specific legal procedures required for exchange of transgenic organisms with Japan. For importation, it is necessary to document prior informed consent (PIC) between exporter and importer. The shipment must clearly indicate on the package and in accompanying documentation that transgenic materials are included. For Japanese scientists, importation of transgenic materials is allowed only after the certification of experiments as safe by the research institution or, if the risk level is high, by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT).
For exportation, a PIC document is required from the importer to protect Japanese research institutions from foreign claims. International scientists should be aware, for example, that transport of recombinant microorganisms and seeds from transgenic plants could be rejected for lack of documentation. For those who are accustomed to a more relaxed system, the new laws require attention to avoid delays or blocked shipments. This applies to materials for basic research or commerce.
There is domestic confusion as well over the new rules. To focus attention on this issue, officials at MEXT (4) have held tutorials for the academic community and basic research institutions on risk minimization and the new legal system. This is to avoid procedural failures that might result in domestic legal prosecution and penalties, as well as any international perception that Japan has problems with compliance.
Importation of transgenic crops is skyrocketing in Japan. For example, the combined value of imported transgenic soybean, maize, and canola was nearly US$ 3.5 billion in 2003 (5). However, against the backdrop of food safety concerns and distrust of government authorities in the wake of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, avian influenza, and fraudulent food labeling scandals, public anxiety has been increasing (6). One result is that local prefectures in Shiga, Iwate, Hokkaido, and Ibaraki are considering instituting their own regulations (7-10) on the general release of transgenic organisms, in an attempt to regulate crops that have already been approved by the central Japanese government. There is concern that public reaction will adversely affect local farmers and the tourism industry, as well as fear that products derived from genetic engineering are not safe and that transgenic crops could contaminate neighboring fields.
|