Aftermath News

Several scenarios are under investigation but all seem so unlikely that scientists now admit the mystery may remain unsolved

Deliberate release is being considered as an option by the HSE, partly because all the other possibilities are so remote. In every other case, several events that are all unlikely would have had to have happened at once: a decontamination failure, followed by a drainage failure, then movement of a contaminated person on to a farm.

Professor Wilsmore said: “If you’ve got somebody who wants to spread it, that’s a different story.

“Until we got this report, I thought that airborne spread was the likeliest cause. But when you start to think that mechanical spread – by so-called fomites such as straw, manure, a car wheel or boots – is unlikely, then you start to think. . . I’m sure they will be looking very hard at anybody who has a motive to spread the disease.”

London Times | Aug 9, 2007

We may never discover how virus escaped into farmland

by Mark Henderson

It is almost certain that the Institute of Animal Health complex at Pirbright was the source of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, but the route by which the virus was released may never be conclusively determined, scientists said yesterday.

Several possible scenarios are being considered by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and other experts, but there is no “smoking gun” that identifies any as the most probable cause of the infection.

The chances of the virus escaping by each route is very low, and once it did get out, the chances that it would reach and infect susceptible livestock would be low.

Tony Wilsmore, the director of the Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit at the University of Reading, said: “For both to happen you are multiplying two probabilities that are less than one, and when you do that, you get a lot less. If you multiply 0.1 by 0.1, you get 0.01.”

When the full genetic code of the virus is sequenced, it may pinpoint whether the source was the institute or the commerical Merial vaccine laboratory, but even that is uncertain.

The foot-and-mouth virus is composed of about 8,300 “letters” of RNA, a cousin of DNA. It is possible but not certain that the strain used in vaccine production has acquired a mutation in one of these, that would set it apart from the institute’s reference strains.

Mark Woolhouse, Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, who worked on the 2001 foot-and-mouth epidemic, said: “It is important that we do establish what happened here, or it will be very difficult to rebuild confidence in these laboratories. But it is not immmediately obvious what has happened. The truth is that we may never know.”

Airborne release

Until the HSE report was issued, this was the scenario that many experts had considered most likely. The virus can spread on the wind and a leak could have been carried for several miles given the right conditions. Laboratories with category four biosecurity status, such as the Pirbright complex, however, have safety mechanisms that should prevent pathogens from escaping in the air. The HSE found no evidence that any of these had failed.

Facilities must be isolated by an air lock, and air passing out is cleaned by two high-efficiency particulate arrestance filters. Category four labs are also maintained at negative pressure, so that if there is a leak of any sort, air will move into the lab from outside and not vice-versa.

The HSE confirmed that the pressure and filtration systems at the lab were adequate, and also noted that local wind conditions allowed only very small windows at which there could have been any risk. It ruled that there was only a “negligible combined likelihood” of airborne release.

Liquid waste

Experiments at the institute and vaccine manufacture by Merial would have used solvents and other liquid reagents. These would have been contaminated with virus and would have needed treating before disposal.

Merial, in particular, would have had to dispose of large amounts of fluid waste from the production of 10,000 litres of vaccine between July 14 and July 25. The institute conducted only small experiments over that period, each using less than 10 millilitres of virus, so presented less of a risk.

Decontamination can be done with heat or chemicals. The institute’s animal isolation unit relies on thermal decontamination of effluent, and a chemical system covers the rest of the site. If either failed, fluids contaminated with foot-and-mouth could have been flushed out of the laboratory through an effluent pipe.

This ought not to have posed much risk under normal circumstances. The effluent would have flowed into the sewage system, and would have come into contact with neither animals susceptible to foot-and-mouth nor with people, vehicles or wild animals that might have spread it to farms.

There are two concerns here. One is that the HSE reported “doubts about the integrity of the drainage system, including pipework that leads to the final effluent treatment plant” at the Merial site. A leak could have allowed contaminated fluids to accumulate on the ground, from which the virus could have been picked up on workers’ shoes or a passing vehicle.

A similar problem may have arisen because of flooding. The HSE considered that there was a negligible chance that the virus reached farms directly through floodwater: the distance is too great and the Normandy farm is uphill from the Pirbright plant.

It is possible, though, that standing water containing the virus contaminated shoes or tyres, which then carried it to the farms. Professor Woolhouse said: “It would have to have been a double failure: both the decontamination and drainage systems would have to have been compromised. Even so, out of all the scenarios, this has to be one of the most plausible. The others seem even more remote.”

Human transmission

The HSE report considered this to be a “real possibility”, despite extensive safety measures. Scientists, however, thought the risk low. Workers must enter the laboratory through an air lock and change into sterile gowns that fit tightly at the wrists and cover the shoes. They must also wrap over the chest, hair is covered and masks are worn.

All this protective clothing must be removed when leaving the laboratory. It is sterilised in a machine called an autoclave, which uses pressurised steam heated well above 100C to kill any germs. After changing out of their gowns, workers must then shower before leaving the secure area.

Even if one of these steps was not conducted properly, it is still unlikely that a worker could have carried the virus to the infected farms. “The normal procedure is that anyone who has been into these facilities shouldn’t go onto a livestock farm for five days,” Professor Woolhouse said. One possibility is that a contaminated worker walked somewhere near a farm. An allotment adjacent to the first infected farm, which is said to be used by some laboratory staff, was under investigation yesterday.

Professor Woolhouse said: “We need to think about whether the spirit as well as the letter is being observed.”

If the foot-and-mouth virus did contaminate a person’s clothing or body there are two ways in which it could have reached the infected animals.

“The most likely route is that someone walked on something that the animals ate,” Professor Woolhouse said. “That is the rationale for closing footpaths.”

Keith Plumb, a biosafety expert from the Institute of Chemical Engineers, said that the second possibility was that virus spread by contaminated boots could have been picked up by a fox or rodent and carried to the farm.

Sabotage

Deliberate release is being considered as an option by the HSE, partly because all the other possibilities are so remote. In every other case, several events that are all unlikely would have had to have happened at once: a decontamination failure, followed by a drainage failure, then movement of a contaminated person on to a farm.

Professor Wilsmore said: “If you’ve got somebody who wants to spread it, that’s a different story.

“Until we got this report, I thought that airborne spread was the likeliest cause. But when you start to think that mechanical spread – by so-called fomites such as straw, manure, a car wheel or boots – is unlikely, then you start to think. . . I’m sure they will be looking very hard at anybody who has a motive to spread the disease.”

The main case against sabotage is that there is no positive evidence that it has taken place.

Solid waste

Though solid waste is not explicitly discussed in the HSE report, it remains a possibility. Used pieces of equipment such as vials and disposable gloves must be treated before they leave the lab, again by thermal or chemical methods, and there is a chance that this was not done properly.

Dr Plumb said: “Most of this is decontaminated by autoclave, but autoclaves have failed in the past. It certainly can’t be ruled out, particularly as anyone handling this waste would have assumed it had been decontaminated and wasn’t a risk.”

Case mirrors 2001 outbreak, could signal new wave of agraterrorism against farming community

Prison Planet | Aug 5, 2007

Off limits: Six years ago, Tony Blair made most of the British countryside inaccessible as the rural areas were turned into giant quarantine zones.

Paul Joseph Watson

Update: Russian news agency ITAR-TASS is reporting that the release of the virus came after an “international drill” last month that was held at Pirbright Laboratory, in which live virus was used. Real attacks are always shadowed by drills to provide culpable deniability.

The strain of foot and mouth disease that has put Britain on high alert has been identified as originating from a government laboratory which is shared with an American pharmaceutical company, mirroring the deadly outbreak of 2001 and potentially signaling a new wave of agraterrorism intended to cripple the farming community.

New Prime Minister Gordon Brown has chaired two Cobra emergency meetings and farmers nationwide have been ordered to halt movements of all livestock in response to the situation after after foot-and-mouth was confirmed at Wolford farm, near Guildford, on Friday night.

As was the case in 2001, when a vial of foot and mouth virus that was “stolen” from a government bio-weapons laboratory caused untold misery for thousands of farmers and devastated the industry, the origin of the latest outbreak traces directly back to a government research facility.

The strain in infected cattle is identical to that used for vaccines at the Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright, three miles from the farm,” reports the BBC.

The strain was used in a vaccine batch manufactured on 16 July by a private pharmaceutical company Merial Animal Health.

The firm shares Pirbright with the government’s Institute for Animal Health (IAH), which conducts research into foot-and-mouth and where the strain is also present.

Merial Animal Health is an American pharmaceutical company that manufactures foot and mouth vaccines containing live virus and is already being blamed as “responsible for the foot and mouth outbreak in Britain” by some newspapers.

Whether the culprits are the pharmaceutical company or the government research lab, serious questions need to be asked about why routine levels of bio-security were not followed and how the virus managed to escape. Press speculation that the virus became airborne and got out through the air ducts doesn’t comport with the basic composition of vaccines and how they would normally be stored.

For those who doubt the veracity of a British government plot to once again eviscerate the livelihoods of farmers (routinely the biggest power block opposing the Labour government) in an act of agraterrorism, they should carefully consider what happened in 2001. The Sunday Express reported that the foot and mouth virus was released deliberately out of Porton Down bio-weapons facility and could have possibly been the source of the outbreak two months later.

The disease spread like wildfire throughout the country as many accused the government of not doing nearly enough to contain it and the spring of 2001 in England was characterized by apocalyptic images of burning pyres dotted all over the countryside as over four million animals were slaughtered.

Coupled with reports of the government making inquiries to timber merchants and sign makers (before closing public footpaths), it is inconceivable that an animal rights activist, as we are led to believe, could have penetrated a level 4 bio-weapons facility that also houses anthrax and ebola and is protected by armed guards of the Ministry of Defence Police and the Military Provost Guard Service. The individual who stole the vial must have had full security clearance to enter the facility. Why would an animal rights activist release a virus that would kill four million animals?

Patricia Doyle, PhD also reported that Foot and Mouth exercises were being run by the British government immediately before the outbreak was made public.

Experts are saying that the current outbreak is likely to be localized and we can only hope it remains this way, because Brown won’t hesitate to turn huge swathes of the country into quarantine zones as a dry run for martial law just as his predecessor Tony Blair did six years ago.

Officials have not ruled out the possibility that such a release of the virus was deliberate.

The Government has imposed a 1.9-mile (three-kilometre) “protection zone” following confirmation on Friday of infection at the farm in Elstead, near Guildford, and a 6.2-mile (10-kilometre) “surveillance zone”. A nationwide ban on the movement of all cattle, sheep and pigs is in force.

Animals in fields surrounding the affected farm may now be vaccinated

Telegraph | Aug 5, 2007

Merial has been developing a foot and mouth vaccine at the laboratory site it shares with the Institute for Animal Health

By Andrew Alderson, Richard Gray and Patrick Hennessy

A biosecurity failure at a research laboratory has been pinpointed as the likeliest source of Britain’s foot and mouth outbreak.

An inquiry by scientists is centring on fears that the virus escaped from the Pirbright laboratory site in Surrey, the only centre licensed to work with the foot and mouth virus. It is feared that the virus, carried on the wind, infected cattle grazing in a field three miles away.

A private pharmaceuticals company, Merial Animal Health, which has been developing a foot and mouth vaccine, shares the Pirbright site with the government-funded Institute for Animal Health, which holds 5,000 strains of the virus. Officials have not ruled out the possibility that such a release of the virus was deliberate. Both centres, however, pride themselves on their tight security record.

Last night, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) confirmed that the strain found on the infected farm was not one that would normally infect animals. A spokesman said the strain was similar to a virus known as 01 BFS67, which was isolated in the 1967 foot and mouth outbreak.

The department said the strain was present at the institute and had been used in a vaccines batch made last month by Merial. The company, which is jointly owned by drugs giants Merck and Sanofi-Aventis, had agreed to halt production on a “precautionary basis”, Defra said.

The strain is thought to be relatively mild - less virulent than the pan-Asian strain that swept the country in 2001.

The Health and Safety Executive is leading an investigation at the institute and a protection zone was set up around both the farm and the institute. A separate independent review into “biosecurity arrangements” at the institute was also being launched, to report to Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary.

David Biland, Merial’s managing director, was flying back to Britain last night from a family holiday. In a statement released by the company, Mr Biland said: “Merial will co-operate fully with the UK Government to determine the source of the disease and will fully support Defra scientists in bringing this outbreak to a speedy and satisfactory -conclusion.”

The outbreak, Britain’s first for six years, threatens havoc to the countryside and to the nation’s tourist industry. The 2001 outbreak led to the slaughter of nearly seven million animals and cost the country £8.5 billion.

Defra was investigating other possible outbreaks of the disease, Debby Reynolds, the Chief Veterinary Officer, disclosed last night.

“It’s important not to rule out any possible source. One of the first things I did was I asked Pirbright to review biosecurity,” she said.

The Government insisted yesterday that it had learnt lessons from the 2001 outbreak and was determined to act “quickly and decisively”. But there were already accusations that Defra’s handling of the crisis was flawed. Farmers and trading standards officials, who must enforce any ban on animal movements, claimed that they had not been properly informed on the implementation of restrictions.

Defra announced a voluntary worldwide ban on exports of animals and animal products. It applies to “cloven-hooved” animals, notably cattle, sheep and pigs. The European Commission said it was enforcing a compulsory ban on live animal exports from Britain, as well as meat and dairy products from the area affected by the outbreak.

It is estimated that a three-month ban on lamb and beef exports alone would cost Britain more than £70 million.

The effects of the new crisis are already being felt up and down the country. Agricultural shows in Northumberland and Cumbria have been cancelled, while there will be no livestock at shows in Norfolk, Shropshire and Lancashire.

In Bedfordshire, Woburn Abbey’s deer park and safari park were shut yesterday, while Whipsnade Zoo closed its drive-through section. The strain of the disease infecting the Surrey farm is thought to be a relatively mild version, less virulent than the pan-Asian strain that swept the country in 2001.

The Government has imp-osed a 1.9-mile (three-kilometre) “protection zone” following confirmation on Friday of infection at the farm in Elstead, near Guildford, and a 6.2-mile (10-kilometre) “surveillance zone”. A nationwide ban on the movement of all cattle, sheep and pigs is in force.

More than 60 cattle belonging to Roger Pride, a farmer and butcher, were slaughtered and taken away for incineration. The animals were being fattened for organic beef.

Animals in fields surrounding the affected farm may now be vaccinated against the disease under a policy introduced after 2001. Production of the vaccine cannot begin until the strain has been identified.

Gordon Brown, who broke off his holiday in Dorset to take charge of the crisis, said the authorities were doing “everything in our power” to contain the disease. The Prime Minister, who chaired a second meeting of Cobra, the Government’s emergency committee, said yesterday he hoped investigators would identify the source of the disease “with hours and days”.

Mr Brown spoke to David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, who also broke off his holiday.

More than 5,000 strains of infectious foot and mouth are held in a reference “library” by the Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright and samples from all over the globe are sent there for analysis. It provides confirmation of outbreaks for the United Nations.

Merial UK is a pharmaceuticals company jointly owned by drugs giants Merck and -Sanofi-Aventis and, at Pirbright, it researches vaccines against foot and mouth. It has been attempting to create harmless versions of the virus that can be used in vaccines.

The Pirbright facility, which has about 100 members of staff, is a high-security site, holding samples of the most dangerous animal diseases known, including swine fever, sheep pox and bluetongue.

Professor Hugh Pennington, an expert on infectious diseases, said it would be “extremely concerning” if Pirbright were the source of the outbreak. He said: “If there has been some kind of escape then we will have to look very carefully at how we keep viruses locked up.”

Dr John Anderson, the acting head of the institute, said there was no suggestion that the latest outbreak had been caused by an accidental virus release from his laboratories.

ABS CBN | Jul 18, 2007

The Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) on Tuesday ordered the pullout of four Chinese products from the market after testing positive for formalin.

Ramos said BFAD tests discovered that the four products contained formaldehyde or formalin.

He also advised consumers of the products to call BFAD’s hotline 842-5606 to report if they are feeling sick after eating any of the products.

Ramos clarified that BFAD has no police powers to force the distributors to pull out the products from the market. He said letters will be sent to distributors advising them that the products can only be sold if they are proven safe.

BFAD clarified that it is not singling out products imported from China. It said that it is only protecting the Filipino consumers from harmful products.

Meanwhile, Bulacan Rep. Reylinda Nicolas urged the government to cancel import permits of companies that will continue to distribute unsafe Chinese products.

“The reports cited that grapes, biscuits and the soft White Rabbit candy from China were found containing formaldehyde. Something must be done by our government to protect the people against tainted foods from China,” Nicolas said.

Nicolas said importers of these products and their local agents should be monitored strictly. He said the government should order the immediate closure of companies importing tainted goods from China.

BFAD imposed new rules for the distribution of imported food products in the country after receiving reports of unsafe Chinese food products.

China’s safety standards have come under sharp international criticism amid regular reports of fake, shoddy or dangerous goods emanating from the nation’s chaotic and corrupt food and drug industry.

Reports in the United States of tainted pet foods, dangerous toys, drugs, fish, cosmetics and other products from China have led to a spate of recalls and bans there.

Chinese officials have blamed foreign media for exaggerating the issue but have also admitted there is a serious problem with food hygiene and safety standards in the nation of 1.3 billion people.

Toxic seafood, virus-plagued pigs and chemical-laden toothpaste are just some of the problems to have hit headlines around the world in recent months.

China this week executed the former head of its food and drug safety watchdog for corruption, in what was widely seen as an attempt by the government to show it is serious about the problem.

“The consumer is being made the guinea pig.”

Certain types of the particles can cause inflammatory and immune system responses in animals as an example of possible dangers.

Reuters | Jul 25, 2007

The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday said the rising number of cosmetics, drugs and other products made using nanotechnology do not require special regulations or labeling.

The recommendations come as the agency looks at the oversight of products that employ the design and use of particles as small as one-billionth of a meter. There are fears by consumer groups and others that these tiny particles are unpredictable, could be toxic and therefore have unforeseen health impacts.

A task force within the FDA concluded that although nano-sized materials may have completely different properties than their bigger counterparts, there is no evidence that they pose any major safety risks at this time.

“We believe we do not have scientific evidence about nano-sized materials posing safety questions that merit being mentioned on the label,” said Dr. Randall Lutter, FDA’s associate commissioner for policy and planning, during a briefing with reporters.

As least 300 consumer products, including sunscreen, toothpaste and shampoo are now made using nanotechnology, according to a Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars report.

The technology is also being used in medicine, where scientists are developing tiny sensors that detect disease markers in the body, and in the food industry, which is using it to extend shelf life in food packaging.

The FDA now treats products made with nanotechnology the same way it handles all products–requiring companies to prove safety and efficacy before their product can come to market.

But some product categories, such as cosmetics, foods and dietary supplements are not subject to FDA oversight before they are sold, which already worries some advocates. Producing them with nanotechnology adds another layer of concern.

The International Center for Technology Assessment, a nonprofit policy group that is suing the FDA calling for more oversight over the technology, said the recommendations lack teeth.

“Nano means more than just tiny. It means these materials can be fundamentally different, exhibiting chemical and physical properties that are drastically different,” said George Kimbrell, staff attorney at the group. “The consumer is being made the guinea pig.”

The group sites studies showing certain types of the particles can cause inflammatory and immune system responses in animals as an example of possible dangers.

The FDA said it will soon issue guidance documents for industries using nanotechnology, which include pharmaceutical companies, medical device makers and consumer products firms.

Lutter said the task force concluded that nanotechnology is not substantially different from earlier emerging technologies such as biotechnology or irradiation.

Green Left | Jul 14, 2007

by Annolies Truman

Recent attacks on the organic food industry are about discrediting it to soften up the public to accept genetically modified (GM) crops, Dr Maggie Lilith of the Conservation Council of WA and the Say No to GMO campaign told Green Left Weekly.

“The spate of recent claims that organic food is riskier and linked to health scares seems to have come from proponents of GM and those with a vested interest”, said Lilith, who is also a member of the Fremantle Organic Growers Association. “The claims about the safety of organic foods are unfounded and aim to spread misinformation to the public.”

On April 12, a syndicated piece by Bettina Arndt entitled “Organic myths pose real risks to health” appeared in newspapers across Australia. The article is a savage attack on the organic food industry and consumers who choose its products.

“The organic food industry is booming with ever more people deluded into thinking that paying two or three times more for organic food products will provide them with healthier, safer food”, stated Arndt.

In an attempt to portray organics as backward and unscientific, Arndt quotes British Lord Dick Taverne as saying, “What is most worrying about the whole organic product movement is the underlying notion that scientific progress is inevitably bad and we are all better off reverting to primitive, ‘natural’ ways of doing things.”

Lilith disputes this unscientific claim. “Organic systems rely on modern scientific understanding of ecology and soil science as well as traditional methods of crop rotations to ensure fertility and weed and pest control”, she said.

“Moreover, organic production aims to be sustainable and reduce dependence on non-renewable resources. The soil is not depleted as under conventional agribusiness practices. Organic produce is not covered in toxic chemicals as no pesticides or artificial chemicals are used. Animals are not treated with synthetic growth hormones or drugs.”

Arndt also quotes Taverne glorifying GM crops: “If people were really worried about the effects of pesticides in farming on wildlife or human health, they should promote pest-resistant GM crops, which reduce pesticide use … The solid scientific support for the safety and efficiency of GM crops means nothing to blinkered souls who trust instincts over science.”

Janet Grogan, a leading activist with the Say No to GMO campaign, described Arndt’s article as “a thinly veiled pro-GM rant against organic foods”.

“It was misinformed and biased. Arndt cites two cases to prove the dangers of eating organic foods, neither actually linked to organically-derived produce.”

“What’s more, her list of experts comes from pro-GM groups. Lord Taverne is the chairman of the pro-GM lobby group the Association of Sense in Science. His book was lambasted in the Guardian newspaper as … mingling myth with fact.”

A month later, on May 16, an article appeared in the West Australian, promoting the idea of growing GM cotton in the Ord River district of northern WA and attacking organic growers.

A key GM scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, claimed opponents of the scheme were largely “self-serving organic farmers and ill-informed environmental activists”. Peacock was instrumental in developing GM cotton while working at the CSIRO. Some 100 hectare trials of GM cotton along the Ord have already been approved by the WA government.

Lilith is scathing about Peacock’s criticism. “It’s the pro-GM groups who are self-serving, interested only in making profits at the expense of farmers and community health. Moreover, GM cotton should be considered a Trojan horse as it leaves the door open for other unwanted GM crops.”

Another attack on organics followed soon after. The May 22 edition of the Bulletin contained an exclusive titled “The Truth About Organic Food”. Two large photos of shopping baskets graphically illustrate the expense of organic food over conventional.

Lilith contests the claim that organic food is expensive, saying, “A lot of supermarket pre-packaged food costs far more than organic staples. The typical household spends far more on junk food, or alcohol, or take-aways than on fruit and vegetables.”

“The Bulletin article also ignores the nutritional benefits of organic produce”, Lilith told GLW.

“Scientific evidence shows that fresh organic produce is more nutritious than non-organic food, containing higher nutrient levels, more vitamins, minerals, cancer-fighting antioxidants and enzymes.”

But the Bulletin article does concede “consumption of organics is growing at 25% to 44% per year, outstripping the rise in organic food production at 6% to 15% … in 2000, there were 7.6 million hectares under organic management, with a value of $19m. By 2006, that had grown to 12.3 million hectares valued at $400 million.”

According to Annie Kavanagh, president of the Organic Growers Association WA, suppliers are finding it difficult to keep up with the demand from consumers.

Across Australia, in addition to the 12.3 million hectares under organic cultivation, a further 1.1 million hectares land is being prepared for organic certification. In 2006, there were 176 listed organic processors and producers in WA, compared to 58 in 2002. This shows a 300% increase in four years, which reflects the increasing demand for organic produce.

Perhaps this trend explains why the GM lobby is so keen to demolish the credibility of organic agriculture.

GMO crop contamination of the general environment, agricultural areas and food supplies is one of the biggest crimes being committed in the world by Big Agribiz like Monsanto and BASF, yet the media largely ignores it. GMO’s constitute one of the worst potential hazards to both health and the environment, while people have been brainwashed into believing that natural climate change is the biggest problem. So most of their attention is placed on running around telling people to accept global  government, change their lightbulbs and cut back on their lifestyles, instead of grappling with the real issues. I’ll say no more because most people are just too dumbed-down to grasp what is happening to them.

PW

EurActiv | Jul 17, 2007

Following a Council of Ministers stalemate, the Commission has announced that it will approve a genetically modified potato for use in industrial processes and livestock feed. NGOs have reacted critically, arguing that the safety of the new crop cannot be assured.

Approving genetically modified organisms (GMOs) involves a request for authorisation by a producer. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is then mandated to conduct a scientific assessment and to report to the Commission, which then submits its decision on the matter to the Council.

In the event that the Council cannot reach a majority for or against authorisation, as was the case on 16 July 2007, the matter is handed back to the Commission, which is free to authorise the GMO based on a special regulatory procedureexternal .

Both the special regulatory procedure and the role of EFSA have been the subject of criticism (EurActiv 05/12/05 and 10/03/06), and the Commission has decided to introduce practical changes to EFSA’s GMO-approval process (EurActiv 12/04/06).
Issues:

The EU has approved GMOs only on a handful of occasions, and a de-facto approval moratorium for approving new GMO crops has been in place since 1998, largely in response to NGO pressure and public concern about the potential health risks of GMOs.

* BASF’s potato

The potato in question is a blue variety that is used primarily for industrial starch production. Developed by German chemicals giant BASF, the potato is intended for use in the production of glossy magazine covers, for example.

In April 2004, BASF requested authorisation of the potato, and the Commission published a favorable decision in December 2006, following a scientific assessment by EFSA, which concluded that cultivation of the potato did not pose any “relevant” health risks.

* Antibiotic resistance

In addition to starch enhancing genes, the potato contains antibiotic-resistant marker genes (ARMGs).

Public health watchdogs and environmental NGOs are concerned that ARMGs might be transferred from plants to bacteria, thus rendering bacteria resistant to antibiotics and undermining the effectiveness of antibiotics for treating certain infections in humans.

Another concern is that if parts of the potato, such as skins and other non-starch parts, are also used to feed livestock (as requested by BASF), then the GMO would ultimately enter the food chain on a more widespread basis.

Positions:

BASF intends to begin commercial cultivation of the potato in 2008, and is confident that the product presents no health risks. “EFSA has repeatedly stated that [it] is for humans, animals and the environment as safe as any conventional potato,” the company stated.

Commission spokesperson Barbara Helferich assured journalists in Brussels on 16 July that the Commission is making “120% sure that this product is absolutely safe”. “We will approve the potato,” she said.

Greenpeace is calling for “an urgent review of EFSA’s role in the authorisation of GMO’s”, arguing that the food safety body’s authorisation process is flawed and, in this case, ignores a 2001 directiveexternal  that mandates the phasing-out of antibiotic resistant marker genes by 2004.

Friends of the Earth Europe is sceptical: “The risk of contaminating future crops is ignored. As they grow underground, it is virtually impossible to harvest all potatoes from a crop. Potatoes therefore grow back the following years and future crops could be contaminated with the genetically modified variant.”

GMO crop contamination of the general environment, agricultural areas and food supplies is one of the biggest crimes being committed in the world by Big Agribiz like Monsanto and BASF, yet the media largely ignores it. GMO’s constitute one of the worst potential hazards to both health and the environment, while people have been brainwashed into believing that natural warming of the earth is the biggest problem and so most of their attention is placed on that hoax instead of the real issues. I’ll say no more.

PW

EUbusiness | Jul 16, 2007

Friends of the Earth Europe has welcomed EU member states’ rejection of the latest application to grow GMOs in Europe, as the EU Agriculture Council today failed to approve the commercial growing of a genetically modified potato. There have now been no new GMOs grown in the EU for ten years.

Helen Holder, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said: “Too few EU member states support growing genetically modified crops, and now yet another has been refused authorisation. National governments recognised the safety risks of growing this GM potato, as they have with previous applications. Now the decision is in the hands of the European Commission and we urge it to reject it too.”

Today’s vote was on an application to grow the genetically modified potato for use in industrial processes like making paper. The producer - German chemicals giant BASF - has also applied for approval to use the same potato in food and animal feed and acknowledges that contamination of the food chain is possible.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave the GM potato the green light, but has been criticized for overlooking several important health and environmental risks:

* Antibiotic resistance marker gene: the potato contains a gene which can convey resistance to antibiotics. Under EU law, genes of this kind should have been phased out by the end of 2004. EFSA acknowledges that the cultivation of this potato could lead to antibiotic resistance, yet argued that this did not pose a “relevant” risk to human health or to the environment.

* The risk assessment, required under EU law, fails to fulfil legal requirements. Basic information on the health and environmental safety of the GM potato is missing; in particular there is only an analysis of effects of surrounding wildlife on the potato, rather than looking at the impact of the GM potato on the environment.

* Effects on health have not been sufficiently investigated. A number of irregularities, ncluding toxicological differences that could have serious implications for food safety, have imply not been probed either by BASF or by EFSA

* BASF admits that food contamination is likely: the potato has been genetically modified by he chemical giant BASF to increase its amylopectin content, which is used to produce starch. lthough it is not intended to enter the food chain, BASF have issued a separate application or use in human food and animal feed, stating that “it cannot be excluded that amylopectin otato.. may be used as or may be present in food”.

* The risk of contaminating future crops is ignored. As they grow underground, it is virtually impossible to harvest all potatoes from a crop. Potatoes therefore grow back the following years and future crops could be contaminated with the genetically modified variant.

“No new GMOs have been grown in the European Union for 10 years now and research show that GMOs actually stimulate the economy less than green farming measures. It is time to accept that there is simply no market for genetically modified crops.”

“The big GMO companies claim that using genetically modified potatoes in industrial processes is an environmentally-friendly option, but this is absurd considering the associated health and environmental risks,” Ms Holder added.

CNN | Jul 12, 2007

Steamed buns sold in Beijing contain 60 percent cardboard, a report on China Central Television said.

BEIJING, China (AP) — Chopped cardboard, softened with an industrial chemical and flavored with fatty pork and powdered seasoning, is a main ingredient in batches of steamed buns sold in one Beijing neighborhood, state television said.

The report, aired late Wednesday on China Central Television, highlights the country’s problems with food safety despite government efforts to improve the situation.

Countless small, often illegally run operations exist across China and make money cutting corners by using inexpensive ingredients or unsavory substitutes. They are almost impossible to regulate.

State TV’s undercover investigation features the shirtless, shorts-clad maker of the buns, called baozi, explaining the contents of the product sold in Beijing’s sprawling Chaoyang district.

Baozi are a common snack in China, with an outer skin made from wheat or rice flour and a filling of sliced pork. Cooked by steaming in immense bamboo baskets, they are similar to but usually much bigger than the dumplings found on dim sum menus familiar to many Americans.

The hidden camera follows the man, whose face is not shown, into a ramshackle building where steamers are filled with the fluffy white buns, traditionally stuffed with minced pork.

The surroundings are filthy, with water puddles and piles of old furniture and cardboard on the ground.

“What’s in the recipe?” the reporter asks. “Six to four,” the man says.

“You mean 60 percent cardboard? What is the other 40 percent?” asks the reporter. “Fatty meat,” the man replies.

The bun maker and his assistants then give a demonstration on how the product is made.

Squares of cardboard picked from the ground are first soaked to a pulp in a plastic basin of caustic soda — a chemical base commonly used in manufacturing paper and soap — then chopped into tiny morsels with a cleaver. Fatty pork and powdered seasoning are stirred in.

Soon, steaming servings of the buns appear on the screen. The reporter takes a bite.

“This baozi filling is kind of tough. Not much taste,” he says. “Can other people taste the difference?”

“Most people can’t. It fools the average person,” the maker says. “I don’t eat them myself.”

The police eventually showed up and shut down the operation.

London Times | Jul 5, 2007

by Valerie Elliott

Organic fruit and vegetables may be better for the heart and general health than eating conventionally grown crops, new research has found.

A ten-year study comparing organic tomatoes with standard produce found that they had almost double the quantity of antioxidants called flavonoids which help to prevent high blood pressure and thus reduce the likelihood of heart disease and strokes.

Alyson Mitchell, a food chemist, who led the research at the University of California, believes that flavonoids can also help to stave off some forms of cancer and dementia.

She found that levels of quercetin and kaempferol, both flavonoids, were on average 79 and 97 per cent higher, respectively, in organic tomatoes. Her findings are due to be published in full in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

Dr Mitchell said that previously it had been hard to make comparisons between organic and conventionally grown produce because of difficulties in comparing soil quality, irrigation practices and the handling of harvested produce. But for this study researchers used data from a long-term project in which standardised farming techniques were used to reveal trends in crop productivity.

The team believes that the different levels of flavonoids in tomatoes are due to the absence of fertilisers in organic farming.

Plants produce flavonoids as a defence mechanism; they are triggered by nutrient deficiency. Feeding a plant with too many nutrients, such as inorganic nitrogen commonly found in conventional fertiliser, curbs the development of flavonoids. The lower levels of flavonoids in conventional tomatoes were caused by “over-fertilisation”, the research team concluded.

The Soil Association is now pressing the Food Standards Agency to review its guidance on the merits of organic as opposed to conventional fruit and vegetables. Peter Melchett, its policy director, said that there was now a rapidly growing body of evidence which showed significant differences between the nutritional composition of organic and nonorganic food.

Recent research in Europe found that organic tomatoes contained more vitamin C, B-carotene and flavonoids than conventionally grown tomatoes. Organic peaches and organic apple purée were also found to have more antioxidants. Lord Krebs, the former chairman of the Food Standards Agency and now Master of Jesus College, Oxford, said that even if such benefits existed, higher flavonoid levels did not make organic food healthier. “This depends on the relevance of the differences to the human body,” he said. “Tomato ketchup has higher levels of lycopene [a strong antioxidant] than either organic or conventional tomatoes. So if you wanted lots of lycopene you should eat tomato ketchup.”

The Food Standards Agency, however, has commissioned a three-year study into the benefits of flavonoids. It said: “There is accumulating evidence that dietary flavonoids. . . may in large part explain the cardiovascular disease benefits of increased fruit and vegetable intake.”