Raw milk advocates fight for right to sell

Organic dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger, like many other Wisconsin farmers, has fought with state officials over the right to sell raw milk from his Sauk County farm. Health officials are worried unsuspecting citizens could be exposed to bacteria-causing diseases if a bill is passed legalizing its sale. State Journal archives

Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism | Jun 29, 2011

by NATASHA ANDERSON, STEVE HORN, SARAH KARON and RORY LINNANE

Carrying a cooler of raw milk, Wisconsin vegetable farmer Brian Wickert climbed the steps of the state Capitol on a sunny April day. He was a man on a mission: to lobby for legislative support for a bill to legalize sales of unpasteurized milk.

“It’s real simple,” Wickert, a member of the Wisconsin Raw Milk Association, said in a later interview. “We want the right to choose the food we eat. Why does the government care whether I want to go and drink raw milk?”

For Wickert, the bill is about the freedom to live without interference from the government. But for health officials in America’s Dairyland, it’s about potentially exposing unsuspecting citizens to disease-causing bacteria.

The issue took on increased urgency this month after bacteria in raw milk from an unnamed farm sickened at least 16 fourth-graders and family members at a Racine County event, resulting in one hospitalization. The June 3 after-school party was designed to celebrate Wisconsin food.

“I got very, very sick,” said Melissa Werner, 40, who drank raw milk with her son Nathan, 10. Both later suffered from nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and high fever. Werner was ill for two weeks and lost 12 pounds.

Cheryl Mazmanian, a health officer with the Western Racine County Health Department, said while the incident in Racine County illustrates the dangers of raw milk, it violated no state laws.

“It’s not illegal to drink raw milk, it’s not illegal to give it to people, but it is illegal to sell it,” Mazmanian said.

Its own black market

Wisconsin is one of 11 states that prohibit regular sales of raw milk, according to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, a pro-raw milk group.

Raw milk can contain disease-causing bacteria the pasteurization process is designed to kill. Wisconsin law allows “incidental” sales of raw milk products to farm employees or visitors.

Some people ignore the law, creating a type of black market in which consumers and farmers keep their transactions quiet to avoid the scrutiny of regulators, who in recent years have begun to crack down on raw milk sales.

One of the customers is Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, a co-sponsor of the bill introduced in May that would legalize raw milk sales. He gets milk from different farms but will not specify which ones — a common response. “People don’t want to answer those questions because it jeopardizes your farmer. It’s a screwy system,” Wickert says.

The measure co-sponsored by Grothman and Rep. Don Pridemore, R-Hartford, would allow farmers to sell raw milk directly to consumers. Pridemore said he’s open to adding testing requirements to the bill, which it currently lacks.

But Dr. Jim Kazmierczak, state public health veterinarian, warns even daily testing cannot detect all contamination. Cows can shed bacteria intermittently, he said, so a negative test in the morning does not guarantee milk collected from the same cow in the afternoon is safe.

Last year, a similar bill with more safeguards was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. At the time, Doyle cited safety concerns about unpasteurized milk, which some consumers drink for its taste and perceived health benefits.

Like many of the roughly 15 farmers and consumers who went with Wickert to lobby, Grothman and Pridemore drink raw milk regularly. “I don’t consider it risky behavior,” Grothman says.

Public health officials disagree. In 2010, raw milk products caused 28 disease outbreaks in the United States that sickened 159 people, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In Wisconsin, raw milk has caused seven disease outbreaks since 1998, including the incident in Racine County, state health officials say, sickening at least 277 people and hospitalizing 28.

Legislative options

A spokesman for Republican Gov. Scott Walker says he would support legislation allowing the limited sale of raw milk directly from farmers, provided sufficient safety provisions are in place.

The raw milk bill introduced in May leaves out many regulations recommended in a 261-page report by the Raw Milk Policy Working Group, which was composed of 22 Wisconsin dairy experts with a variety of opinions on raw milk. The group’s report calls for detailed regulations on storage, testing and sales of raw milk if they are legalized.

Under the 2011 bill, farmers would be required to post signs indicating they sell unpasteurized milk products, but they would not have to place warning labels on raw milk products, as the previous bill required.

Farmers who milk fewer than 20 cows would not need a license or grade A dairy permit to sell raw milk.

The current bill also would allow farmers to advertise their raw milk products.

Scott Rankin, chairman of the department of food science at UW-Madison and member of the working group, said the latest bill is not based on science.

“It just omits so much of all the concerns around how you handle any food, let alone raw milk,” Rankin says.

Grothman said it will be up to consumers to find trustworthy suppliers.

Vince Hundt, an organic farmer and member of the working group, said he supports the current bill without most of the group’s suggestions.

“A consumer can walk to the store and buy a quart of gin or a carton of cigarettes,” Hundt says, “but you can’t buy a gallon of milk from a farmer.”

GMO Frankenfood II? Despite US Judge Ruling, USDA Deregulates Monsanto Roundup-Ready Crops

ukprogressive.co.uk | Jun 28, 2011

by Theodora Filis

Deregulation by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) means Roundup-Ready crops can now be grown commercially, endangering non-GMO alfalfa and sugar beet crops by transgenic contamination through the increased use of herbicides.

Under the Bush administration, the USDA approved Roundup-Ready sugar beet crops, produced and sold by Monsanto, without preparing a standard Environmental Impact Statement. Then, in January of 2008, the Center for Food Safety, along with several other organizations including the Organic Seed Alliance and the Sierra Club, filed a suit against the US government, insisting the USDA prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on Roundup-Ready Sugar Beets. The lawsuit asked the government to halt the production of the modified beets until further information regarding the crop’s safety was released.

In addition to citing obvious concerns regarding the safety of GM alfalfa and sugar beet crops, the suit points out that GM alfalfa and sugar beets have been contaminating nearby conventionally and organically grown plants. Despite a Federal Judge’s ruling the USDA deregulated GM alfalfa and sugar beet crops in the US.

Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready crops have been genetically engineered to permit direct, over the top, application of the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate, allowing farmers to drench both their crops and crop land with the herbicide to kill nearby weeds (and any other green thing the herbicide touches) without killing the crops. Roundup-Ready soybeans are heavily herbicide dependent because the Roundup-Ready System (RRS) is primarily a no till system.

Rather than the traditional tilling of the ground to control weeds the RRS relies on its herbicide to control them. No-till cropping systems are the most demanding with regards to weed control. The crop is seeded directly into un-tilled soil with no follow-up cultivation, therefore weed control depends entirely on herbicides.

In fact, the Roundup Ready System was specifically designed to require the exclusive use of Monsanto’s herbicide – currently in use in over 250 million GM acres worldwide.

A recent review by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open-source collaboration to advance sustainable food production, suggests that industry regulators in Europe have known for years that glyphosate, originally introduced by Monsanto in 1976, causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the agricultural market used approx.180-185 million pounds of glyphosate between 2006 and 2007, and non-agricultural markets used approx. 8-11 million pounds between 2005 and 2007, according to the 2006-2007 Pesticide Industry Sales & Usage Report, published in February of 2011.

David Ehrenfield, Professor of Biology at Rutgers University said, “Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers”. “In the United States, the widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005″.

GMOs effect the sustainability of our planet. The production of herbicides, insecticides and synthetic fertilizers that go along with growing GMO crops requires a huge amount of energy. And this energy requires the burning of precious fuels that are rapidly being depleted.

Farm chemicals may also be largely responsible for the decimation of honey bees, deformed fish and frogs, and may prove to endanger more species as time goes forward – including humans.

In an interview with the True Food Foundation, Dr. David Suzuki, Canadian geneticist said, anyone who claims genetically engineered food is perfectly safe is “either unbelievably stupid, or deliberately lying,” adding: “The reality is, we don’t know. The experiments simply haven’t been done, and now we have become the guinea pigs…. I am most definitely not in favor of release of GMOs in the food stream and given that it’s too late, I favor complete labeling of GMO products.”

Researchers: GM cotton seeds a threat to Indian farmers

inewsone.com | Jun 27, 2011

Dharwad (Karnataka), June 27 (IANS) Leading agricultural research institutions Monday warned that extensive use of genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds was destroying farming bio-diversity and jeopardising the livelihood of over four million cotton growers in India.

‘Indian farmers grow 90 percent of hirsutum (species of cotton), of which 90 percent is GM cotton. Desi cotton will only survive if yields and fibre quality will improve and the maturity period reduced,’ said a joint statement by Karnataka’s University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad, company bioRe India Ltd. and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Switzerland.

The statement cautioned farmers and other stake-holders that the supply shortage in organic cotton seeds will even effect the global organic cotton market, as India was the world’s largest producer of organic cotton.

‘The global market for organic cotton is threatened by erosion of conventional varieties by GM cotton,’ the statement said, adding that the voracious use of GM seeds amplified the risk of physical and genetic contamination of organic cotton with GM cotton.

The institutions also urged the government to implement policy changes in the sector to promote organic cotton seeds.

‘The provision for the safeguard of organic farmer from contamination of GM crop has to be included in the seed act,’ said the statement, suggesting that a board for organic cotton with financial and implementation powers be formed.

Scientists reject human experiments with genetically modified wheat

GM food products had been shown to be prone to having multiple effects, including damaging the health of animals

SMH | Jun 27, 2011

by Belinda Tasker

A group of prominent scientists and researchers from around the world has urged Australia not to go ahead with human trials of genetically modified (GM) wheat.

The CSIRO is carrying out a study of feeding GM wheat grown in the ACT to rats and pigs and could extend the trial to humans.

The modified wheat has been altered to lower its glycaemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose control and lowering cholesterol levels.

Related

Genetic Modification Gone Wild: 10 Signs That Our World May Be Destined To Resemble A Really Bad Science Fiction Movie

But eight scientists and academics from Britain, the US, India, Argentina and Australia believe not enough studies have been done on the effects of GM wheat on animals to warrant human trials.

The CSIRO has dismissed their concerns, insisting no decision has been made on if or when human trials will begin.

In a letter to the CSIRO’s chief executive Megan Clark, the scientists expressed their “unequivocal denunciation” of the experiments.

“The use of human subjects for these GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable,” the letter said.

“The experiments may be used to dispense with concerns about the health impacts of consuming GM plants, but will not in fact address the health risks GM plants raise.

“The feeding trials should not be conducted until long-term impact assessments have been undertaken and appropriate information released to enable the scientific community to determine the value of such research, as against the risks.”

Among the signatories were Dr Michael Antoniou, of the gene expression and therapy group at King’s College London School of Medicine, and Professor David Schubert, from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California.

The scientists said they were concerned that the CSIRO had inadequately described the biological and biochemical make-up of the GM wheat being used in the trials.

They said that, based on previous research, GM food products had been shown to be prone to having multiple effects, including damaging the health of animals which had eaten them.

They believed the CSRIO’s animal feeding trials of up to 28 days were “completely inadequate” to assess such risks.

But CSIRO spokesman Huw Morgan said animal trials of the GM wheat, which began in 2005, were still continuing.

“No decision has been made as yet to undertake human trials,” he told AAP.

“It’s still something that we are considering.”

Mr Morgan said many studies carried out in the past 15 years had shown GM foods had no detrimental impact on human health.

The CSIRO’s trials were trying to determine whether the new type of GM grain had health benefits for people with conditions such as colourectal cancer and diabetes, he said.

Greenpeace food campaigner Laura Kelly said GM experts recommended that long-term animal feeding studies of two years should be carried out before human testing to evaluate any carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural and reproductive dysfunctions.

“This is the first generation of Australian children that will be exposed to GM in food for a lifetime,” she said.

“If Julia Gillard doesn’t stand up to foreign biotech companies, soon they’ll be eating it in their sandwiches and pasta, even though it has never been proven safe to eat.”

Cows churn out “human breast milk”

“I think natural products are much better. I don’t know what might happen if my daughter consumes genetically modified things.”

Reuters | Jun 16, 2011

By Haze Fan and Maxim Duncan

BEIJING – Chinese scientists have produced a herd of genetically modified cows that make milk that could substitute for human breast milk — a possible alternative to formula in a nation rocked by tainted milk powder scandals.

Researchers at the State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology of the China Agricultural University introduced human genetic coding into the DNA of Holstein dairy cow embryos, then transferred the embryos into cow surrogates.

In 2003, after years of testing on mice, scientists managed to create the first cow that could produce milk with the same nutritional properties as human breast milk, but with a taste even stronger and sweeter.

“The genetically modified cow milk is 80 percent the same as human breast milk,” said Li Ning, a professor and the project’s director as well as lead researcher.

“Our modified cow milk contains several major properties of human milk, in particular proteins and antibodies which we believe are good for our health and able to improve our immune system.”

Over 300 cloned cattle now live on an experimental farm in suburban Beijing, with new calves delivered every week.

Li’s team, which is supported by a major Chinese biotechnology company, aims to have an affordable form of the milk on the market within three years.

Behind their efforts is a series of poisonings and toxin scandals that have shaken consumer trust in China’s dairy sector and its products.

In 2008, at least six children died and nearly 300,000 fell ill from drinking powdered milk laced with melamine, an industrial chemical added to low quality or diluted milk to fool inspectors checking for protein levels.

COMMERCIAL USE?

Before the milk can be marketed, for other people as well as babies, stricter safety tests are needed, Li said.

“In fact, we still need to conduct clinical trials on human beings with volunteers and finally prove that the cow milk is good and safe for the elderly, infants and the ill, especially those suffering from chronic diseases,” Lid added.

“Only after these steps are completed can the government examine it and approve a certificate for its commercial use.”

Despite the potential, the team’s breakthrough has drawn criticism from opponents of genetically modified food who question the safety of the milk for humans. Others worry about the impact on the cows’ health.

Greenpeace notes that China has been investing considerably in genetically modified food research in recent years, despite the lack of a credible, independent system of supervision and inspection.

It also insists that genetically modified products should not be allowed to enter the human food chain.

Chinese parents had a mixed response, with some wary but willing to give the milk a try while others were far more cautious.

“I won’t try it. Even if it’s similar to human breast milk, it’s still genetically modified,” said a woman who gave her family name as Lu, the mother of a 14-month-old girl.

“I think natural products are much better. I don’t know what might happen if my daughter consumes genetically modified things.”

Dangerous new plant disease linked to genetically engineered crops and pesticides

A US scientist is concerned GM crops and the pesticide glyphosate could be causing a dangerous plant disease.

abc.net.au | Jun 16, 2011

By Flint Duxfield from Adelaide

US scientists claim to have discovered a dangerous new plant disease linked to genetically modified crops and the pesticides used on them.

The research, which is yet to be completed, suggests the pathogen could be the cause of recent widespread crop failure and miscarriages in livestock.

Emeritus Professor Don Huber from Perdue University says his research shows that animals fed on GM corn or soybeans may suffer serious health problems due the pathogen.

“They’re finding anywhere from 20 per cent to as much as 55 per cent of those [animals] will miscarriage or spontaneously abort,” he said.

“It will kill a chicken embryo for instance in 24-48 hours.”

Professor Huber says it isn’t clear yet whether it is the GM crops or the use of the pesticide glyphosate that causes the pathogen. But he says his research shows both the pesticide and the GM crops also reduce the ability of plants to absorb nutrients from the soil that are necessary for animal health.

“If you have the [GM] gene present there is a reduced efficiency for the plant to use those nutrients.
“When you put the glyphosate out then you have an additional factor to reduce the nutrient availability to the crop,” he said.

Professor Huber’s concerns came to light in February this year after a private letter he wrote to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary, Tom Vilsack, was leaked to the media.

The letter requested the USDA halt plans to approve GM alfalfa for the US market until further research could be done into the threats posed by the pathogen.

Following the publication of Professor Huber’s letter, the company that produces the genetically modified seeds, Monsanto, released a statement rejecting his claims.

“Monsanto is not aware of any reliable studies that demonstrate Roundup Ready crops are more susceptible to certain diseases or that the application of glyphosate to Roundup Ready crops increases a plant’s susceptibility to diseases,” the statement read.

The Australian plant science industry peak body, Croplife, also dismissed Professor Huber’s concerns.

“We’ve had more than a trillion meals of GM based crops served globally with no health incidents whatsoever,” said chief executive officer, Matthew Cossey.

Mr Cossey says it is premature to be raising concerns about GM crops or glyphosate until the data is published.

“There’s a whole range of claims out there, very few end up being backed up by data.”

Following Professor Huber’s letter six scientists from Perdue University published a statement saying the suggestion that glyphosate is having a significant affect on plant health is “largely unsubstantiated”.

While the scientists say that GM soybeans and wheat are no more susceptible to soil-borne diseases than non-GM varieties, they acknowledged that Prof Huber’s concerns are not unfounded.

“Research has indicated that plants sprayed with glyphosate or other herbicides are more susceptible to many biological and physiological disorders,” the statement says.

The final outcomes of Professor Huber’s study are expected to be published later this year. In the meanwhile he says it would be appropriate to adopt a precautionary approach to the use of glyphosate and the deregulation of GM crops.

“All the red flags are standing in a row for us,” he said. “I would certainly express serious concerns with deregulation of our genetically modified crops.”

House Moves to Ban Genetically Modified Salmon

NY Times | Jun 16, 2011

By PAUL VOOSEN of Greenwire

In a potential blow to the future of the biotech industry, a handful of House lawmakers voted last night to bar the Food and Drug Administration from approving any bioengineered salmon for mass consumption.

A terse amendment (pdf) offered by Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Don Young (R-Alaska) would ban FDA from spending any funds on genetically engineered salmon approvals beginning in the next financial year. Less than a dozen lawmakers voted by voice to attach the amendment to an agriculture spending bill expected to pass the House this week.

The amendment is squarely aimed at preventing the approval of a fast-growing modified salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies. For years, FDA has considered approving the salmon for limited cultivation in inland tanks, and last fall the agency held public meetings considering the approval, drawing broad public notice. The largely sterile salmon could be the first bioengineered animal approved for human consumption.

“This sort of political gamesmanship undermines the science-based regulatory process,” said Ronald Stotish, AquaBounty’s CEO. “It is astonishing that Young and the very few representatives present during this vote — less than the number of fingers on both hands — would try to game the system in this way.”

Young has long been opposed to AquaBounty’s salmon, introducing bills last year and this year banning the fish or, if it is approved, requiring mandatory labeling of the salmon as genetically engineered. He has been joined in his fight by a small bipartisan group of Pacific Northwest lawmakers, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), among others.

In a statement, Young said he had deep concern about the salmon, which he dubbed “Frankenfish.”

“Frankenfish is uncertain and unnecessary,” Young said. “Should it receive approval as an animal drug, it clears the path to introduce it into the food supply. My amendment cuts them off before they can get that far. Any approval of genetically modified salmon could seriously threaten wild salmon populations as they grow twice as fast and require much more food.”

AquaBounty’s salmon has drawn fire from a host of environmental groups, concerned about its potential escape, and also from the salmon farming industry. Should the bioengineered salmon be approved and grown profitably in inland tanks, the fish could undermine traditional ocean-based farms and give AquaBounty a dominant position in the industry.

If FDA approves its petition, AquaBounty would grow its largely sterile salmon at inland fish farms in Canada and Panama for eventual sale in the United States. AquaBounty has proposed layers of confinement for these facilities, and its partners would need to seek FDA approval for expanded cultivation. However, these applications could come without public input and could allow a compounded environmental risk to go unexamined, environmental groups warn.

In recent months, these groups have focused their campaign against the salmon on the state level, pushing for a bill to label the fish in the California Legislature. While the state’s Assembly Health Committee approved the bill, it has not yet faced a full vote.

Meanwhile, they have also submitted a formal petition to FDA calling for a full environmental impact statement (EIS) on the fish’s potential effects, said George Leonard, director of the aquaculture program at the Ocean Conservancy.

“The only person I’ve seen that wants this fish is the company itself,” he said, adding that his group was certainly “on board” with Young’s amendment. “We’ve had troubles with FDA’s approval of this fish from the beginning.”

While there may not be a broad outcry for the salmon, that may not be solid enough grounds for banning the fish.

This is a question of science, said David Edwards, director for animal biotech at the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

“It’s unfortunate that the politics that has gotten into this,” Edwards said. “It’s really a problem that should be debated by scientific experts. And those experts are at FDA.”

Already, FDA’s experts have found the fish safe to eat, a finding echoed by many independent scientists. However, the agency has not yet issued an environmental assessment of what risks, if any, the salmon could pose to the environment.

When it rules, the agency could either call for a full EIS or approve the fish outright; either decision would then entail a month of public comment.

Debate over environmental impact

Many scientists have said that if the fast-growing fish allows salmon to be profitably grown away from the ocean, where fish farms cause heavy environmental damage through their waste and escaped charges, the AquaBounty salmon could be a theoretical win for the environment. But knowing if that theory translates into practice may require additional research confirming that the modified salmon would not thrive in wild conditions if it escaped.

AquaBounty’s salmon grow twice as fast as conventional salmon, their DNA spliced with an always-on growth hormone gene from the chinook salmon. While fast-growing, they do not ultimately grow larger than their Atlantic salmon cousins. AquaBounty will also induce sterility into its all-female populations of the fish, though the firm’s own assessments agree that these sterility controls could leave up to 5 percent of the fish sterile.

Some scientists have been critical of a provisional environmental assessment, prepared by AquaBounty and overseen by FDA, that the agency published on its website last fall. That report cited multiple proposed confinement methods — including physical isolation and a high sterility rate — to avoid a consideration of broader environmental impacts should a few fertile fish escape (Greenwire, Oct. 7, 2010).

Another sore point in the public discussion of AquaBounty’s salmon has been the possibility that the fish, like all modified crops grown in the country, could be sold on store shelves without any labeling. Since the salmon is relatively indistinguishable from conventional and farmed salmon — at least from a nutritional standpoint — FDA may not have the regulatory authority to label it, the agency has said.

The amendment’s ultimate fate is uncertain. The Senate is unlikely to approve the House spending bill unmodified, and it is unclear whether the amendment has the broad support to survive to final passage.

Genetically modified rice spreads illegally, prompting debate in China

A vendor picks up rice at her stall in a market in Beijing (AFP/File, Peter Parks)

AFP | Jun 15, 2011

By Boris Cambreleng

BEIJING — Genetically modified rice has been spreading illegally for years in China, officials have admitted, triggering a debate on a sensitive aspect of the food security plan in the world’s most populous nation.

Two strains of GM rice were approved for open-field experiments but not commercial sale in 2009. In January, the agriculture ministry said “no genetically modified cereals are being grown in China” outside the test sites.

But in April, an environment ministry official told the weekly Nanfang Zhoumo that a joint investigation by four government departments had found that “illegal GM seeds are present in several provinces because of weak management”.

The agriculture ministry did not respond to an AFP request for clarification.

According to the website for the European Union’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, European countries found foodstuffs from China containing GM rice 115 times between 2006 and May this year.

The campaign group Greenpeace says GM rice seeds have been in China since 2005, and were found at markets in Hubei, Hunan and Jiangxi provinces last year, Fang Lifeng, a Chinese agriculture specialist with the group, told AFP.

Beijing is pro-biotechnology and has already allowed several GM crops to be grown, including cotton, peppers, tomatoes and papayas, and has authorised imports of GM soya and corn for the food industry.

But rice — the key staple in the diet of the country’s more than 1.3 billion people — is a much more sensitive question.

“Two-thirds of Chinese eat rice every day,” said Tong Pingya, a highly respected agronomist who blasted Chinese scientists for “treating the people like guinea pigs” at a conference in May chaired by Vice-Premier Li Keqiang.

“China does not need this genetically modified rice, as it produces enough and even exports a bit,” Tong told AFP.

When the National People’s Congress, China’s rubber-stamp parliament, met last year, around 100 researchers wrote to deputies asking them to revoke authorisations for the use of experimental GM grains, including a strain of corn as well as the two rice types.

They also demanded a public debate and clear labelling of products containing genetically modified organisms.

Backers of GM rice argue that it is more drought-resistant, offers better yield, and — in the case of the variety containing the Bt gene — allows pesticide use to be dramatically cut.

“It should be possible to authorise commercialisation around 2012-2013, but the state will probably not allow them to be used on a wide scale” in the near future, said Ma Wenfeng, a grain market analyst with the consultancy CNagri, which has links to the agriculture ministry.

According to Ma, the new varieties represent “an advance in biotechnology” and will ultimately be accepted.

For their part, environmentalists and some Chinese scientists warn against the as-yet unknown long-term consequences of using GM rice for biodiversity and human health.

Whether using them is in farmers’ interests is an open question, according to Greenpeace’s Fang, because “GM seeds cost two to five times more than ordinary seeds” and “in terms of yield, there isn’t really a difference”.

GM rice strains developed in Chinese laboratories also raise questions about intellectual property.

The Bt gene is patented by the US agribusiness giant Monsanto, which could demand royalties and compensation from China if that variety is commercialised.

Scientists engineer mother’s-milk cow

Germán Kaiser, a scientist involved in the project, dismissed the notion that the milk produced would be a “Frankenfood” that could be bad for babies.

ft.com | Jun 12, 2011

By Jude Webber in Buenos Aires

Scientists in Argentina – a country whose status as a world agricultural powerhouse was built on the cultivation of genetically modified crops – have engineered a cow that they say will deliver the next best thing to mother’s milk.

The red-haired calf, paraded on television in a white neckerchief, was given human genes carrying two specific proteins, one of which is present in human breast milk but virtually absent in cow’s milk. The aim is to produce a highly nutritional, baby-friendly cow’s milk with enhanced iron and anti-bacterial properties, they said.

Please respect FT.com’s ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article – http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/19dea190-9536-11e0-a648-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1PCoAwD6w

The team – incorporating scientists from the Institute for Biotechnology Research, the National Institute for Agricultural Biotechnology and the National University of San Martin – then cloned the cells to achieve a genetically modified embryo that was implanted in a surrogate. The calf, named Rosa-Isa, was born in April.

Germán Kaiser, a scientist involved in the project, dismissed the notion that the milk produced would be a “Frankenfood” that could be bad for babies.

“Since the proteins are identical to those in human milk, this cannot be harmful,” he said.

What is more, the idea of tailoring milk for special needs could be repeated in other uses – such as engineering cows to produce milk fortified with insulin.

Scientists in China have also incorporated human genes into cows to make more human-like milk, but the Argentine scientists added the two genes at the same time in a single site in the bovine genome – a first, Mr Kaiser said.

Julian Domínguez, Argentina’s agriculture minister, says that the development of baby milk in cows fulfils a “significant social goal”.

Genetically engineered toxins found in foetuses

GE toxins found in foetuses, research shows

3news.co.nz | Jun 9, 2011

By Jonny Talbot

Toxins from genetically engineered foods have been found in the blood of pregnant woman and foetuses, according to new research from Canada.

Research from the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec found traces of Bt toxin Cry 1 – an insecticide genetically engineered into GE food crops such as maize and potatoes – in pregnant women’s blood.

These findings have prompted the Soil and Health Association of New Zealand, which opposes GE derivatives in food, to call for a rethink on GE derivative based foods.

Association spokesperson Steffan Browning said the Government could remedy the situation by “reassessing or withdrawing the approximately seventy GE food lines approved for use in the New Zealand food supply”.

Greenpeace Australia, GE spokesperson Laura Kelly agrees and says she is worried by the findings.

“When fed to rats, these Bt toxins damaged the test animal’s livers and kidneys. It is outrageous that we don’t know what impact this will have on their development,” she says.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) principal advisor on toxicology John Reeve says people should not be concerned by the findings.

“The research findings do not give rise to any concerns. The pesticides discussed have no effects on mammals, including humans, at levels far higher than likely to be found in food,” he says.

“The effects are only seen at extremely high doses as each of the pesticides is of very low toxicity to humans.”

Soil and Health are calling for improved labelling on foods which contain ingredients such as genetically-engineered maize.

“There are very few foods able to be correctly identified in food stores, although GE material is now in very many processed food items” says Mr Browning.

But Mr Reeve says MAF’s present labelling system – regulated by the Australian Food Standards Code – provides consumers with adequate information.

“The code already requires that foods with genetically modified material, with altered characteristics, have a statement ‘genetically modified’ in conjunction with the name of the modified material on the label,” he says.

Mr Reeve says MAF are aware of the research and there is no need to change the present regulations.