News archiveThe latest news | July-September 1999 | Before July 1999 Oct 1 to end of Nov 1999The news are ordered chronologically, the latest on top. [Added: 29/11 1999]US farmers begin to turn away from GE seedsSales of GE seed, first released in 1996, rapidly increased to rech $1 billion in spring 1999. Biotech companies expected a doubling to $2 billion next year. These expectations now appear unrealistic. Instead, a considerable decrease is expected. The reason is that farmers have become aware of the increasing world-wide resistance against GE foods.In Nebraska about 50% of the cropland was used for GE crops. But a recent survey by the University of Nebraska's Center for Rural Community Revitalization and Development found that only 36% favored using genetically modified seeds. Some seed dealers expect sales of GE seeds to decrease 20% or more.
They are worried about a possible shortage of non GE seed.
(Source: "Midwest Farmers Lose Faith They Had in Biotech Crops" [Added: 27/11 1999] Free soya seeds offered in UK to promote hardy non-GE soyaFree soya bean seeds are offered to farmers in UK by United Oilseeds. The purpose is to test natural cold weather hardy varietes under UK conditions. "Potentially, soya beans have a great future in the UK, especially as there is a rapidly increasing demand for GM-free protein," said John Manners, sales director of United Oilseeds Market-ing Ltd. "It is also a low input crop with an expected gross margin similar to spring oilseed rape. We will also be offering a full buy-back contract for the produce," he said. (Source: Farming News 26 November 1999) [End] [Added: 27/11 1999] Vitamin enriched GE staple foods may cause more costs than benefits
Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, a national expert on safety issues at the US Environmental Protection Agency has recently commented, "...the costs, hazards and practicalities of genetically engineering a staple crop in developing countries to contain a powerful drug should be compared with the cost and ease of simply identifying deficient individuals and supplying them with Vitamin supplements, or of ensuring that the poor have access to a more nutritious diet.". An example is the A-vitamin enriched GE rice being developed at Tuskegee University. An important hazard in this connection is that the difference is small (10 times) between the dose of vitamin A required to prevent deficiencies and the dose that may be toxic. In addition, fetuses are espcecially sensitive to the toxic effect and may develop birth defects. As GE plants are notoriouosly unstable, there is a risk that plants may produce considerably higher levels of the vitamin than intended, thereby intoxicating people. (Source: Norfolk Genetic Information Network (NGIN) 26 Nov 1999) Full text. [End] CommentA strong objection to approval of present GE crops has been that they are of little if any value to mankind. The vitamin-enrichment projects are one of the strategies of biotech companies to improve their image. However, to artifically enhance the concentrations of a hazardous vitamin in a staple food is apparently highly dubious. In the case of vitamin A it is unneccessary as there are abundant sources of vitamin A precursors in many vegetables. And if there are regions where there is too little supply in the food, it would be much safer to supply the population with the vitamin in tablets. In addition to the immediate risks of vitamin A intoxication comes the potential risk of unexpected appearance of other hazardous substances that may be difficult to detect. It is especially important that GE staple foods are tested very carefully for food safety. Otherwise an undetected harmful substance might damage the health of hundreds of millions of people. This requires long term testing on humans and animals which costs billions of dollars. No biotech companies have so far been prepared to do so. Until they change their policy so as to satisfy scientifically highly justified testing requirements, no approval of GE foods are acceptable however nutritious they are. In addition, potential environmental hazards of GE crops are very difficult to evaluate and require very careful and expensive long term studies. As long as biotech companies don't agree to finance such studies, no release of GE crops are scientifically acceptable. The ecological complications of vitamin-enriched GE crops are especially problematic when staple foods are released into regions where there are natural relatives. If so, the vitamin-enriching genes may, through pollen and dropped seeds, become widely spread to wild relatives outside the crop fields. For example, what might the effects be on birds and animals feeding on plants holding abnormally high vitamin A concentrations? In addition, wild relatives that so far have been of great value as sources for new breeds may become genetically polluted by disseminated transgenes. This pollution may be very extensive as staple foods are grown in very large quantities. Finally, there are reasons to believe that the use of genetically engineered staple foods may cause important socioeconomic complications in the Third World leading to increased poverty. If so, an increased part of the population will not be able to afford the vitamin enriched GE crops. Thereby the very point with nutritional enhancement of this kind would be more than offset. [End] [Added: 21/11 1999] Scientists warn for the virus genes inserted into most GE cropsThe Cauliflower Mosaic Viral promotor (CaMV)" gene has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or create new viruses in all species to which it is transferred. The development of cancer is another potential consequence. This hazardous virus gene is found in practically all current transgenic crops released commercially or undergoing field trials. The scientists behind the research "strongly recommend that all transgenic crops containing CaMV 35S or similar promoters should be immediately withdrawn from commercial production or open field trials. All products derived from such crops containing transgenic DNA should also be immediately withdrawn from sale and from use for human consumption or animal feed". Full text press release here. [ML] Pre-publication full text here. [AL] [End] [Added: 19/11 1999] Monsanto's GE soya beans split open in hot weatherUS scientists have reported Monsanto's herbicide-resistant soya beans, split open in hot weather causing crop losses of up to 40 per cent.According to Bill Vencill of the University of Georgia in Athens this phenomenon was reported by farmers in periods with hot weather. He was able to reproduce the phenomenon under strict laboratory conditions, comparing with conventional strains of soya bean. "We saw lower heights, yields and weights in the Monsanto beans," says Vencill. Even worse was that the stems of almost all the GE soy plants split open compared to with 50 to 70% of conventional plants. This exposes the plants to infections. Vencill suspects that the phenomenon is caused by metabolic changes induced by the inserted genes that make the plants more brittle. (Source: New Scientist, 20 November 1999) [End] [Added: 19/11 1999] Koreans reject GE-soybean cakes"Tubu" are traditional Korean bean paste cakes that are very popular. On Nov. 9, the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM), the nation's major state-funded consumer group with 60,000 members, collected dozens of the "tubu" brands, tested them and found that 82 percent were made from genetically-modified beans. When it became know that, "tubu" was genetically engineered, sales plummeted by 40 to 80 percent at some 630 tubu makers nationwide. (Source: Ahn Mi-Young SEOUL, Nov. 12) CommentThe biotech industry has been trying to create the impression that non-acceptance of GE foods is mainly an European "attitude" problem. But now increasing numbers of reports of resistance against GE foods have been coming from important Asian nations as a/o India, Japan, Thailand and Korea. And China is considering GE labeling, indicating an increasing awareness about potential problems. In Latin America there is also a growing resistance, lead by Brazil with a moratorium on GE food and crop releases (see Brazil moratorium)and Uruguay having a governmental Bio-Safety commision recommending that the nation should be declared GE free (see 24/09 1999). [End][Added: 19/11 1999] Japanese food companies switching to GE freeMajor food and beverage companies in Japan have begun implementing bans on GE soybean and corn ingredients in their products. A division of Honda Motor Company announced they were building a soy-handling plant in Ohio to supply the sharply rising demand for non-GE soybeans in Japan. Pioneer-Hybrid Japan has similarly announced a major business venture to import non-GE soybeans from the US. Japan is the largest importer of food products and animal feeds in the world. (Source: Ronnie Cummins, Director Campaign for Food Safety/Organic Consumers Association. Email: alliance@mr.net). Full text here. As a consequence of the high demand for GE free products, Japanese have been bying GE free corn and soybeans at premiums roughly 40-50 percent higher than those for unsegregated crops. (Source: Reuters nov 2 1999) [End] [Added: 17/11 1999] Scientists and environmentalists call for suspension of release of all genetically engineered organismsWashington, D.C.: Citing major deficiencies in the governmentīs regulatory system, a coalition of american environmentalists and scientists issued a document today calling for the suspension of all further releases of genetically engineered organisms. The Declaration cites the failure of governmental agencies to review the long-term prospects for environmental and human harm stemming from genetically engineered organisms. It states in part " those altering the genetic integrity of natural species bear the burden of proving their interventions will not jeopardize fundamental human values which include respect for life and protecting ecosystems." In light of revelations that unlabeled grocery shelf items contain new, genetically modified ingredients, the signatories demand an effective regulatory system to assure the publicīs access to safe food. Full text press release here. [End] [Added: 15/11 1999] Some addition has been made to the comment of "Chinese legislator proposes GE labeling", click here. [End][Added: 15/11 1999] US Lawmakers call for GE labelingLawmakers of the United States introduced on 11th Novemver a bill calling for labelng foods that contain "bioengineered ingredients". (Source: Reuters 11 Nov 1999). To CNN article "Lawmakers seek special labeling for genetically engineered food" [End] [Added: 14/11 1999] Chinese legislator proposes GE labeling"Whether imported or domestically produced, GM food should be regulated before it is put into the market and on people's dinner tables", said Wang Tao, a member of the executive committee of the Chinese legislature's according to Xinhua News Agency (the official governmental news organ). "Since the question of whether the GM food is safe or harmful to human health remains controversial in the world, we should strengthen management of the product through law ...Legislation should be a prevention measure" according to Wang. Wang suggested that food stores selling GE foods should be registered and all GE foods should be labeled. (Source: AP World News via NewsEdge Corporation 6 Nov 1999) CommentThis comes as bad news for Canada, as China imports 1/3 of its Canola (1.3 million tonnes in 1999). Canada does not segregate the Canola, out of which more than 50% is genetically engineered. Canola is a major Canadian export crop.If Canada continues with GE canola, Australia, the third largest canola exporter in the world, may outcompete Canada in important markets. This is because Australia has recently decided to export only non-GE canola (see news report from 01/11 1999). The culturing of Canola has increased greaty in Australia since the beginning of this decade. Canadian farmers are concerned, now delaying their desicions whether to choose GE or non-GE canola for next year (source: The Western Producer November 11, 1999). [End] [Added: 14/11 1999] 49 Members of the US Congress Send Letter to FDA Demanding Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered FoodsExcerpt: "We (therefore) believe the current FDA policy regarding
genetically engineered or modified foods is flawed. Without labeling
and ensuring the right-to-know, consumers' interests are not adequately
protected." CommentAlready in September US government signalled plans for labeling of GE foods (see 25/09 1999). This letter may be an indication that the government needs some pressure to implement its signalled intentions. This initiative is further reinforced by a broad coaliton of U.S. NGO:s demanding labeling, including: Consumers Union, Friends of the Earth, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Mothers and Others for a Livable Planet, National Family Farm Coalition, The Natural Law Party, Organic Consumers Association, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, PIRG, Women's Cancer Research Center. [End][Added: 12/11 1999] Italy blocks GM cropsItalian Farm Minister Paolo De Castron blocked three genetically modified (GM) crops - maize, soya and chicory - that had completed testing and were ready to proceed to field planting. For the moment, since Nov. 5, De Castro has also halted all new GM testing programs. He said he wanted responsibility for the schemes to be shared by regional governments before giving the go-ahead. (Source: Xinhua via NewsEdge Corporation: ROME Nov. 5) [End]
[Added: 12/11 1999] 200 Health Canada Scientists critical to erosion of food safetyOver two hundred Health Canada scientists recently sent a letter to Alan Rock, Canada's Minister of Health, saying they are very concerned about the erosion of safety standards at Health Canada, which is risking the health of Canadians. The rapid approval of hormones and other drugs for use in food-producing animals, and genetically modified foods for humans, without extensive safety testing, were examples of their concerns. Full story here. [End] [Added: 08/11 1999] Industry misleading the press on research results concerning Bt corn and monarch butterfliesArticles stating that "Bt corn poses little risk to monarchs" recently appeared in the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, St Louis Post Dispatch, and other papers. They allegedly reported the conclusions of a scientist meeting on Nov 2 1999 in Rosemount, Illinois, on Bt corn and monarchs. However a NY Times reporter, Carol Yoon, discovered that most of the articles were written before the meeting was even held! They were based on a press release sent out by the industry. In reality the scientists did not reach any consensus that the Bt corn posed little risk for monarchs. (Source: Becky Goldburg, staff scientist at Environmental Defense Fund's New York City office. Nov 04 1999) Full story here [End] [Added: 08/11 1999] 3 year moratorium on commercial crop releases in UKAccording to Michael Meacher, the environment minister of UK, there will be a moratorium for at least 3 years on the release of commercial GE crops. Meanwhile, a panel of independent scientists will assess whether trial plantings may damage biodiversity in the English countryside. This is the result of an agreement with the GM industry, as a response to warnings from the government's official advisers, English Nature, and the environment lobby. (Source: The Guardian, UK 6th Nov 99)
CommentThe British government has been holding on to a policy to allow commercial planting without investigation of the environmental effects. But now that even some of its own official advisors have admitted that the demands of the environmentalist lobby are justified, it has been forced to yield. Release without previous investigation is blind experimentation that may cause irreversible damage as released genes cannot be recalled. It is remarkable that Britain's government has been holding on to such a risky policy, especially as the crops in question don't represent any significant value to mankind (see "The GE-foods developed so far are of no significant value for mankind"). [End] [Added: 02/11 1999] American farmers protesting against GE foodsThe National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), with members in 33 states in the U.S. has launched a nine-point petition drive titled "Farmers' Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture." In the Declaration the farmers: "Demand a suspension of sales, environmental releases and further government approvals of all genetically engineered seeds and agriculture products until an independent and comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, health and economic impacts of those products is concluded." "Demand that corporate agribusiness be held liable for any and all damages that result from the use of genetically engineered crops and livestock that were approved for use without an adequate assessment of the risks posed to farmers, human health and the environment." For the full text, including additional demands, go to "Family farmers Declaration" [End] [Added: 02/11 1999]GM Foods can be tested in a reliable way
Recently claims were made in a wire service story that DNA tests cannot identify all GM foods and that DNA testing does not yield exact, quantifiable results. These claims have recently beem refuted by Dr John Fagan, a former NIH molecular biologist and the founder of commercial methods for testing foods for presence of genetically engineered DNA. "The accuracy and reliability of DNA testing is not a matter of opinion, but of scientific fact. As a method for quantifying GM foods, it was validated by a European Union ring trial in 1997" said dr Fagan. Fagan continued: "A good GM lab can test for all GM crops, can give quantitative results down to 0.01% GM contamination, and can find GM in any crop even if it doesn't know which GM to look for". (Source: Genetic ID Press release 24 October 1999) CommentIn 1996, industry sources maintained that no tests could identify GM foods. Therefore, U.S. government told governments around the world that no tests were possible. Labeling would be meaningless as it could not be ascertained that a food really was GM free. Dr Fagan was however able to develop reliable DNA tests (using the ultrasensitive so called PCR technique) that could identify extremely small traces of GM DNA in crops and food products. Fagan's method is used by the lab "Genetic ID". Other labs have either licenced Fagan's system or developed similar methods. With valid testing methods available, it became meaningful to establish labeling regulations. The mentioned "wire service story" denying the reliablity of such testing, is apparently an attempt by the industry to spread disinformation in order to discourage and confuse the increasing number of governments all over the world now preparing for, or already implementing labeling regulations. Labeling is likely to contribute importantly to a collapse of the GE food market. [End] [Added: 01/11 1999] Thailand risks billion dollar losses due to GE food export problemsImporters in various countries are expected to start to reject Thai food products as some contain GE ingredients. For example, because EU importers will not accept GE soy oil in canned tuna, the exporters have been forced to switch to sunflower oil. Farm sprawns is another product that Thai may be threatened if GE feeds is used. The export volumes at stake for these products is in the order of billion US dollars. The government is now taking rapid action to save the situation.(Source: Daily Herald, 27/10/99)
CommentNow that major contributors to world food trade like Thailand and Australia abandon GE crops as a response to major markets refusing to buy it, it seems more and more likely that our prediction will come true that the international GE food market will collapse even before a global moratorium is agreed upon. This process is further reinforced by the rapid withdrawal of investor money from this field. The question is no more whether the market will collapse completely but when it will do so. [End][Added: 01/11 1999] Australian food exporters avoid GE foodsAustralia's agricultural export industry expects consumer resistance to GE products. Therefore, recently it decided to make many export products GE-free, including sugar, wheat, barley and canola. Australia, with its USD 14.3 billion export volume is a major contributor to the world's food market. (Source: Reuters October 18,1999). [End]
[Added: 01/11 1999] GM free feed cannot meet rising demand in UKIn the UK there is a greater demand for GE free animal feed than what the international market can provide, according to National Farmers Union of England and Wales (NFU). As a response to consumer pressure, retailers are now demanding suppliers to guarantee that they obtain GE freed feed, which includes soy and corn and their by-products. These account for about 20 percent of the raw materials used by feed producers in UK. Most of them have been imported from North America. (Source: The Farmer's Guardian Oct 15th 99)
CommentThis is a golden opportunity for UK and other European farmers to start growing GE free soy. As reported here earlier, hardy non-GE varietes have been developed (see 24/09 1999: "GE soy production hits back on US agriculture"). These varietes also have a better profitability than many other crops and it is easy to switch to them, as they are technically easy to culture, not demanding significant investments in special equipment. So the interest to switch to this crop is considerable. The U.S. soy farmers, who so far were the major soy exporters in the world, will now experience rapidly growing competition from the increasing numbers of European farmers switching to non-GE soy.[End] [Added: 01/11 1999] Monsanto under pressure to abandon GE businessWall street analysts and investors are exerting an intense pressure on Monsanto to get rid of its agricultural hemical (biotechnology) division. Monsanto's share price has plummeted as shareholders have become aware of GE problems. The company's biotehnology division is currently considered worthless by the stock market according to Robert Koort, an industry market analyst at Deutsche Bank. Getting rid of the biotech division is believed to be the best way to raise the company's share value. Stock analysts at Paine Webber and JP Morgan (leading stock investment companies) believe that this might increase the stock price at least by 30%. According to Donald Carson, an industry analyst at JP Morgan, Monsanto has started to discuss restructuring, including a break-up, at a board meeting in September. Analysts believe a decision about it could come before the end of the year. (Source: Guardian UK. Jane Martinson October 22, 1999 and Reuters, New York Oct 21 1999).
CommentMonsanto is the third large biotech company experiencing such difficulties due to the GE venture that drastic changes have been made or considered. See also news from 16/09 1999. [End][Added: 29/10 1999] European Union declares food safety as its prime objectiveEU Commission President Romano Prodi statement on food safety with reference to a coming WTO conference:"Whatever trade negotiations the EU may enter into, I want to stress that our priority is and will remain the protection of consumers' health. There is no possibility of the Community being party to international agreements where we believe this would jeopardise our citizens' health. Let me also stress that EU food policy must have food safety as its prime objective and should be at the service of consumers and their health. Should any conflict arise between consumers' health and producers' interests, health must take precedence." (Speech to a plenary session of the European Parliament, 5 Oct 1999)
CommentThe European Commisson has formerly in practice favoured industrial interests on the expense of consumer safety in GE food issues by accepting the pseudoscientific principle of "Substantial Eqiuvalence" as a key criterion for food safety assessment (for an explanation of its weaknesses, see "Substantial equivalence versus scientific food safety assessment). The new commission that recently was inaugurated, has apparently taken great impression of the strong consumer reactions all over Europe to the liberal GE food policy of the former commission.This statement indicates an important change in the food policy of the union. If applied strictly it should mean that no GE foods can be approved on the basis of substantial equivalence. This would mean that, differently from now, each GE food would have to be subjected to billion dollar food safety testing programs taking several years. [End] [Added: 21/10 1999] Incresing GE resistance in AfricaA group of nations, led by Ethiopia, is drafting a legislation that would make it illegal to export GE foods or crops to their countries without prior country approval. This prior consent law would force GE exporters to carry out human safety, environmental, and socioeconomic studies. (Source: Nature magazine August 5). In early August the government of South Africa, announced through its departments of Agriculture and Health, that it is moving toward compulsory labeling of GE foods. [End] [Added: 21/10 1999]Thailand will ban GE seedsAccording to Deputy Prime Minister Supachai Panitchpakdi, Thailand will ban the imports of GE seeds until there is clear scientific proof that they are safe. The ban was decided at a meeting of the government's International Economic Relations Policy Committee. It decided to ban all import of GE organisms for food, but allowed their use in research. Grains like soy and corn will be allowed for animal feed but not for human food or cultivation. Thailand is the number one exporter of rice in the world. It is also an important exporter of other agricultural products. (Source: The Associated Press Oct. 18, 1999)
CommentThis decision is especially important as Minister Supachai Panitchpakdi will be heading the World Trade Organization (WTO) for three years. WTO has so far had a liberal attitude to GE foods. It seems reasonable to expect that, under Supachai's leadership, a more restrictive policy will be applied.It will take several years and cost billions of dollars to obtain "clear scientific proof" of the environmental and health safety of GE organisms, see Article about the deficiencies of present knowledge about GE foods. Because of this, the biotech industry has been lobbying hard to evade this requirement and was temporarily successful only because the regulatory system was dysfunctional (see "Safety issues"). Now the situation begins apparently to normalize and our prediction of July 12 1999 (found near bottom of this page), of a world-wide moratorium appears more and more likely to to come true. [End] The future for GM crops in America is suddenly looking less certainAccording to a recent BBC report, the international market for genetically-modified crops is collapsing. Recently the two largest breweries in Japan and Mexicos largest tortilla maker joined the rapidly growing list of food manufacturers and declaring that they are GE free. In the BBC report, Tim Galvin of the US Department of Agriculture, says: "GM stocks are now expected to fetch less than conventional food stocks". Earlier this year, the farmers expected a 25% increse of GE crops, now a 25% decrease is expected. "Many (farmers) are going to be going back to conventional crops out of the uncertainty ...whether they will go through the risk and expense of planting a crop and then not having it marketable next harvest," he said. Joe Mendleson from the Centre for Food Safety believes you cannot have international consumers being given information about what foods contian GE ingredients and not Americans. "I have no doubt that the crisis and the issue that is embroiling Europe right now is going to spread to the United States. I think it's already here," he said to BBC. In just a short period, the future for GM crops has become far less
certain concludes the BBC report. [Added: 08/10 1999] Antitrust lawsuit against GE seed companiesAn anti-trust suit against the big agri-chemical companies producing GE seeds is planned in the US. It will be the biggest antitrust suit ever brought, with the possible exception of that against Microsoft. It was intiated by Jeremy Rifkin at the Foundation on Economic Trends, in cooperation with multiple grass-root and farmer organizations Asia, Europe, North America and Latin America. They claim that large biotechnology companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Pioneer Hi-Bred, and Novartis are exploiting bio-technology unfairly and in such a way that they gain control of global agricultural markets. Ten companies now own 30 per cent of the $23bn annual commercial seed trade, according to recent estimates, and five of those - Monsanto, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Aventis and DuPont - control virtually all GM crops. "By the early part of the next century, less than a handful of corporations will possess control over the entire agricultural foundation for every society. You can see the potential for market abuse and manipulation," said lawyer Mr Hausfeld of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll, that has taken on the case. (Source: Financial Times 13 Sept 99) [End] [Added: 04/10 1999]Monsanto investing in waterMonsanto, the world's largest seed and chemicals company has spotted a new business opportunity--water. Monsanto estimates that providing safe water is a several billion dollar market. According to Mr Robert Farley of Monsanto "what you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain. Since water is as central to food production as seed is, and without water life is not possible, Monsanto is now trying to establish its control over water. During 1999, Monsanto plans to establish a new water business, starting with India and Mexico, since both these countries are facing water shortages." Monsanto has also started to buy itself into the aquaculture industry, an area of activity which has shown itself to be catastrophic for the environment and for the livelyhoods of fishermen and ricegrowers in the Far East. Pressure is being put on the Indian government to reverse a Supreme Court order banning industrial shrimp farming because of its damaging consequences. (Source: Article by Vandana Shiva in The Ecologist 29:5 August/September 1999)
Comment The explicit endeavor of Monsanto to establish extensive control over the food chain is creating increasing worry and protests in the Third World. One of the most active protestors is the writer of the quoted article, Dr Vandana Shiva in India, who leads a Nation-wide "Monsanto Quit India Campaign" with the participation of over 1000 grassroots organizations. Fears have been expressed that this is a new strategy of the United States government (through its close ally, Monsanto) to achieve political control over countries. Such fears may result in backlashes causing similar or even greater problems for Monsanto as the reactions against GE food. In the GE food case, Monsanto greatly underestimated the vigilance of consumers. In the water case, they may have underestimated the reactions that their "power over food" strategy may evoke in the Third World. - Especially as it appears to be part of a strategy to force the already controversial Food Biotechnology on them. [End]
The latest news | July-September 1999 | Before July 1999 For a news overview article containing most of the news and additional information, go to "Problems and Obstacles in Food Biotechnology" If you want to learn more about genetic engineering, we suggest you
start with: Do you want to inform friends about this page? You can comfortably do so at our website announcer page. We want to thank Ronnie Cummins, editor of Foodbytes, and Richard Wolfson, editor of GE News Reports and Mark Griffiths, editor of "Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?", for valuable information used in this document.
"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems" News Introductory articles Health hazards Environmental hazards Global issues Safety issues Alternatives to GE FAQ About us What You can do Membership E-mail How to sponsor us |