Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Monsanto Co. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (1257)	2/20/1999 10:40:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

Summit under way on the dangers of genetic engineering Saturday, February 20 1999 The Detroit News By Joseph B. Verrengia / AP Science Writer Prospecting, piracy, private eyes -- the buzzwords negotiators are using at an international summit this week suggest intrigue and danger. Even the meeting's backdrop -- the exotic old Caribbean pirate port of Cartagena, Colombia -adds to the atmosphere. But instead of weapons or precious metals, experts from 174 nations are debating how to regulate trade in gene-engineered potatoes, cotton, grains and trees. The U.N.-backed summit represents the first global attempt to reduce the risks that laboratory-designed species might pose to public health and the environment. For 20 years, biotech companies have been genetically manipulating plants and animals to make them more attractive -- redder, juicer tomatoes, for example -- speed their growth or make them more resistant to disease. These new combinations could increase the food supply and reduce the need for hazardous farm chemicals. But opponents fear the unintended consequences of messing with nature. For example, scientists added commercially valuable traits from the brazil nut to a strain of soybeans but ended up making the soybeans risky for people with nut allergies. Another fear is that genes inserted in crops to give them certain favorable traits -resistance to herbicides, for example -- might jump to surrounding wild plants. Some weeds have already become impervious to weedkillers in this way. These plants, animals and microbes are commercial products as much as they are life forms, and the rights are tightly held by a small and shrinking group of multinational companies. Policing these rights is also on the agenda at the conference, which was convened to negotiate what is being called the Biosafety Protocol. "We're experiencing a big shift into a biotech century," said Jeremy Rifkin, who is president of the Washington-based Foundation on Economic Trends and wants a moratorium on the commercial use of genetically engineered organisms. "We need to be asking a whole different set of regulatory, environmental and liability questions. It's going to affect everybody." Biotech industry leaders contend their products are already subject to stringent safety standards. Agribusiness giant Monsanto says its 60 genetically engineered crops have been the subject of 25,000 field trials in 45 nations. More regulation would "massively disrupt all international trade in biological materials," said Val Giddings of the Biotechnology Industrial Organization. The United States is taking part in the summit but cannot vote on the protocol because the Senate has not ratified the U.N.-sponsored biodiversity agreement negotiated in Rio de Janiero in 1992. The biosafety debate has gotten little attention in the United States, even though it exports 80 percent of the world's bioengineered materials. Europe, however, has seen protests calling for a ban on the sale of "Frankenstein foods," at least until their risks can be determined. "There is a huge domain of scientific uncertainty about the impact of these things," said Ian Taylor, scientific adviser for the environmental group Greenpeace in England. A 68-year-old toxicologist in Scotland, Arpad Pusztai, has become a cause celebre in the biosafety debate. He added insect-resistant genes and proteins to potatoes and fed them to rats. The animals suffered damaged immune systems, growth problems and shrunken brains, he said. It was thought to be the first time that trials of genetically modified food showed harmful effects. However, his employer, the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, described the findings as "muddled" and "misleading" and refused in August to renew his contract. Other scientists have come to his defense. Even supporters of genetic engineering say more testing is necessary, especially when food is involved. "Genetically manipulated organisms are part of the solution of raising food production in the world," said Maarten Chrispeels of the University of California at San Diego. "It is a good idea if there are uniform practices and all countries subscribe to minimum standards for testing and release." Reaching a consensus before Tuesday, the last scheduled day of the summit, may prove difficult. As of Friday, negotiators from the developed world led by the United States had succeeded in watering-down a draft text to exclude food crops and most other commodities -- such as jeans made from genetically engineered cotton -- from the list of regulated organisms. Other issues in the debate include: -- Labeling: Consumer and environmental groups want genetically altered foods and other products to carry labels explaining their scientific histories. Many biotech companies and grocers are opposed. -- Permits: Some nations want to establish export permits for each biologically altered product. The Clinton administration wants to require permits only for those products that might cause environmental harm. -- Prospecting and Piracy: Corporations employ researchers to "hunt" down genes in biologically rich countries and commercialize them. The host nations want to earn royalties on the genes. -- Private eyes: Monsanto has been sending private investigators to make sure farmers are not violating agreements that bar them from saving gene-engineered seeds and using them in a later growing season. Copyright 1999, The Detroit News detnews.com