These trials should be confined in greenhouses, not outdoors.--Tom -----Original Message----- From: Laurel Hopwood <[log in to unmask]> To: CONS-SPST-BIOTECH-FORUM <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Mon, Sep 8, 2014 6:35 am Subject: Investigation: GMO experiments receive questionable oversight Excellent investigative piece about"pharm" crops and government oversight. http://m.sfgate.com/science/article/GMO-experiments-receive-questionable-oversight-5740478.php GMO experiments receive questionableoversight 9/7/2014 (edited) At a secret location among the vineyards of California's CentralCoast, a plot of genetically engineered corn is producing proteins forindustrial and pharmaceutical uses, including an experimental vaccinefor hepatitis B. The altered corn is growing with federal approval 100 feet from asteelhead stream in San Luis Obispo County, in designated criticalhabitat for the threatened California red-legged frog. Agriculture Department inspectors havereported two "incidents" at the site, including conventionalcorn sprouting in a 50-foot fallow zone, but the findings did not riseto the level of a fine or even to a formal notice of noncompliance forthe company that planted it, Applied Biotechnology InstituteInc. Details of Applied Biotechnology'sinspections and hundreds of other field trials with GM plants wereobtained by Hearst Newspapers under Freedom of Information laws. Theinspection reports and other Agriculture Department records present apicture of vast, swiftly expanding outdoor experimentation andindustry-friendly oversight of those experiments. The founder and president of AppliedBiotechnology, John Howard, previously founded another company thatwas permanently banned from trials of GMOs after creating suchcontaminated messes in the Midwest that a half-million bushels ofsoybeans and more than 150 acres of corn had to bedestroyed. The outdoor tests are at the leading edgeof a technological revolution based on reordering the building blocksof life. The advent of GMOs has spawned global debate and protest overissues of consumer safety and the uncertain effects of altered geneson the environment. Among the findings of a Hearst Newspapersinvestigation: -- Minimal penalties. The Agriculture Department issued just two civilpenalties for field trials since 2010 despite sending out nearly 200notices of noncompliance - incidents from paperwork violations to lostseeds to modified plants sprouting where they shouldn't. -- Monsanto mistakes. The Missouri biotech giant received at least 35notices of noncompliance from 2010 through 2013, more than any othercompany. In 2010, the company paid a civil penalty for accidentallyginning experimental cotton in Texas two years earlier, an error thatled to unapproved cottonseed meal and hulls being consumed by Texaslivestock and exported to Mexico for animal feed. Monsanto blamedhuman error. -- Natural perils. Dozens of times, heavy rains washed out orotherwise damaged test plots, raising the specter of unwanteddispersal of GMOs. Animals pose other threats. Birds, insects andlarger animals don't distinguish between gene-altered crops andconventional varieties. APHIS says it has approved nearly 20,000field-trial permits, covering an estimated 100,000 plantings ofgene-altered crops. Once GMO crops become commercialized, nogovernment agency tracks them. That underscores the importance ofmonitoring field trials, particularly with crops like alfalfa andcanola, and grasses with sexually compatible wildrelatives. Monsanto, which reported $14 billion inrevenue last year, says it has conducted roughly 26,000 field trialsin the U.S. since 1990. As the company observes on its website,"We do experience occasional deviations from internal and APHISstandards." APHIS' handling of field trials has drawncriticism from scientists and from other federal agencies. In 2008,the Government Accountability Office, citing "controversy andfinancial harm" from a half-dozen unauthorized releases,recommended more robust monitoring of field trials. In May, APHIS granted AppliedBiotechnology's request for a confined release of geneticallyengineered corn designed to produce 22 pharmaceutical and industrialmolecules. The government is allowing the company to keep some of themconfidential. As for the steelhead trout, APHISacknowledged "potential for a small amount of geneticallyengineered pollen to drift into the stream" but concluded thatbecause of the minimal exposure and lack of toxicity, it would have noeffect. Applied Biotechnology Institute set up ProdiGene and Howard carriedthe title of chief scientific officer. In 2002, the USDA disclosed that cornplants from ProdiGene's field test a year earlier in Nebraska weresprouting in a field of soybeans planted at the site. In 2004, the USDA found that oats growingalongside one of the company's test corn sites in Nebraska had beenbaled for animal feed. In addition, engineered corn was sprouting in anearby sorghum field. In 2007, ProdiGene received a modest$3,500 fine and agreed that neither it nor "its successors ininterest" would ever again apply to the USDA for permission tointroduce GMOs into the environment. Despite his claim that he left hisexecutive position with the company in 2002, Howard remained adirector of ProdiGene until 2007, according to the Texas secretary ofstate's records. Howard still owns "lots of shares" in thecompany, he said. APHIS skirted the question of whether theCalifornia company's GMO releases should be allowed given the 2007agreement, responding that it has issued permits to AppliedBiotechnology Institute "for a variety of genetically engineeredorganisms, including products developed byProdiGene." But Greg Jaffe, a lawyer with the Centerfor Science in the Public Interest, a Washington, D.C., advocacygroup, suggests that the agreement has been "technically violatedgiven that Applied Biotechnology Institute is selling ProdiGene's mainproduct and ProdiGene personnel are doing the same thing in the newcompany." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-BIOTECH-FORUM list, send any message to:[log in to unmask] out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp