Scientists: scrutinize biofoods
Associated Press, July 28, 2004 (USA)

Federal regulators should look more closely at the potential health effects of some GM plants before they can be grown as commercial crops, a scientific advisory panel said. It also said regulators should check for potential food safety problems after people eat the products. The report by a committee of the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine said regulators should target tighter scrutiny at GE varieties that have greater levels of biological differences from current plants. The analyses also should look more closely at conventionally developed plants if there are indications that naturally occurring chemicals in [those] plants could have unintended health effects. The report said that biotech plants would probably have greater risk. The report also said the government should develop better ways to see if GM foods cause health problems. Among these could be systems to trace foods with greatly altered levels of those compounds through the food supply, and to check populations to see if there are health problems among people who eat the foods. The report, done for the US Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, said that genetic engineering of food crops, although relatively new, appears to be a safe technology and there is no evidence it has harmed health.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/082004/01.html

5-year deal with Novartis hurt UC Berkeley
Sacramento Bee, August 1, 2004 (USA)

A $25 million, five-year research deal between plant biologists at University of California, Berkeley and the biotechnology company Novartis was a costly experiment that should not be repeated, a report concluded. The reviewers, from Michigan State University's Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards, found that damage done to the University of California's premier research campus, from campus infighting to a tarnished reputation, simply wasn't worth the money.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/082004/02.html

Europeans balk at biotech beer
CBSNews, July 8, 2004 (Denmark)

Brew master Kenth Persson hopes to profit from the notoriety his biotech brew (produced with the usual hops and barley - and a touch of GE corn) is generating, while biotech companies hope it can gently sway consumers as European regulators slowly reopen the continent to genetically altered foods. [He] won't say how many bottles have been sold since the beer was unveiled earlier this year in Denmark and Sweden. A study conducted earlier this year showed that GM foods topped the list of concerns about manufactured food that Finns have. The beer was created because Monsanto felt the biotech debate "never rose further than the inner circle of scientists, politicians and (nongovernment organizations)," said Mattias Zetterstrand, a Monsanto spokesman. Zetterstrand wouldn't say how much the biotech consortium contributed to the project. The other companies involved in the project are Bayer CropScience, DuPont, Plant Science Sweden, Svaloef Weibull and Syngenta.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/082004/03.html

Biotech chicken firm TranXenoGen fails to fly
Reuters, July 28, 2004 (USA)

TranXenoGen Inc, a biotechnology firm attempting to produce drugs in the eggs of genetically modified chickens, threw in the towel on Wednesday by announcing plans to sell off its main assets. The small company, which is based in the United States but listed in London, said it had failed in attempts to raise fresh funds over the last six months. As a result, TranXenoGen will slash the workforce to just three people, who will try to license or sell its technology. Several biotech groups are working on ways to produce antibodies and other complex protein drugs in milk, eggs or farm crops. But the concept has proved hard to commercialise.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/082004/04.html

GM food crops not allowed until 2006
Canberra Times, July 2, 2004 (Australia)

Genetically modified food crops will not be permitted for commercial release into the environment in the ACT until mid-2006, under laws passed in the Legislative Assembly. The Government's Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill imposes a three-year moratorium on the environmental release of GM crops, but has provisions to allow scientific research to continue.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/082004/05.html

BASF threatens to relocate GE activities to US
Agence France Presse, July 12, 2004 (EU)

Juergen Hambrecht, chairman of German chemicals giant BASF said that the company is mulling moving its genetic research activities to the United States in view of European scepticism towards genetically modified foods although there were currently no concrete plans for such a move as yet, adding, "If you can't push through innovations into the market, the next step is to relocate research and development. We have to make money and not only spend it. ... There is no innovation without risk. No risk means no growth, no future, no fun."
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/082004/06.html

French vintners declare war on GM grapes
Canadian Press, July 9, 2004 (France)

Earth and Wine of the World, which comprises nearly 400 French winegrowers, is worried about a government research project to tinker with grape genes. The National Institute of Agricultural Research plans to replant a batch of genetically modified vines they were forced to pull out five years ago. They are looking for ways to make vulnerable grapes more resistant to disease. "It is of utmost importance that the future of our profession is not determined solely under the influence of scientists, industrialists and technocrats," the group said after meeting to come up with a plan of attack. "In France, the consumers of wine are rather traditional, and many are against GMOs," Colleu said. "Many professionals feel that this could hurt the image of their brands."
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/082004/07.html

Biotech's dismal bottom line: $40 billion loss
Wall Street Journal, May 20, 2004 (USA)

Since the first biotechnology company went public a quarter-century ago, stock-market investors have put somewhere close to $100 billion into the industry. The results so far: More than a hundred new drugs and vaccines, several hundred million people helped by biotech medicines - and cumulative net losses of more than $40 billion for the industry's public companies. Not only has the biotech industry yielded negative financial returns for decades, it generally digs its hole deeper every year. A few biotechnology companies have achieved undeniable success. Amgen, the most successful to date, earned $2.3 billion in net profit last year. Its nearest rival, Genentech Inc., earned $563 million. Overall, however, publicly traded biotech companies in the US posted a net loss of $3.2 billion in 2003, thanks to vast research and development spending [which] now consumes roughly $18 billion a year, more than the federal National Institutes of Health spends on heart disease, cancer and infectious disease, and close to two-thirds of the pharmaceutical industry's research spending. Like the dot-coms during the late 1990s, the vast majority of biotechs have neither profits nor meaningful revenue and no guarantee they'll ever have either.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/082004/08.html

Syngenta to end GM crop research in Britain
Planet Ark, July 5, 2004 (UK)

Syngenta will close its genetically modified crop research operation in Britain, with the loss of 130 jobs, and move the work to the United States, where the business climate is more favourable, the Swiss chemicals giant said. The firm's move is a blow for UK academic research, given Syngenta's sponsorship of much university work, said Michael Wilson, a professor of plant biology at Warwick University.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/082004/09.html

Intellectual property rights and the public good
The Scientist, Volume 18, Issue 14|8, July 19, 2004

The twin goals of encouraging innovation and promoting access to inventions require a balancing act between the scope of protection and limits on proprietary rights. The market power inherent in intellectual property may restrict access by poorer consumers. One example is "golden rice," which is enhanced for beta carotene. It provides hope for alleviating the severe vitamin A deficiency that causes blindness in a half-million children every year. Extensive patenting has hampered delivery of this rice to those in need; forty organizations hold 72 patents on the technology underlying its production. Six companies hold 75 percent of all agricultural patents. Such concentration exacerbates the challenge of delivering agricultural inventions to the neediest segments of the world's population.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/082004/10.html