MAIL-IT REQUESTED: JANUARY 27, 2000 10580X CLIENT: PAUL LIBRARY: NEWS FILE: ALLNWS YOUR SEARCH REQUEST AT THE TIME THIS MAIL-IT WAS REQUESTED: FRANCE GENETIC ENGINEERING NUMBER OF STORIES FOUND WITH YOUR REQUEST THROUGH: LEVEL 1... 2 LEVEL 1 PRINTED DISPLAY FORMAT: FULL SEND TO: WEBSTER LIBRARY, # 1 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 7141 SHERBROOKE STREET WEST MONTREAL, QUEBEC CANADA H4B 1R6 **********************************04683********************************** PAGE 1 LEVEL 1 - 1 OF 2 STORIES Copyright 1998 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc. St. Louis Post-Dispatch June 28, 1998, Sunday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION SECTION: NEWS ANALYSIS, Pg. B1 LENGTH: 2411 words HEADLINE: FRENCH ARE WARY OF MONSANTO SUPER SEEDS BYLINE: Bill Lambrecht; Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau DATELINE: PARIS BODY: * Americans in Paris find that government and public resistance to genetically modified crops remains a roadblock to business. An hour into Europe's newest exercise in democracy, feisty Claire Falhon showed French authorities that their citizens' conference on genetic engineering might take strange twists. Falhon was one of 14 French people picked randomly to guide her gover nment's policies on one of Europe's boiling controversies: what to do about genetically modified crops and food arriving from the United States. Soon after the conference began, Falhon wagged her finger at one of the experts, a representative of St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. "You're very interested in selling your products, we know that," she lectured. "But what about getting advice from our doctors first?" Falhon, 29, works as an administrator in a suburban Paris medical clinic. Members of the French Parliament looked nervous. They'd hired a pollster to pick the 14 from a population of 60 million people and brought the group to Paris for tutoring on three occasions. They'd kept their identities secret to keep away the press and the special interests. Finally, at the opening of a three-day gathering at the French National Assembly last weekend, democracy European style was on display. "What will happen in 10 or 20 years is the fear of people," said Michel Martinet, 49, a dentist from wine country. "The problem is that you're putting genes on plots of land that can spread all over the world." Citizens conferences are a recent tool of European nations struggling to come to grips with a new technology banging at their doors. Denmark and Britain have convened citizen panels on genetically modified crops. In the United States, several news organizations sponsored variations called deliberative polls in the 1996 presidential campaign. The goal: promoting citizen participation and, it is hoped, the quality of democratic government. PAGE 2 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 28, 1998 "This is a return to democracy and you are our grand jury of experts," Jean-Yves Le Deaut, a member of the French Parliament and president of its science office, told the special citizens. Global stakes The Paris conference was more than an exercise in democracy. The outcome may influence long-overdue French government decisions that have enormous implications for U.S. businesses and farmers. In Europe, the attitude toward genetic engineering is far different than in the United States, where the public pays scant attention. Yet in just three years, the amount of U.S. land planted in modified crops has soared from none to more than 50 million acres. It's mainly in cotton, corn and soybeans with new genes that enhance the resistance to pests in crops, let them withstand more direct herbicide spraying, or both. In the 15-member European Community, transgenic plantings this year are 4,000 acres at most. Europe is important not just as a lucrative market for the United States: The rest of the world is watching to see what Europe does. Biotechnology companies won two European victories this spring: On June 7, the Swiss defeated a referendum that would have banned all genetic researc h and products. On May 12, the European Parliament approved legislation letting companies holding patents on genetic material as in the United States. But regulatory hurdles remain in Europe as its people and governments debate not just the safety but also the social implications of altering the building blocks of life. England's Prince Charles, a mainstream public figure by most standards, asserted this month that changing the genetic makeup of plants "takes mankind into realms that belong to God and to God alone." As the citizens panel convened, activists in seven French cities chained themselves to grocery carts loaded with products thought to have genetically modified ingredients from U.S.-grown crops. They wanted the products labeled or removed. In Ireland, saboteurs a week ago struck an experimental plot at Wexford, where Monsanto is growing genetically modified sugar beets, tearing out plants and causing what a Monsanto spokesman called "wanton damage." It was the vandals' second visit in a week. Now, many eyes are turned on France for more reasons than the World Cup: It's the nation blocking cultivation across Europe of several modified crops, among them a Monsanto variety of corn. More is at stake than billions in profits long-term: France's refusal on a technicality to sign a European Commission document is blocking $ 200 million worth of shipments of U.S. corn to Spain and Portugal, grain that could head down the Mississippi River tomorrow. The matter could explode any day into a full-blown trade dispute with the United States. PAGE 3 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 28, 1998 French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin said he wanted to consult his people. In France, a country rich in culture and opinion, leaders often find decisions hard to reach. As former French president Charles de Gaulle once remarked: "How can you govern a country with 300 varieties of cheese?" Day One: anti-U.S. sentiments What happens when you pick 14 people from a vast pool to digest one of society's most complicated issues? The panel was split equally between men and women from all parts of France. They ranged in age from Francois Rey, 20, a political science student from north of Marseille to Mireille Roine, 58, a retiree from France's north. Also among them were housewives, a bank clerk, an insurance inspector, an accountant, a merchant and a librarian. They got expenses but no pay for spending four weekends away from their families, France's fetching springtime and World Cup soccer matches under way in their country. During a break, farmer Georges Schirm, tells why he didn't mind: "We owe it to our Republic." When the conference resumes, Schirm challenges another Monsanto expert about controlling genetically engineered plants. The citizens have questions about the fate of new genes in the environment. Can they harm other plants? Might the gene for insect resistance being incorporated into corn destroy the effectiveness of naturally occurring pest-control organisms from which they come? Could a "marker gene" used by Monsanto and others to test whether genetic engineering was successful cause resistance to antibiotics? Are we threatening biological diversity? Daniel Rahier, a French botanist working for Monsanto, tells the panelists that studies in the United States have concluded that those risks are just about zero. Schirm shakes his head. "If you are able to convince our authorities of that, then we will have GMOs (genetically modified organisms) like the United States. And you are a powerful company." To Monsanto, its rival Novartis and pro-GMO farm groups, the deck of experts looks stacked. Pierre-Henri Gouyon, the University of Paris professor who showed up in a black leather Guns 'n Roses vest, tells the citizens that a ban on modified crops would allow French scientists to conduct their own studies. The companies breathe easier when an Marie-Jose Nicoli, a consumer advocate, says her organization wants independent research but doesn't oppose GMOs outright. But pro-GMO forces in the room are stunned when J.L. Pujol, a representative of the French Environment Ministry, asserts the risks of modified crops outnumber the benefits. "We have to slow down because we can't reverse these procedures," he says. Guy Riba, a scientist at France's national farm research agency, says he sees little risk of problems in transgenic corn and soybeans. But unexpectedly, he PAGE 4 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 28, 1998 blasts the United States for forcing modified crops on Europe. A quiet member of the citizens panel, bank employee Francine Maeght, 50, refers to American genetic engineers as "sorcerer's apprentices." The French seldom look charitably at the United States. After World War II, many French minimized the U.S. role in the emancipation of France and viewed the Marshall Plan as an effort to control them. French intellectuals in their Left Bank cafes routinely accuse American companies of trying to spoil their civilization. When Coca-Cola came to France in the 1950s, protesters took to the streets changing coca-colonization. After the first day of the discussion, Monsanto's Stephane Pasteau, a veterinarian and microbiologist in France, says: "I do not have a good feeling. It is so anti-America. So anti-Monsanto." Day Two: shifting tone It's no wonder Monsanto executives refer to business across the Atlantic these days as the "European wars." Monsanto sent five people to the conference and to gear up, the company ran full-page ads in every major French newspaper for nine straight days. The extraordinary ad campaign drew a rebuke from France's former environmental minister. On the eve of the conference, Corinne Lepage, a member of the Conservative Party, wrote in the Paris newspaper Le Monde that companies were seeking to brainwash the French by "elaborate techniques of battle." On the conference's second day, Greenpeace's Arnaud Apoteker tells the citizens that multinationals should not hold the power to control the genetic growth of the planet. But the citizens are after answers, not opinions. Georges Schirm wants to understand why companies believe they should be permitted to take out patents on genetic material. A Novartis representative replies that in democracies, protecting your invention is a fundamental right. Marc Planche, 32, the insurance inspector, asks whether developing nations stand to gain from modified crops. He's told that new farming tools can help everyone. The citizens' thinking seems to evolve as questions pour forth: - Is genetic engineering reversible in plants? (Yes and no. You can return to traditional plantings, but once a plant is altered, it's altered.) - Does heating destroy the results of genetic engineering? (No. Some amount of modified DNA likely will remain.) Jean-Yves Le Deaut, who is running the conference, adjourns in midafternoon so that the citizens can spend a few hours deciding what they think the government ought to do. Day Three: conclusions and champagne PAGE 5 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 28, 1998 Only in Paris would the government schedule a morning news conference that included tables of caviar and delectable treats with silver bowls chilling magnums of champagne. The citizens didn't work just a few hours; they met through the night, until 8:30 a.m., arguing how to fashion recommendations. Le Deaut praises them and apologizes for tense moments the preceeding days. "They have had no fear to ask questions that were a bit direct sometimes," he says. "This is just the evolution of democracy." Given their tough questions, the French citizens adopted - by European standards, anyway - a middle ground. They took turns reading their conclusions: - Health. Roine, the retiree, says the panelists saw little risk to humans but couldn't conclude that there might not be risk in the future. They want studies by scientists in no way connected with companies and citizens to be represented in government decisions. - Environment. Student Francois Rey says the citizens didn't find risks to the environment other than the "marker genes," which the panel wants banned. His words captured the panel's hopes as well as its skepticism. "In the end, if it improves the tastes and qualities of vegetables, we might be in favor," he says. - Economics. The citizens came to the important conclusion that transgenic crops may be needed to keep French farmers competitive in world markets. Insurance inspector Marc Planche, 32, says the group divided on another key point: Some wanted a moratorium on transgenic crops and food in France, some didn't. The panelists were unanimous in demanding not just clear labeling on modified food but a system of tracking that governs imported crops. - Responsibility. The panel demanded changes in French law so that companies would be responsible if transgenic crops bring damage. Monsanto's Pasteau, who had looked crestfallen two days earlier, is relaxed. He calls he conclusions "pretty balanced." Democracy assessed Amid toasts, France's first citizens conference is pronounced a success on two fronts. On the democracy front, the aim of such gatherings is promoting a better-informed citizenry. These citizens digested technical, conflicting information and achieved consensus on many points. Of course, you don't always know where democracy will lead. Falhon, who began as the firebrand of the group, in the end argued behind closed doors against a ban, she confided afterward. "At the economic level, we have to protect ourselves against competition of international companies," she said. "It's up to us to create laws to protect our consumers." Meanwhile, farmer Schirm, who spoken resolutely of the duties of citizen to government, left disgusted. "It reinforced my skepticism in matters of how political decisions are made," he said. PAGE 6 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 28, 1998 On the genetic engineering front, the citizens showed that accord, albeit nonbinding, can be found on one of the most provocative issues of this century's end. Their demands for more studies and hoops could slow an already gummed-up process. Then again, on a political level, transgenic supporters in the French government can argue that their citizens didn't endorse a ban. In the final going, the seductiveness of the technology emerged. While the citizens clearly were wary about today, they talked of the hopes of second- and third-generation products: healthier vegetables; feeding the hungry; engineering plants to remove harmful nutrients from polluted waterways. Le Deaut, who is an influential French politician, will report formally to his government Tuesday on what took place. He will discuss whether the French should back away from a technicality that is blocking transgenic plantings throughout Europe and the $ 200 million in shipments of U.S. corn. For various reasons, in the United States a full-throated public debate about genetic engineering has never taken place - although renewed discussions are sprouting. But it is much different in Europe, genetic eng ineering's gateway to the rest of the world, where people and their governments are looking soberly at the prospect of altering the world's food supply. What happened in Paris, Falhon observed as she and Europe's newest decision-makers headed for home, "is only the beginning of a great debate." GRAPHIC: PHOTO (1) Color Photo Headshot - Claire, Falhon, one of 14 French people picked randomly to guide her government's policies on genetically modified crops and food. "You're very interested in selling your products, we know that. But what about getting advice from our doctors?" (2) Color Photo Headshot - Stephane Pasteau, veterinarian and microbiologist for Monsanto in France. "I do not have a good feeling. It is so anti-America. So anti-Monsanto." (3) Photo by Bill Lambrecht / Post-Dispatch- Etienne Vernet, of the French environmental group Ecoropa, stands next to a poster that parodies genetically modified foods in the United States. Ecoropa boycotted a citizens conference on biotechnology, claiming it was a sham. LANGUAGE: English LOAD-DATE: June 28, 1998 PAGE 7 LEVEL 1 - 2 OF 2 STORIES Copyright 1996 New Scientist IPC Magazines Ltd New Scientist November 30, 1996 SECTION: Forum, Pg. 51 LENGTH: 1160 words HEADLINE: Let's keep the genie in its bottle BYLINE: Sue Mayer (Sue Mayer was director of science at Greenpeace UK. She is now a freelance consultant on environmental science and policy issues.) BODY: ENVIRONMENTALISTS are back at the barricades, blockading ports to stop the import of genetically engineered crops. Their actions should come as no surprise. The regulations covering genetically engineered products are woefully out of touch with people's concerns. Monsanto's herbicide-resistant soya bean is the first target but protests are sure to continue. The crux of the problem is that the government interprets European regulations to exclude or discount most of the things people worry about. No one is happy with them, neither regulators, environmentalists or industry. All requests to the European Union for consent to market genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been disputed by some of the member states. Recently Britain objected to Ciba-Geigy's proposal to import genetically manipulated corn because it contains a resistance gene to the commonly used antibiotic, ampicillin (This Week, 4 May, p 7). Britain says that problems with bacterial resistance could increase if the corn is used and so a ban on its import is possible. The US claims that the corn is safe and a trade war looms if Europe decides to exclude it. A decision is due in December after a tussle of two and a half years. But even when Europe has taken a decision it does not have public confidence. The EU says Monsanto's genetically engineered herbicide-resistant soya bean is safe, is identical to the traditional soya bean and does not need segregation or labelling. Yet Greenpeace activists blockaded shipments of beans at Ghent and Antwerp. Environmentalists protest that the beans mean more herbicide use, genetic pollution and threats to health. Consumer organisations say at least people should have the choice. So why is there such a mess? The problem stems from the way that boundaries are set and judgements made. It is only the physical characteristics of the GMO that are taken into account in the EU's risk assessment. The underlying assumption, especially in Britain and France, is that genetic engineering in agriculture is a positive step and that any influence on agricultural practices (such as more herbicide use) is not part of the risk evaluation of the GMO. Northern European countries, such as Denmark, take a broader view of the risks and include effects on agricultural land and practices in evaluating GMOs. Britain considers Ciba-Geigy's genetically engineered corn as a real risk, because of the horizontal gene transfer between plants and bacteria. If the corn were processed before use, as Monsanto's soya bean will be, Britain's objection would vanish, though other countries' environmental concerns would remain. PAGE 8 New Scientist November 30, 1996 Regulators say Monsanto's soya bean is safe because it is "substantially equivalent" to natural soya bean. Substantial equivalence is an OECD concept used to decide if things are sufficiently different to raise concerns over safety or labelling. It compares the chemical composition of novel foods with their natural counterparts, for example. But the soya bean has unquestionably been genetically engineered, contains foreign genes and produces a novel protein. Unexpected food allergies can not be ruled out. This together with the likelihood of increased herbicide use and perpetuation of intensive agriculture has led environmentalists to a different conclusion. Genetically engineered soya bean is not the same as traditional soya bean. Laboratory tests of "substantial equivalence" do not pick up what may prove to be the most critical differences. They would not pick up the difference between a free-range and a battery egg and would not have identified problems of feeding sheep protein to cattle which led to the outbreak of BSE in Britain. And it does not stop there. Battery hens have a miserable life. Using antibiotics in feed has created antibiotic resistant bacteria. Large-scale processing has led to contamination with Salmonella and disease in humans. These are the effects of the systems used in intensive egg production and their interactions with the environment. They cannot be predicted in the lab but have tangible impacts in the real world. The beef industry and the genetic engineering enterprise inhabit the same world. As long as the genetic engineering regulations and the concepts they rely on do not encompass peoples' concerns, they will not gain public confidence. The EU's regulations covering release of GMOs were intended to be precautionary. But rather than taking on board the human desire to value and protect the environment for future generations, the way in which regulations have developed has been too technical in nature and has not responded to the shortcomings in science-based risk assessment. So the environmentalists' blockades against genetically engineered products will remain while the regulators remain bemused, not recognising their value judgements and commitments in the decisions that they take. They argue that the market place will determine need and benefit then cut off opportunities for choice. It's a recipe for conflict. For more science news see http://www.newscientist.com LANGUAGE: English LOAD-DATE: March 17, 1997