Visions of the food-biotech
industry
The
four-yearly forum of the Congresses of Pesticide Chemistry held in 1998
focused on the theme of the ‘Food-Environment
Challenge’.
Key papers have now
been published, covering issues from the more policy end of the spectrum,
to new chemistry, precision agriculture delivery of plant protection,
pesticide resistance, environmental fate, residues in food and the
environment, and regulation and risk assessment.
Not all papers addressed biotechnology, but
the theme pervaded the conference. A keynote paper by David Evans of
Zeneca Agrochemicals started from the explicit position that pesticide
technology has enabled food production to keep pace with population
increases. With world population estimated to reach 10 billion in
2040, Evans believes that biotechnology is essential to bring about the
yield enhancement to deliver increased food production. Although the
main properties of biotechnology to date have focused on herbicide
resistance and insect resistance, Evans projects that the future will see
enhanced yields and food quality as the benefits. To develop the
biotechnology products, he notes that companies want: the gene, the
technology the freedom to operate, access to leading germplasm, value
protection and extraction.
A group of
scientists from the US, Australia and Turkey, warns that public acceptance
of GM foods will not be universal. They express concern that “recombinant
methods are certain to disrupt current agricultural practice as have all
previous technological innovations. With investment in agricultural
research dropping in most countries—for example in the US government
funding dropped by 30% in the last 25 years (and public sector investment
by 14%)—there will be fewer public sector scientists to help agriculture
adjust to these new tools.” GM technology seems certain to accelerate loss
of agricultural germplasm. The paper notes a charge against agricultural
biotechnology that it is producing toys for wealthy nations and profits
for large companies, quoting one scientist who joined a company to make
the ‘volkspotato’ to feed the world but is instead engaged in making the
‘yuppie potato’ optimized for fast food franchises.
A paper by Alastair Robertson of the UK
supermarket Safeway urges the pesticide industry to ‘maintain focus on the
end consumer.’ While not rejecting biotechnology, the Safeway view
is that greater technical competency is required of farmers to farm to
more stringent standards and utilise new developments effectively and
safely. Some concerns include future resistance to Bacillus
thuringiensis and the need to ensure that GM crops can be segregated.
In an interesting shift in perspective,
David Evans notes that compared to the US$3,000 billion food industry, the
agrochemical industry is relatively small, and concludes that the latter
should see itself more as part of the food provision industry rather than
the chemical industry. This is happening and has led to greater dialogue
with the giants in food such as Unilever, Nestlé and Pepsi. Nestlé’s food
sales are greater than food sale purchases in countries such as Mexico,
Spain, Holland, Belgium and Australia. He notes too the shift in the
pesticide industry as companies increase their vertical integration,
particularly to take over—or in the case of Zeneca work in
partnership—with the seeds companies (see page 7).
Although Evans believes the present
regulatory framework for pesticides is satisfactory, James Hay of
DuPont predicts that pesticide registration will become more stringent,
requiring safer herbicides, based on natural products, and use of new
chemistry. Advances in technology mean that with new ‘combinatorial
techniques’ (mixtures) a single chemist can synthesise hundreds of
thousands of novel compounds a year, compared to around 10,000 in the
past. These tools mean that a much wider range of molecules can be tested
to find new classes of compounds that target new classes of proteins in
plant and pathogen genomes.
In dealing
with more traditional concerns of pesticides residues in food, Ian Shaw
presented a paper on variations in standards of monitoring foods for
pesticide residues. The European Union instituted a monitoring
exercise on residues, asking Member States to test for seven individual
pesticides and two groups of pesticides on five commodities. The results
showed residue levels were reasonably consistent and comparable with other
industrialised countries. The exercise represented a small percentage of
total UK residue monitoring, but for many countries was a large part of
their total monitoring programme. The mean pesticide residues in Europe
compare well with those in California, where regulation is stringent, the
percent above the maximum residue limit (MRL) was 1.4% and 1.6%
respectively, compared with the figures for all US, which show 4.8% of
samples above the MRL.
Several
scientists pointed out that chemical pesticides will remain a keystone
component for several decades to come in spite of the focus on
biotechnology. They believe that GM will not dominate the immediate
future, especially for herbicides, which is half the pesticide market.
However many industry papers heavily promote biotechnology and with some
important exceptions it was disappointing that there was not greater
recognition of the economic and social impacts of pesticides in developing
countries, and the vast potential to increase food security by more
traditional and appropriate local strategies.
GT Brooks and TR Roberts (Ed), Pesticide Chemistry and Bioscience: The Food-Environment Challenge, Royal Society of Chemistry, Thomas Graham House, Cambridge, UK, Tel., +44 (0)1223 420 066, Fax, +44 (0)1223 423 429, Email sales@rsc.org, http://www.rsc.org/, 1999, 438pp. Order direct from Amazon.
Global residue standards
The meeting evaluated 28
pesticide active ingredients, including one new compound and 18 complete
re-evaluations.
Participants assessed
human dietary intakes by multiplying the residue concentrations by the
average daily per capita consumption estimated for each food commodity on
the basis of food diets for the Middle East, Far East, Africa, Latin
America and Europe and then adding the intakes from the individual
commodities. The ratio of the estimated dietary intake of pesticide
residue to the corresponding acceptable daily intake (ADI) for a 60-kg
person is then expressed as a percentage. Of the 18 pesticides assessed,
the estimated dietary intakes exceeded the ADI in four cases: dimethoate
10-140%, disulfoton 160-920%, endosulfan 20-120% and omethoate 10-140%.
This figure does not take into account gender or age differences.
Pesticide residues in food—1998, No.
148, Proceedings from a Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on
Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment
Group on Pesticide Residues, WHO/FAO, Web http://www.fao.org/, 1999, 259pp.
Industry
reviews OPs
The
review tries to separate the adverse effects of OPs according to whether
the literature reports a previous history of acute exposure or not. The
difficult issue is to establish whether long-term effects follow from
repeated low-dose exposure, without any previous acute poisoning. Not
surprisingly, the conclusion is that the evidence for a chronic syndrome
is insufficient, but that “planned studies are followed up and the issue
revisited when results are available.”
The publication also contains a useful review of the acute and delayed
effects of OPs, noting that “OPs are potentially acutely toxic if
not used as intended and according to the manufacturers’ safety
instructions.” Safe use may not, however, always be possible, without much
stricter controls on the availability of the products and much greater
emphasis on the training of users. The report also provides information on
one often neglected aspect of OP toxicity—the role of individual
differences in susceptibility to OP poisoning. For such people, safe use
may not be possible at all.
Organophosphorus Pesticides and
Long-Term Effects on the Nervous System, Technical Report No 75, European
Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, Brussels, December
1998, 110pp.
Updated
WHO guidelines
There are 20 new pesticides
listed, and although these are mainly in table 5, two are in Ia, one in
Ib, three in II, and three in III. Included in this list is chlorfenapyr
(II) which has just been refused full approval for use in the US because
the Environmental Protection Agency is concerned about its toxicity to
wild birds.
According to this report,
there are 576 pesticides in use, with a further 265 classified as obsolete
or discontinued for use as pesticides. The number in this section has been
dramatically revised, comparing with only 110 in the 1996-97 version.
WHO Recommended Classification of
Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification
1998-1999,WHO/PCS/98.21, 1999, 61pp.
Developing IPM in Thailand
Participants
reached a broad consensus on the urgent need for a comprehensive crop
protection master plan that would lead to a an IPM policy situated within
the broader framework of agricultural and environmental policy. Human
resources development must be considered as the heart of such a plan,
especially for the integration of IPM in all activities. The main results
of the workshop included:
the need for internalising the true costs
into the price of pesticides
a call to ban WHO class I chemicals (most
acutely hazardous) and some others that were shown to damage natural
ecosystems and the environment
the re-direction of research towards
ecological principles
Nippon Poapongsakorn, Lakchai
Meenakanit, Herman Weibel and Fruake Jungbluth (Eds), Approaches to
Pesticide Policy Reform – Building Consensus for Future Action, A policy
workshop in Hua Hin, Thailand, July 3-5, 1995, Pesticide Policy Project,
Instituit für Gartenbauökonomie, Universität Hannover Fax +49 511 762 2667
and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Fax +49
6196 791442, April 1999, 87pp.
Food facts
Soya is in hundreds of foods from apple pies
to Yorkshire puddings. Recent public concern has focused on the potential
threat to the environment and human health from genetically modified
soya.
The UK imports an average of 7,000
tonnes of soya every day. This report reveals the problems which result
from our dependence on this widespread and largely invisible
ingredient.
Carrots come only second to
potatoes as Britain’s most popular fresh vegetable. They can also make an
excellent contribution to a healthy diet. High production levels, however,
have depended on selecting heavy cropping varieties that respond well to
fertilisers and that can resist pests with the help of an array of
chemical pesticides.
Food Facts, No. 5 Soya, and No. 6 Carrot fashion, SAFE Alliance, 94 White Lion Street, London, N1 9PF, Fax 0171 837 1141, 1999.
Selling
suicide
Andrew Simms, Selling Suicide: farming,
false promises and genetic engineering in developing countries, Christian
Aid, PO Box 100, London SE1 7RT, Tel. +44 (0) 171 620 4444, Fax +44 (0)
171 620 0719, www.christian-aid.org.uk, 1999, 52pp.
Feeding the world
or fuelling hunger?
In this way,
the UK based Action Aid says in its recent report that the multinational
AstraZeneca could play a dominant role in how GM technology affects food
security in developing nations (see also page 7).
Action Aid has examined the 52 patent
applications relating to GM crops made by AstraZeneca since 1993. They
cover at least 90 countries world-wide, including many developing
countries and many staple foods such as rice, wheat, maize, and
sorghum.
AstraZenca and its genetic research:
Feeding the world or fuelling hunger? Action Aid, Hamlyn House, Macdonald
Road, Archway, London, N19 5PG, UK, Tel. +44 (0)171 561 7561, Fax. +44
(0)171 281 5146, http://www.actionaid.org/, 1999,
31pp.
 |
Order
direct
|
Labelling will not stop
GM food
Sue Dibb and Tim Lobstein, GM Free–a shoppers Guide to Genetically Modified Food, Virgin Publishing, Thames Wharf Studios, Rainville Road, London, W6 9HT, UK, http://www.virgin-books.com/, 1999, 195pp. Order direct from Amazon.
Hungry for power
Hungry for Power spotlights the
activities of Nestlé, Cargill, Monsanto, Chiquita, Zeneca, British
American Tobacco—all are charged with undermining global food
security.
Food security is too important
to be left in the control of transnational corporations. The international
community must take action to curb the powers of these companies.
Hungry for Power: The impact of transnational corporations on food security, UK Food Group, PO Box 100, London SE1 7RT, http://www.ukfg.org.uk/, 1999, 89pp.