American biotechnology companies are voluntarily yanking their
pharmaceutical and industrial crops out of states where similar
varieties of food crops are grown.
As “a gesture of good faith” the Biotechnology Industry Organization,
or BIO, has decided it will no longer conduct field trials or
commercialize crops capable of outcrossing, such as corn and canola, in
certain states.
While it remains an American issue for now, if a similar policy were
adopted in Canada it could have serious consequences for the federal
Read Also
Ag in Motion speaker highlights need for biosecurity on cattle operations
Ag in Motion highlights need for biosecurity on cattle farms. Government of Saskatchewan provides checklist on what you can do to make your cattle operation more biosecure.
government’s stated agriculture plans.
A few years ago agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief was promoting a
“life sciences revolution” in Canada’s agriculture sector, which would
see farmers growing crops to be used in health products,
pharmaceuticals and industrial products.
In the U.S., members have agreed that corn, for example, that is not
intended for food or feed use won’t be grown in the country’s corn
belt, which includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and portions
of Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky and Ohio.
BIO said grain handlers and food processors have “vivid memories” of
what happened with StarLink, a genetically engineered variety of corn
that was approved for animal feed but wound up in taco shells and other
human food products.
The new policy will decrease the chance of similar outcrossing
incidents with crops that have been bioengineered to produce products
like drugs and cosmetics. It does not apply to self-pollinating plants
such as soybeans, rice, tobacco and barley. And it does not apply to
Canada.
Although intended as a goodwill gesture, the policy has sparked
negative reaction from at least one of the affected states and it could
have ramifications in Canada.
Politicians in Iowa are furious. Democratic governor Tom Vilsack, who
according to the Washington Post is locked in a tight re-election
campaign with Republican challenger Doug Gross, has made it an election
issue.
Vilsack has asked BIO to reverse its ban because he fears it will
prevent farmers in his state from taking advantage of high value crops.
Gross blames the governor for allowing the state to be blacklisted.
A similar policy in Canada would put a huge crimp in Ottawa’s attempts
to encourage farmers on the Prairies to grow life sciences crops.
But Canada’s version of BIO says a policy does not exist.
“Biotecanada is actively working to sort out its policy with respect to
this issue,” said Biotecanada spokesperson Andrew Baum.
He said there are only three companies working on bioengineered
pharmaceutical and industrial crops in Canada. One of those is his own
company, Sembiosys Genetics Inc.
“We’re working with safflower, which was chosen in a large part because
there is not much of it grown up here so maintaining segregation is
easy.”
The other two companies, based in Ontario and Quebec, are using alfalfa
and tobacco crops as hosts for genetically modified proteins.
Baum said Sembiosys hopes to have its first industrial crops on the
market in time for the 2004-05 crop year, but its first pharmaceutical
crop probably won’t be commercialized until 2007-08.
The company is working on transgenic proteins that will address
afflictions ranging from arthritis to multiple sclerosis.
He chaired the committee that drafted the new U.S. biotechnology policy
and said a similar policy may never be adopted in this country.
“In the context of the U.S. environment, what was going on down there,
that made tremendous sense. Canada is a different country, it has a
different context.”
