Contents

1. FDA gives green light to milk and meat from cloned animals
2. Gene escapes to weeds from engineered canola
3. Poultry workers at high risk for carrying resistant bacteria
4. Smaller farms are more productive
5. Major biotech companies pull out of hunger assessment

1. FDA gives green light to milk and meat from cloned animals

The Food and Drug Administration has declared that milk and meat from cloned animals and their offspring are safe for human consumption. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture asked producers to continue the voluntary moratorium by not selling these products into the food supply. Many consumers remain opposed to the controversial technology, citing ethical or humane objections. Clones are frequently born with severe defects and may possess subtle genetic damage that harms their health and may compromise the safety of their milk or meat. A bill to label products from cloned animals has been introduced in Congress. Meanwhile, there is anecdotal evidence that despite the moratorium, cloned products have already entered the food supply. Read more from the Washington Post, an opinion from the New York Times, or UCS' comments on cloning.

2. Gene escapes to weeds from engineered canola
A recent study found that canola plants in Quebec, Canada, that were genetically engineered for herbicide resistance have interbred with a weed called wild mustard, producing hybrid plants that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. The herbicide-resistance gene persisted over five generations and spread from the hybrids into the mustard weeds, in spite of the fact that no herbicide was applied to the area. The event is significant for two reasons. One, it is the first known escape of a gene from a commercialized genetically engineered crop into a weed. Two, because canola is a major crop, covering an estimated two million acres across Canada, it is likely that gene escape has occurred at multiple sites in addition to the few that were monitored. The event echoes the escape of a gene for glyphosate resistance from field trials of bentgrass into wild relatives (see our previous story). Inadequate confinement of engineered crops may harm ecosystems in some circumstances and may hasten the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. Read the abstract describing the study in the scientific journal Molecular Ecology.

3. Poultry workers at high risk for carrying resistant bacteria
Poultry workers have 32 times the odds of harboring E. coli bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic gentamicin, compared with the average person, according to a study by Johns Hopkins University researchers. The scientists compared stool samples from poultry workers with those from local community residents. The workers were also significantly more likely to harbor bacteria that were resistant to multiple drugs. The study concluded that occupational exposure to chickens may be "an important route of entry" for these dangerous bacteria into the community. Read the study (pdf), and send a letter to your members of Congress on legislation to address antibiotic resistance.

4. Smaller farms are more productive
Mid-sized and small farms are more productive than large farms when measured by total farm output per acre rather than the yield of a single crop, according to a review of the literature published several years ago by the non-governmental organization Food First. Mid-sized farms were also found to be better stewards of natural resources. But a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report found that commodity payments to support row crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton go overwhelmingly to large operations that are pushing mid-sized and small farms out of business. The report also found that farms that receive commodity payments tend to grow even bigger. Currently, two percent of U.S. farms qualify as "small" (less than 50 acres), and 67 percent are considered "large" (1000 acres or more). Read the survey (pdf).

5. Major biotech companies pull out of hunger assessment
Two biotechnology industry giants, Monsanto and Syngenta, have pulled out of an international project that aims to reduce hunger in developing countries. They withdrew from the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, a four-year, $10-million undertaking, claiming that a draft report does not adequately reflect industry perspectives. One such perspective is that biotechnology will be necessary to produce enough food for the growing world population. An editorial in the journal Nature criticized the companies for walking out, noting that the view that "biotechnology cannot by itself reduce hunger and poverty is mainstream opinion among agricultural scientists and policy makers." The assessment’s final report, an effort involving more than 4,000 scientists and experts, is expected to be released this spring. Read more.