Gene Engineers Admit Pig
Vaccine Polluted Food Crops

November 16, 2002

Corn for Growing Far Afield?
Justin Gillis; Washington Post Staff Writer

The chief executive of ProdiGene Inc., the company that mishandled
gene-altered corn in Iowa and Nebraska, said yesterday that his scientists
will carefully study the possibility of growing such corn only in parts of
the country where it could not contaminate the food supply.

That pledge by Anthony G. Laos, president and chief executive of the College
Station, Tex., company, was a break from ProdiGene's past statements
claiming that corn altered to make industrial or pharmaceutical proteins
could be a boon for family farmers throughout the midwestern Corn Belt. Some
other companies, fearing that inadvertent contamination of food crops could
lead to multibillion-dollar product recalls, have committed to growing this
type of grain only in states such as Arizona or Hawaii where little
commodity grain is produced.

In an interview with reporters at his attorney's office in Washington, Laos
did not apologize for the incidents in Nebraska and Iowa, which prompted
alarms to be sounded this week among food-processing companies and
environmental groups. But he did say he took ultimate responsibility for the
mishaps, declining to name or to blame the contract farmers that grew corn
on the company's behalf. Laos did not say precisely how far ProdiGene would
go to keep its corn away from food grains in the future, nor would he say
how long the commitment might last. But he pledged that his company, under
investigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, would work closely with
that agency to design more rigorous procedures to contain its gene-altered

"We are very committed and very serious in working with USDA," Laos said in
the interview. "We don't ever want to be in this situation again."
The Agriculture Department disclosed this week that it had ordered ProdiGene
to destroy several thousand bushels of corn in Pocahontas County, Iowa,
after the company failed to follow stringent procedures designed to limit
the spread of genes foreign to corn. Similarly, at a grain warehouse in
Aurora, Neb., inspectors seized 500,000 bushels of soybeans because they
were mistakenly mixed with a small amount of leaves and stalks from altered
ProdiGene corn. The soybeans, worth more than $2 million, are to be
destroyed or diverted for use as fuel.

Laos said the corn in both cases was genetically modified to grow a protein
that may serve as a vaccine against a viral disease of pigs. It's highly
unlikely such a protein would hurt people even if they ate large amounts of
it, since most proteins are rapidly broken down in the human digestive
tract. But Laos acknowledged that no formal human safety testing had been
done on the protein, and absent such testing, the Food and Drug
Administration would be unlikely to allow even a tiny amount of it into the
food supply. The FDA has been cooperating with the Agriculture Department in
the Iowa and Nebraska investigations.

The privately held ProdiGene has been one of the most aggressive companies
in promoting the idea that grains such as corn can be used to grow
protein-based industrial or pharmaceutical chemicals. The company has
already commercialized two small laboratory proteins and a more significant
one, trypsin, that is used in the production of insulin for diabetics. The
company is driving toward commercialization of a fourth protein, also useful
in manufacturing insulin.

For years, the notion that companies want to do this has alarmed
conservationists, who fear unpredictable effects on the environment as
foreign genes are introduced into crops planted on thousands or even
millions of acres. More recently, food-processing companies have grown
alarmed at potential adulteration of their products. The ProdiGene incidents
in Iowa and Nebraska have infuriated both groups, demonstrating how readily
breakdowns can occur.

"All of a sudden, our what-if scenario was validated -- on a very small
scale, thank goodness," said Rhona Applebaum, executive vice president of
the National Food Processors Association in Washington. "What's going to
happen when we're talking about tens of thousands of acres?"

The food companies support biotechnology in principle. But they want biotech
companies, at minimum, to agree not to plant altered grain near places where
regular grain is grown for food. They would prefer that the biotech
companies find ways to make industrial or pharmaceutical proteins in plants
that are never used as food.

The biotech companies have resisted the latter demand, contending that many
valuable proteins can be produced in the necessary form and quantity only in
oilseed crops like corn, safflower or canola -- all significant food crops
in North America. Laos said yesterday that his company had studied
alternatives, and would continue to do so, but so far had found nothing to
beat corn. Several companies, including ProdiGene, have invested years and
millions of dollars in their corn research, and fear losing a competitive
edge if they have to start over.

In a concession to the food companies, some biotechnology companies have
agreed for now to grow altered corn only in remote areas, away from food
crops. The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group, recently
announced a limited, voluntary moratorium, saying its member companies would
not grow altered corn anywhere in the Corn Belt for the time being.
But that pledge has encountered political resistance, particularly in Iowa,
where many farmers are avidly looking for more valuable crops to improve
their bottom line. And it's not clear how practical the strategy will be
when companies are ready to plant thousands of acres -- some biotech
executives acknowledge they probably will want to grow such large amounts of
corn in the places where corn grows best.

Up to now, ProdiGene has been reluctant to rule the Corn Belt off limits,
and it has seen political support among midwestern farmers as an asset. In a
newsletter last year, Laos extolled the potential grower profits and
mentioned, as an obstacle, government requirements to isolate the
gene-altered corn from ordinary corn by as much as 1,320 feet. "We will be
dealing with these distances until we can gain regulatory approval to lessen
or abandon these requirements altogether," Laos wrote then.

In the Iowa and Nebraska cases, ProdiGene employed contract farmers who were
supposed to follow rigorous procedures to safeguard the food supply. In both
cases, gene-altered corn crops, containing the pig vaccine, were planted and
harvested in 2001. In 2002, the farmers planted soybeans in those fields.
Corn grains left over from the year before sprouted amid the soy.
This is an elementary, well-understood risk of such crops -- the farmers
were supposed to diligently remove those plants to keep the gene-altered
corn out of soybeans and nearby food corn. Laos said yesterday that both
farmers had attempted to do so, but he acknowledged they had failed to
remove the corn plants to the satisfaction of the Agriculture Department.
Affected soybeans and nearby food corn were destroyed before harvest in
Iowa, but in Nebraska, 500 bushels of soybeans containing a few leaves and
stalks from gene-altered corn were harvested and mixed into 500,000 bushels
of soybeans at a grain warehouse, rendering the entire lot suspect.
ProdiGene has agreed to buy the soybeans and will attempt to sell them as

The Agriculture Department argues that crops like ProdiGene's can be
produced safely, anywhere in the country, as long as strict procedures are
followed. The government regards the Nebraska and Iowa incidents as a
success for its enforcement efforts, in that potentially adulterated food
never reached the market.

"I beg to differ," said Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology issues for
the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington group that
supports the technology in principle but believes it must be more strictly
regulated. "If the system had worked, this stuff should never have left the

Reported By,

Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.