News
April 25
San Mateo County Times (Calif.)
ROWS OF GENETICALLY altered tobacco
plants fill a Hayward greenhouse, but
they're not intended for cigarettes
or cigars. Instead, they carry human
antibodies that may one day help ward
off tooth decay and the common cold.,
BUSINESS WR
The plants are being developed by Planet
Biotechnology of Hayward, one of a new
breed of biotech companies that are
taking a green approach to developing
new drugs.
If successful, they could lead to faster
and less costly production of antibodies
and proteins to treat anything from
tooth decay to cancer, and give what
many consider a deadly weed a new role
in helping save lives.
While several companies are using genetically
modified food such as rice and corn
to create drugs, Planet Biotechnology
and others have found tobacco to be
the best crop to grow plant-produced
drugs, largely because it's not a food
product.
Nobody has gotten a plant-produced
drug on the market yet, but several
are making their way through clinical
trials, which means a plant-made drug
could be on the market in the next two
to three years, experts say.
"There is a lot of stuff in development
and all the signals we've seen so far
have been very positive," said
Val Giddings, vice president of food
and agriculture at the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, or BIO.
Antibodies and other proteins are produced
in limited, sometimes insufficient,
quantities by the human immune system.
To make them in large quantities involves
using the cells of animals or plants.
Today, antibody and protein-based treatments
are produced by the likes of local leaders
Genentech of South San Francisco and
Emeryville-based Chiron using animal
hosts. But the benefits of using plants
-- lower costs and greater quantities
of the resulting drugs -- have prompted
companies like Planet Biotechnology
and Large Scale Biology of Vacaville
to pursue the leafy course.
A major benefit of using plants is
that they radically reduce the cost
of production of drugs. They also eliminate
the need to use transgenic animals,
a process that animal rights groups
have protested.
Genentech produces its drugs, including
its popular cancer-fighting Herceptin,
using genetically engineered Chinese
hamster cells that are replicated in
giant stainless-steel fermenting tanks
at the company's Vacaville facility,
which cost $250 million to build. To
handle additional demand for drugs,
Genentech recently broke ground on an
expansion, set to open in 2009, which
will cost $600 million.
In a plant-based process, the DNA of
plants cells is altered to enable them
to produce therapeutic proteins, and
the plants themselves become the factories
for creating drugs.
To get the drugs extracted from the
plants and eventually purified is an
additional, costly step.
If companies turned to a plant-based
system, a doubling in demand for a drug
could simply mean doubling a crop, which
costs substantially less than building
a new manufacturing facility, Giddings
said.
Giddings didn't name names, but did
say that "it is true that a number
of companies are very interested in
plant-based production."
Officials at Genentech would not comment
on whether the biotech pioneer is looking
at the option.
However, major pharmaceutical companies
still need to see more proof that a
plant-based system works on a large
scale before they take the risk of investing
in such a process, said Roger Wyse,
a managing director at Burrill &
Co., a San Francisco-based merchant
bank and venture capital firm that invests
broadly in life science companies.
Planet Biotechnology's two lead products
are antibodies that fight tooth decay
and the common cold -- two of the most
widespread infections in humans.
Both drugs have yet to be approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
but "CaroRX" -- the tooth-decay
fighter -- has received European approval
and could launch in 2005, said Elliott
Fineman, chief executive officer of
Planet Biotechnology.
The private company uses plants because
the antibodies that fight the common
cold and tooth decay cannot be produced
in the cells of mammals, Fineman said.
Planet Biotechnology and other companies
say they chose tobacco -- rather than
corn, rice or other plants used in the
process -- because a lot is known about
its genetics. Plus, it is not a food
product.
"We felt that could be a plus
in that there is some concern about
the integrity of food production and
the impact of genetic modification of
crops," Fineman said.
That controversy came to the forefront
in early April when the U.S. Department
of Agriculture denied Sacramento-based
Ventria Bioscience's request to plant
a genetically modified rice crop containing
two human proteins that fight infections
in infants.
The company would have been the first
to plant such a crop in California.
Opponents, which include environmental
groups and rice growers, maintained
that the move would have endangered
the food supply.
"Anybody growing (genetically
modified) corn or rice should be a little
worried right now," said Daniel
Tus, vice president of business development
at Large Scale Biology, a Vacaville-based
company that is also using tobacco to
make drugs.
U.S. clinical trials for Planet Biotechnology's
CaroRX are currently under way at the
University of California, San Francisco
School of Dentistry.
"RhinoRX," the company's
antibody that aims to prevent the common
cold (rhinovirus), will begin clinical
trials by the end of the year at the
University of Virginia.
Sales of CaroRX are expected to total
anywhere from $250 million to $2 billion
annually in each of the U.S. and European
markets, Fineman said.
The product could be the first plant-made
drug to hit the market.
"If the Planet folks are saying
they can perhaps get out there in 2005,
that's to my knowledge the quickest
thing going out there," Tus said.
Founded 10 years ago, Planet Biotechnology
began its antibody research in 1997.
The company hopes to raise an additional
$8 million in financing this year, which
will help fund the commercialization
of CaroRX and add more employees to
manage the expansion of the company.
Thus far, operations have been funded
through $750,000 in venture capital
money in 1999, $5 million in small business
innovative research grants, and stock
options and equity invested by employees
and founders of the company.
"What the future of the company
will be, whether it's a public company
or remains private, will depend on the
nature of the financing that we get
and what is the nature of the return
investors are looking for," Fineman
said.
At Planet Biotechnology's Hayward facility,
which consists of lab space and a greenhouse
in back, the production of antibodies
begins with the cutting of a tobacco
leaf into small sections. Genes from
a human antibody are introduced into
the sections.
Eventually, genetically altered plants
are formed, which produce seeds that
can further propagate other plants,
which are chopped up and turned into
juice, from which the antibodies are
extracted and purified.
Fineman estimates that using his company's
plant-based system would cost $25 million
to $40 million to produce 100 kilograms
of drugs. The same amount of drugs produced
in Genentech's fermenting tanks costs
"ten times that," Fineman
said.
But even if the production costs are
reduced it does not necessarily mean
that consumers would end up paying less
money for plant-made drugs, because
research and development expenses for
drugs are so high.
"The bottom line is that usually
the cost of manufacturing a drug is
the smallest component of the cost of
developing a drug," said Wyse of
Burrill & Co.
Bringing a drug to the market typically
runs around $800 million, and the manufacturing
cost represents from 10 to 20 percent,
with purification costs totaling 50
percent of that, Wyse said.
In the end, using plants might cut
the production cost in half, but that
still remains a small portion of the
total cost, he added.
As Wyse puts it, even if the manufacturing
cost of a drug were zero, drugs would
still be very expensive for consumers.
However, using a plant-based manufacturing
system does have other benefits, as
many proponents attest to.
It allows companies to create large
volumes of drugs in markets where the
margins are not high, such as herpes
treatments or vaccines for diseases
in Third World countries, the theory
goes.
The system also may provide a cheaper
way for companies to move drugs through
clinical trials, which would help lower
development costs.
Wyse pointed to one company that spent
$100 million on a fermenting facility
to produce a drug that later failed
in Phase III trials.
"They spent $120 million for nothing,"
Wyse said.
By spending less on initial capital
costs, plant-based drugmakers can focus
on drugs that have widespread uses and
lesser costs, proponents say.
But could Genentech produce its drugs
in a plant-based system?
"In theory, any protein you can
make in a fermenter, like Genentech
(does), could be made in plants,"
said Tus of Large Scale Biology. But
there is a caveat, he added.
"In some cases, proteins for pharmaceuticals
contain certain types of sugars, and
plant sugars can be a little different
from animal sugars," Tus said.
That could lead to a different immune
system response in humans, he explained.
Several experts agreed with Tus's account,
and Fineman said that intensive research
is being done to address the issue.
April 16
San Jose Mercury News
There are two very different views
of Ventria Bioscience, the company that
can turn a field of rice into a factory
for producing human medicine.
There's the way Ventria sees itself
-- as a biotechnology company hard at
work on medical products that could
save lives.
"Without our technology those
products could never end up in use for
human health, not in our lifetime,"
says Ventria Chief Executive Scott Deeter.
And then there's the view of opponents,
who see the firm as a harbinger of a
new biotech age that threatens the purity
of the food supply and puts growers
of conventional crops at risk.
"As a California rice farmer,
I say: Don't grow drugs in my food crop,"
says Greg Massa, who grows rice in Glenn
and Colusa counties.
Whichever view is correct, this tiny,
11-year-old Sacramento company is now
front and center in a national debate
over using food crops to grow drugs,
as well as industrial and nutritional
products.
Scores of companies and academic labs
have been attempting this for years,
confining their crops to greenhouses
or to small field parcels.
Meanwhile, Ventria has been moving
beyond the more typical small patches.
This year, Ventria hoped to grow up
to 120 acres of its genetically engineered
rice. But it was willing to limit production
to one out of 10 selected California
counties -- far enough south of the
Central Valley rice belt to allay the
concerns of growers who feared field
contamination. But the California Secretary
of Food and Agriculture blocked its
permit, saying that he wants more time
to hear from the public.
Deeter now says Ventria will likely
plant only a small test field in California
this year and may leave the state to
plant a larger field in 2005.
Still, the mood remains decidedly upbeat
at Ventria's headquarters in Sacramento.
Deeter says the privately held company,
which has 20 employees, remains a few
years away from commercializing its
first products. It has spent more than
$20 million on two human proteins that
are usually found in mother's milk,
tears and saliva but, through genetic
manipulation, can also be produced in
rice.
Sponsoring research The company is
sponsoring research to show that in
the right doses, the two proteins --
lactoferrin and lysozyme -- can be helpful
in treating diarrhea.
Worldwide, as many as 3 million children
under 5 die each year from the dehydration
that accompanies severe diarrhea. Even
in the United States, hundreds of youngsters
and thousands of elderly patients die
from it each year.
For decades, standard treatment has
been a solution of table salt and carbohydrates.
This summer, a clinic in Lima, Peru,
will begin a Ventria-sponsored study
to see if adding the lactoferrin and
lysozyme, extracted from a flour made
from the modified rice, gets even better
results.
"The benefits of this approach
are enormous," said Dr. William
B. Greenough III, a professor of medicine
at Johns Hopkins University.
Greenough was part of a team in Bangladesh
that developed the standard treatment
that is credited with saving the lives
of 3 million infants each year.
Maryland company Greenough is also
co-founder of Cera Products, a Maryland
company that has been talking about
adding Ventria's lactoferrin and lysozyme
to its product for treating diarrhea.
Ventria is conducting studies in Los
Angeles to see if lactoferrin, which
plays a role in absorption of iron in
the intestines, can help women suffering
from anemia.
The company's critics don't dispute
the potential benefits.
Instead, they see Ventria as opening
a door to an industry that is still
not adequately regulated.
For example, because genetically engineered
lactoferrin and lysozyme are virtually
the same as natural human proteins,
the company can market them as "medical
foods," a designation that does
not require a detailed Food and Drug
Administration review. But for a variety
of reasons, Ventria is taking a more
cautious approach and will ask the FDA
to review the proteins for safety.
Environmentalists, rice growers and
some experts worry about inadvertent
mixing of Ventria's rice with the non-engineered
food crop.
Voicing concerns "I have concerns
that any pharmaceutical product grown
in a food crop could end up in food,"
said Steve L. Taylor, professor of food
science at University of Nebraska.
Even if the products prove safe, he
said, "a lot of people have trouble
thinking of Rice Krispies with human
genes in them." Says Bill Reese,
a research analyst with Friends of the
Earth: "First of all, these are
not human proteins." Small differences
might trigger allergies and other unexpected
responses, he said.
Even if there should be a mix-up between
Ventria's rice and non-engineered food
crops, the two human proteins pose no
hazard to consumers, says Delia Bethell,
Ventria's vice president of clinical
development. "If you breast-feed
a baby for a year, that child consumes
277 grams of lactoferrin," she
said. A person who ate Ventria's genetically
modified rice over an entire year, she
said, would consume only 60 grams.
VENTRIA BIOSCIENCE
The privately held company is genetically
modifying rice plants to produce potentially
useful proteins, turning fields of rice
into factories for drugs, food supplements
and other products.
Headquarters: Sacramento
Number of Employees: 20
Primary Products: Genetically engineered
human lactoferrin and lysozyme for treating
diarrhea and iron deficiency
Chief Executive Officer: Scott E. Deeter
Board Members: William J. Rutter and
Pablo Valenzuela, co-founders of Chiron
The Benefits: Five thousand acres of
rice can produce enough genetically
engineered proteins to treat millions
of diarrhea cases -- at less than 1
percent of the cost of making them in
standard biotechnology factories.
Critics Say: Company's plans may threaten
purity of the food supply and could
put conventional growers at risk.
April 11
AP
SAN FRANCISCO — State regulators
have derailed a small biotechnology
company's ambitious plans to begin immediately
growing commercial quantities of rice
engineered with human genetic material.
The California Department of Food and
Agriculture on Friday denied Ventria
Bioscience's application to grow more
than 120 acres of rice in Southern California
because federal regulators haven't issued
a permit. The Sacramento-based company
said it has not yet applied for federal
regulatory approval.
State officials also said the public
needs more time to comment on an issue
that has roiled the $500 million-a-year
California rice industry. Many rice
farmers fear consumer perception will
turn against their crops and cost them
customers in biotechnology-adverse Europe
and Japan if Ventria's permit was granted.
Now Ventria, which already has permission
to grow experimentally on small plots,
will have to wait at least until next
year to expand production.
Despite the regulatory setback and
continued vocal opposition, Ventria
chief executive Scott Deeter said Friday
the company would reapply in California.
The company would explore options in
Hawaii and the South, Deeter said, adding
that Ventria intends to apply next year
for a federal permit to expand its operations.
The human genes that Ventria inserts
into its rice produce proteins which
are found in mother's milk, tears and
saliva and can combat diarrhea and anemia,
Deeter said. (Related story: Biotech
firm wants to grow rice for medicinal
supplements)
"This will enhance and save human
life," Deeter said.
Company scientists spliced the human
genes into the rice genome. The resulting
proteins show up in rice seeds, which
are then milled into powder for packaging.
The company hopes to sell its products
as an over-the-counter medicine, perhaps
by 2006.
Ventria has been growing genetically
engineered rice on 120 acres in Northern
California on an experimental basis
since it received U.S. Department of
Agricultural permits in 1997.
On Monday, the USDA refused to renew
that permit for this year, saying the
company planned to grow its experimental
rice too close to crops intended for
human consumption.
Deeter said the company would address
the USDA's concern and still expected
to receive approval to continue growing
the genetically engineered rice on its
current plot.
The California Rice Commission, a lobbying
group which supported Ventria's application,
declined comment Friday.
Company critics, however, seized on
the USDA concerns as an indication Ventria
can't be trusted to expand. They are
concerned the biotech rice hasn't been
studied enough to ensure its safety
if it accidentally found its way into
the food supply.
"This pharmaceutical rice crop
raises a raft of serious public health,
environmental and economic concerns,"
said Michael Hansen of the Consumers
Union's Consumer Policy Institute. The
Consumer's Union, along with several
other environmental and food safety
groups typically skeptical of biotechnology,
urged California regulators last week
to deny the permit.
Many rice farmers fear that even absent
any accidental mixing of their crops
with Ventria's rice, customers in Europe
and Japan could boycott their product.
Public to have say before
state rules on bioengineered crop
April 10
San Francisco Chronicle
State agricultural officials have blocked
efforts to plant genetically engineered
rice in Southern California for what
would have been the nation's first crop
bioengineered for use in the pharmaceutical
industry.
The California Department of Food and
Agriculture said Friday that there appears
to be no urgent need to plant the rice.
A company called Ventria Bioscience
was hoping to plant by May 1 after narrowly
winning approval from the California
Rice Commission.
In a letter to the commission, John
Dyer, chief counsel to the department,
said it was unclear whether the proper
federal permits had been obtained to
plant the engineered rice.
At the same time, Dyer wrote, "it
is clear that the public wants an opportunity
to comment prior to any authorization
to plant."
The department said Ventria's May 1
deadline to plant in time for the state's
rice-growing seasons did not qualify
as an emergency.
Ventria wants to plant the rice because
it contains a human protein that could
be used to produce medicine to combat
anemia and diarrhea, which are among
the leading causes of death for children
under 5 in underdeveloped countries.
The company contends that using the
rice is many times cheaper than developing
the proteins in a laboratory and therefore
can create affordable medicines. A Ventria
spokesman could not be reached for comment
Friday.
Greg Massa, a Colusa County rice grower,
had opposed the Ventria plan and was
pleased by the department's action.
"I'm very happy,'' he said. "I
think this is the best outcome that
we could have hoped for here. The rice
commission passed this onto the (department)
without adequate input from growers
and without any input from the public.
All of those people need to comment.
Obviously, there is no emergency.''
Many of California's 2,200 rice farmers
have worried that an engineered crop
could taint the state's harvest of conventionally
grown rice, much of which is exported
to Japan. The Japanese government issued
a statement this week saying the rice
planting sought by Ventria raised food-safety
concerns. Japanese rice retailers and
consumer groups are seeking to give
their opinion on the plan.
Charley Matthews, a member of the advisory
panel that approved of the so- called
pharm rice proposal, said it was unclear
whether a public hearing could be held
in time for the crop to be planted.
"The problem is a late planting
date,'' Matthews said. "It creates
a lot of risk for actual production.
It's agronomic risk, but we're used
to that. It's kind of inconvenient.''
Matthews said he wasn't surprised that
state officials ultimately decided to
delay planting given all the controversy
surrounding the issue of genetically
engineered crops.
Simon Harris, a spokesman for Californians
for Genetically Engineered Free Agriculture,
said Ventria's plan did not eliminate
risk to contamination of the state's
rice crop.
"We think that there's no hurry,''
Harris said. "There should be plenty
of time for public input.''
April 10
San Jose Mercury News
The state's top agriculture official
Friday blocked a proposal to plant the
nation's first commercial crop of a
grain genetically modified to produce
a medicine.
The decision leaves open the possibility
the proposal could return, however,
for next year's growing season in California.
Ventria Bioscience, a Sacramento biotechnology
company, was hoping to plant up to 120
acres of rice, engineered to produce
two proteins found in human breast milk,
tears and saliva. The proteins are natural
antibiotics that help fight off certain
infections.
The company's precedent-setting proposal
was opposed by environmental and consumer
groups as well as some rice growers,
who feared the modified rice crop might
contaminate standard table-rice varieties
and threaten a thriving rice export
business.
Rejecting the recommendation of an
advisory committee, California Food
and Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura
concluded there was no reason to do
a hurried review of the proposal by
treating it as an emergency under state
law. That effectively ends any chance
Ventria could obtain approval to plant
modified rice in time to harvest a crop
this year, at least in California.
Late last month, a California Rice
Commission advisory committee -- made
up of rice experts, growers and traders
-- recommended that Kawamura move quickly
to approve Ventria's plan as long as
crops were planted in any of 10 counties
south of the state's Central Valley
rice belt. The closest table-rice crop
would probably be 100 miles or more
away, minimizing any chance of field
contamination.
But state Department of Food and Agriculture
chief counsel John C. Dyer, writing
on behalf of Kawamura, argued that it
was unlikely that the small company
would get the federal permit it needed
in time to plant its crop this year,
even if the state moved ahead quickly.
The company needs both state and federal
permits before it can plant its pharmaceutical
rice.
To declare an emergency and eliminate
a lengthy public comment period is allowed
under state law, but only in response
to ``demonstrated imminent threats,''
Dyer wrote in a letter to the California
Rice Commission. ``On the other hand,
it is clear that the public wants an
opportunity to comment prior to any
authorization to plant.''
The company proposal now goes back
to the rice commission for further action.
Ventria Chief Executive Scott Deeter
said he was surprised by the decision
and said his small company is still
considering its options. He said he
was puzzled because the company had
met 13 times with the California Rice
Commission's advisory committee, ``five
of which were open to public comment.''
Deeter conceded that Kawamura's decision
meant that there would be no planting
in California this year. But one option
is to ``expand to other locations outside
of California, which have a more streamlined
approach to regulatory issues.''
Opponents of the Ventria plan argued
that there was no need to move ahead
without a full public discussion.
``We didn't think it was an emergency,''
said Elisa Odabashian, a policy analyst
for Consumers Union, one of several
groups that asked Kawamura to proceed
cautiously with a precedent-setting
decision.
``We're glad it's been opened up to
public comment because it's a very new
technology. Once that's opened up, it
is hard to pull back,'' Odabashian said.
``We advocate growing these crops in
very tight greenhouses so there is no
possibility for drift and contamination
of the food supply.''
But Ventria and its backers argue that
the genetically modified rice is no
hazard to consumers and would provide
real benefits to people, not only in
the United States but throughout the
world.
The company is able to splice genetic
instructions for human proteins into
the rice in such a way that relatively
large amounts are produced in the harvested
grain. The two proteins -- lysozyme
and lactoferrin -- are natural antibiotics
that appear to help nursing children
ward off intestinal infections. Lactoferrin
also plays a key role in absorbing iron
in the human gut.
If Ventria can grow large amounts of
the proteins cheaply, the proteins could
be added to infant formulas and to inexpensive
remedies for treating diarrhea, a condition
that kills an estimated 3 million infants
each year worldwide.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization
argues that there are huge benefits
from pharmaceutical crops and that the
risks are best managed by federal regulators.
Ruling allows more public
comment on engineered crops
April 10
Sacramento Bee
The state agriculture secretary Friday
rejected a recommendation to allow commercial
production on an emergency basis of
rice containing human proteins.
The move throws into doubt a Sacramento
company's plans to make the nation's
first drug grown from genetically engineered
crops.
The decision means the public - which
already is raising a clamor - will have
more time to speak up before a final
decision is rendered.
"That opportunity for prior comment
may only be suspended in circumstances
involving specified demonstrated imminent
threats," John C. Dyer, chief counsel,
wrote on behalf of Agriculture Secretary
A.G. Kawamura in a letter to the California
Rice Commission, a trade group.
A subcommittee of the rice commission
voted 6-5 last week to recommend allowing
Ventria Bioscience to grow engineered
rice on commercial-scale plots - provided
it do so far from where food rice is
cultivated.
Specifically, the panel approved planting
the rice in San Luis Obispo, Kern, Santa
Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange,
San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego
and Imperial counties.
The subcommittee called its action
an emergency to let Ventria ramp up
production this spring.
Lorenzo Pope, the panelist who made
the motion for an emergency action,
was not surprised by Friday's decision.
"We felt there was a high probability
it would be denied, just because there
was such high public interest,"
Pope said.
In the past two weeks, the secretary
received more than 1,400 comments -
some in form letters - mostly against
the proposal.
Although Kawamura turned down the emergency
action, he appeared to be sympathetic
to Ventria's quest.
Kawamura "is prepared to process
a regulations package relative to the
production and handling of this strain
of rice," Dyer's letter states.
But first, Dyer wrote, the secretary
wants more information from the commission
about the federal permits Ventria needs.
He also directed the commission to consult
groups affected in the designated planting
areas.
Exactly what information the secretary
seeks is unclear. Jena Moore, an office
technician in the state Department of
Food and Agriculture Office of Public
Affairs, said the department had no
comment beyond the letter.
How big a setback Friday's decision
represents to Ventria also is unclear.
Company officials did not return telephone
calls seeking comment.
Making matters even murkier, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture said Friday
that Ventria had not applied for a permit
to plant its rice in Southern California.
Moreover, the company has revised its
federal permit for Northern California
plantings to 14 acres, down from 120
acres, Neil Hoffman, a director in USDA's
Biotechnology Regulatory Services, said
in a e-mail exchange.
Ventria, originally named Applied Phytologics,
has been growing engineered rice in
outdoor experimental plots in Northern
California since 1997.
Ventria CEO Scott Deeter said in an
interview in January that the company
hoped to plant 65 acres each of two
types of bioengineered rice this year.
One rice is genetically modified to
produce human lactoferrin; the other,
human lysozyme. Both are proteins found
naturally in breast milk that are believed
to have a therapeutic effect, and would
be produced by Ventria for use in rehydration
solutions for treating diarrhea.
Matt Gardner, president of BayBIO,
an industry association in South San
Francisco, interpreted Friday's decision
to mean that a new treatment for illness
will be delayed in reaching sick people.
At the same time, Gardner said, "I
think the secretary's position is reasonable."
People opposing the planting of genetically
engineered pharmaceutical rice were
pleased by the decision. "I'm glad
it's not going to go under emergency
rule because we think this clearly deserves
more public debate," said Dan Jacobsen,
legislative director of Environment
California, which opposes growing drug
compounds in food crops.
Proposal for GE crop could
threaten lucrative foreign markets
April 8
San Francisco Chronicle
Delevan, Colusa County -- Joe Carrancho
isn't particularly fond of environmentalists
or their rules that he feels have made
it harder for him to be a rice farmer
over the past 40 years. He's a duck-hunting,
self-made immigrant with a photo of
President Bush by his desk, and he wants
to be left alone to farm.
But with a Sacramento biotechnology
company proposing to plant the nation's
first commercial crop that's genetically
engineered to produce a medicine, Carrancho
and others like him in the Davis-to-Chico
rice belt are standing with the environmentalists.
The 61-year-old with the catcher's-mitt
hands worries that if California becomes
the latest battleground in the nation's
war over genetically modified organisms,
the only loser will be the state's $500
million rice market.
To farmers who live at the mercy of
nature and the world markets, the problem
with genetically engineered rice has
less to do with its science and more
with its public perception. And if a
batch of conventional rice is found
to contain the genetically engineered
variety by mistake, some foreign markets
could shun California rice.
Carrancho said he and environmentalists
"may be apart on some issues, but
on this one we're together."
California exports 40 percent of its
rice to Japan, which has among the world's
strictest policies regarding genetically
engineered food. And even though the
rice grown by the Sacramento company,
Ventria Bioscience, would be required
to be planted far from California's
rice belt, milled in separate facilities
and trucked in separate vehicles, Carrancho
doesn't want to take the risk that that
all those regulations will be lost in
translation.
"If the Japanese have the perception
-- underline perception -- that our
rice has (genetically modified organisms)
in it, then we're done," said Carrancho,
a past president of the Rice Producers
of California. "You can put a bullet
in our head."
Ventria Bioscience wants to grow a
rice plant with a seed that contains
human proteins usually found in breast
milk and tears; the company has been
testing the product in small plots for
several years. The proteins developed
in the seed of a rice plant could be
used to create a medicine used to combat
anemia and diarrhea, among the world's
leading causes of death for children
under 5.
Because plants can replicate the proteins
30 times cheaper than traditional laboratory
methods, Ventria officials contend that
genetically engineered rice could go
a long way toward creating affordable
medicines to combat the worldwide health
problem.
Last week, a California Rice Commission
advisory panel narrowly approved a protocol
for growing what's been dubbed "pharm
rice" in 10 Southern California
counties from San Luis Obispo to San
Diego. California's secretary of agriculture
has until May 1 to approve an emergency
request by Ventria Bioscience to plant
the rice in time for this year.
A state Agricultural Department spokesman
said the agency could make a decision
within days, but the company still must
receive federal approval before proceeding.
While farmers in Northern California's
rice belt will begin planting in the
next few weeks, seeding can begin as
late as this summer in the warmer southern
regions.
But passions around genetically engineered
rice are boiling. Sitting in the office
near his farm this week, Carrancho read
aloud parts of the protocol that were
developed over the past year. He shook
his head.
"This is probably the most stringent
protocol I've ever seen," he conceded.
"And it's not enough."
The worst-case scenario, for Carrancho
and the rest of the state's 2,200 rice
farmers, is that Japan goes elsewhere
for its rice imports.
On Wednesday, Tsutomu Matsumoto, Japan's
consul in the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries, and Forestry, told The Chronicle
in a written statement: "Concerning
California's (genetically engineered)
rice production issue, Japanese consumers
have a serious concern in regards to
food safety. For this reason, Japanese
rice retailers' association and consumer
groups plan to submit a public comment
to the California Department of Food
and Agriculture" within a few days.
Rice farmers such as Greg Massa, a
Colusa County grower who has a master's
degree in biology, doesn't believe there's
a legitimate scientific reason for the
rush to approve the genetically engineered
crop. He's not opposed to such rice
just because of the public perception;
he's worried about the science of growing
pharmaceutical products in farm crops.
"Why not take more time to examine
this?" Massa said, "because
there is absolutely no benefit to anyone
to rush into this."
But some California farmers don't have
a big problem with genetically engineered
rice. Charley Matthews, a third-generation
rice farmer around Yuba City, initially
was wary of the proposal when he reviewed
it as a member of the Rice Commission's
advisory panel.
"What changed my mind was that
it would be grown hundreds of miles
away," Matthews said. If the proposal
is approved, he said, "you will
get a market reaction. Now, we just
have to explain it to all of our customers."
And to a lot of farmers, too. Ronald
Lee, president of the Rice Producers
of California, wants to hold town meetings
so more farmers can learn about the
issue, especially since two other companies
are readying proposals to bring genetically
engineered rice to California, perhaps
by next year.
"There's a learning curve here
for producers," said Lee, who farms
in Colusa County. "Some have some
knowledge. Some have very little. We're
entering new territory here."
Much of the scientific questions differ
over how easily the genetically engineered
seed could be spread -- and possibly
contaminate non-genetically engineered
rice. Rice is a self-pollinating plant,
so its seed is less likely to be spread
as widely as say, corn.
Ventria officials said such "outcrossing"
wouldn't happen over more than 30 feet.
Opponents point to studies that say
contamination from other genetically
engineered crops is already widespread.
The dispute is causing some to wonder
why Ventria is asking for an emergency
status on its proposal. The company
did not respond to requests for an interview.
"What is the emergency that this
has to be done immediately?" asked
Jane Rissler, a senior staff scientist
and deputy director of the Food and
Environment Program at the Union of
Concerned Scientists in Washington,
D.C.
She wants to see several "third-party"
scientists examine the proposal instead
of those on the Rice Commission advisory
board. "This is too important,
too precedent-setting, to rush through
without more public input," she
said.
Ventria Bioscience officials have said
previously that the months that the
Rice Commission panel, composed of farmers,
academics and industry representatives,
spent in developing the protocol provided
ample public input.
"There has been an exhaustive
process to keep the two kinds of rice
separate," said Ann Schmidt, a
spokeswoman for the California Rice
Commission.
