GE - Agriculture, all very interesting!

[GEN lists <genetics@gn.apc.org>]

1WHEAT FUTURE IS IN BIO-TECH NOT GM — BREEDER 
2Monsanto charges U.S. farmers more for seeds -report
3Extracts from: 'Genetic Engineering is not an extension of conventional plant
breeding'
4Scientists bypass GM route
5TRIPLE-RESISTANT CANOLA WEEDS FOUND IN ALBERTA
6, 4% of midwest ag bankers will " not provide financing for GMO seeds" and
28%
"indicated they were willing but did hold reservations
7New Method of Altering Plants Is Aimed at Sidestepping Critics 
8Agritope Says Bioengineered Fruit Trials Promisi... 

===========================================
1
WHEAT FUTURE IS IN BIO-TECH NOT GM — BREEDER 
Farmers Weekly 25 February 2000 (Arable Focus Supplement)
By Charles Abel
BIOTECHNOLOGY rather than 
genetic modification is the key to 
improving wheat varieties, says 
Monsanto. Although GM tech- 
niques may develop some traits, 
most will stem from conventional 
breeding backed by sophisticated 
biotech tools.
Biotech to aid conventional 
wheat breeding is already attract- 
ing 10 to 20 times more effort than 
the genetic transformation of the 
crop, says US-based Tom Crosbie, 
Monsanto's global head of plant 
breeding.
"Genetic transformation is 
just one particular wrench in the 
biotechnology tool box. We have 
lots of other tools to accelerate the 
development of new wheat vari- 
eties," he says.
Unlike some crops, most of the 
genetic material needed to create 
better wheats is already available 
in existing varieties and close wild 
relatives. The trick is to move 
desired traits into new varieties 
more rapidly and more accurately.
That is where biotech helps. 
Genetic transformation can only 
be used to introduce one segment 
of novel genetic material to a 
variety at a time, but biotech 
tools can be used to enhance a 
host of existing traits. "It's a 
numbers game and ultimately 
non-transformation biotech offers 
the greatest potential."
Monsanto now has the best 
wheat breeding material in the 
world Mr Crosbie claims.
Biotech methods such as gene 
mapping and molecular markers 
will transform conventional breed- 
ing, effectively turning the lights on 
where breeders previously worked 
in the dark, Mr Crosbie adds.
"Aligning 20 segments of 
desired genetic material using 
conventional breeding would take 
a one-in-a-trillion chance. Using 
molecular markers we can achieve 
it in three cycles."
Some wheat varieties entering 
UK national list trials benefited 
from tagging. In future, mapping 
and tagging could help improve 
yield factors and resistance to 
BYDV and yellow rust.
But GM techniques could still 
have a role, he says. The protract- 
ed flowering period for hybrid 
wheats renders them particularly 
susceptible to fusarium, resistance 
for which has already been intro- 
duced into Canadian spring wheat 
using GM. GM could be the key 
to successful hybrid wheats.
===========================================================

2

Wednesday February 23, 8:30 pm Eastern Time 
Monsanto charges U.S. farmers more for seeds -report
WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (Reuters) - Farmers in the United States pay nearly 
double what farmers in Argentina pay for soybean seeds that have been 
genetically modified to tolerate Monsanto Co.'s Roundup herbicide, the 
government reported on Wednesday.
The report, issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO), prompted one farm 
group to demand that Monsanto refund the technology fees it charges U.S. 
growers.
The GAO found farmers in Iowa and Illinois were charged $20 to $23 for a 
50-pound bag of Roundup Ready soybean seeds, while Argentine growers paid 
$12 to $15 for an identical bag. The GAO, which acts as the investigative 
arm of Congress, said the price disparity stemmed from better U.S. patent 
protection and a burgeoning black market in Argentina.
The American Soybean Association issued a statement calling for Monsanto to 
refund technology fees it charges U.S. farmers. The fees are currently $6.50 
per bag.
``The ASA's objection is that beginning in mid-1999, only U.S. growers are 
being asked to pay for the research and development costs for the Roundup 
Ready technology,'' said Marc Curtis, a Mississippi farmer who heads the 
group. ``That just isn't fair.''
Roundup Ready soybeans contain a gene that enables the plant to withstand 
applications of Roundup herbicide, which is effective in killing a broad 
variety of weeds that can harm soybeans.
Many environmental and consumer groups have opposed Roundup Ready seeds and 
other genetically modified crops. The soybean grower group has been a strong 
supporter of biotech seeds as a way to better control pests and increase 
yields.
``Extensive black market sales of soybean seeds in Argentina -- ranging from 
25 to 50 percent of all soybean acreage -- have depressed the prices of 
legally sold seeds,'' the GAO report said. ``Seed companies have lowered the 
prices of Roundup Ready soybean seeds to enable them to better compete for 
sales and market share.''
The other reason for the price difference is that seed companies have 
``greater control'' over Roundup Ready soybean seed prices in the U.S. 
market because of Monsanto's (NYSE:MTC - news) patents on the technology, 
the report said.
``This patent protection has enabled Monsanto, and its licensees, to require 
U.S. farmers to pay technology fees for each bag of seed purchased -- the 
current technology fee is $6.50 a bag -- and to sign agreements restricting 
their use,'' the GAO said.
Monsanto does not have a patent in Argentina for the Roundup Ready soybean 
technology, and cannot charge farmers there the special fee, the report 
said.
The GAO found prices charged for Bt corn seed were roughly comparable in 
both countries. Midwestern farmers paid a range of $83 to $122 for each bag 
containing 80,000 Bt corn seeds, while Argentine growers paid $75 to $117 
per bag.
Bt corn has been spliced with a gene from a soil bacteria that helps the 
corn plant resist the European corn borer, an insect that can devastate 
fields.
***************
Contrary to the incorrect statement in this otherwise interesting report, RR 
soya beens do not increase yields - infact, usually the opposite. They have 
also produced 'disappointing' levels of weed control (see 
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm ).
==================================================================
3
Extracts from: 'Genetic Engineering is not an extension of conventional 
plant breeding' Michael K. Hansen Ph.D, Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers 
Union, USA, January 2000 
............................................................................ 
...........
"Genetic engineering is not just an extension of conventional breeding. In 
fact, it differs profoundly....
As for the scope of genetic material transferred, genetic engineering allows 
the movement of genetic material from any organism to any other organism. It 
also offers the ability to create genetic material, and expression products 
of that material, that have never existed before....
Virtually all crop plants derived via GE also contain a powerful promoter (a 
genetic regulatory or "on"-switch) from the Cauliflower mosaic virus (the 
CaMV 35S promoter), which in nature causes a disease in plants in the 
mustard family.....The CaMV 35S promoter is used precisely because it is 
such a powerful promoter, which leads to hyperexpression of the transgenes, 
having them be expressed at perhaps 2 to 3 orders of magnitude higher than 
of the organism's own genes. The CaMV 35S promoter effectively puts the 
transgene(s) outside of virtually any regulatory control by the host genome 
as the natural plant promoters for each gene allow....
Use of such strong promoters also raise safety concerns. Since the CaMV 35S 
is so strong, not only can it affect the introduced transgenes, it can also 
affect genes (either turn them "on" or turn them "off") thousands of base 
pairs upstream and downstream from the insertion site on a given chromosome 
and even affect behavior of genes on other chromosomes. Consequently, 
depending on the insertion site, a gene that codes for a toxin could be 
turned "on," leading to production of that toxin....
We see genetic engineering as a quantum leap from conventional breeding-as 
different from it as nuclear power generation is from a coal-fired plant....
Labeling would not be a deviation from previous FDA policy. Indeed, the 
failure to require labeling is a deviation from previous FDA policy. The 
difference between frozen peas and fresh peas, one could easily argue, is 
much less than the difference between genetically engineered peas and 
conventional peas. The frozen and fresh peas can be genetically identical. 
The frozen peas may even be nutritionally superior, even as consumers choose 
fresh peas thinking fresh is better. Yet FDA appropriately requires labeling 
about the difference, and allow consumers to make their own choices about 
what to buy....
Additional reasons to label include helping consumers manage food allergies 
and sensitivities and allowing the public health community to track and 
identify any unexpected effects.......
The science is also clear that this unique and identifiable process of 
genetic engineering creates a new and unique potential for unexpected 
effects, due to the unique nature of the material being inserted, from a 
genome which has not previously interacted with the host genome, due to lack 
of control over the location at which the gene is inserted, and due to the 
introduction the CaMV "promoter" gene, which overrides the existing genetic 
programming. FDA therefore has an obligation to require mandatory reviews of 
all genetically engineered food before it goes on the market, and develop 
ways to screen for unexpected effects which could have health consequences.
There are also predictable risks, such as potential risks of toxins, 
allergens and nutritional changes and antibiotic marker genes, which FDA 
should address...... "
================================================================== 4
London Times 17.1.2000
Scientists 
bypass 
GM route
BY NICK NUTTALL. 
ENVIRONMENT 
CORRESPONDENT
PEST-RESISTANT oilseed 
rape has been bred by British 
scientists, casting doubt on the 
need for genetic engineering to 
generate future super-crops.
The new crop, developed by 
conventional breeding, produc- 
es large amounts of a chemical 
called mustard oil that "acts 
like a beacon" to lure aphid- 
killing wasps into a field. It 
may also repel pigeons; mil- 
lions flock here from Scandina- 
via in the winter.
The researchers believe the 
technique could be used 
against a wide range of pests 
to reduce damage and boost 
crop yields. It should also dra- 
matically reduce the need for 
farmers to spray environmen- 
tally questionable pesticides.
CPB Twyford, one of Brit- 
ain's leading seed companies, 
is to commercialise the break- 
through and hopes to have the 
new pest-resistant oilseed rape 
strains on the market in about 
six years' time.
The Cambridgeshire-based 
company pulled out of testing 
genetically modifed rape last 
year after attacks by activists 
and mounting public concern 
over genetic engineering.
The development has been 
welcomed by environmental 
groups. Adrian Bebb, of 
Friends of the Earth, said yes- 
terday. "This shows we do not 
need genetic engineering." 
==========================================================
5

Herbicide Resistant "Frankenweeds" Emerge in Canadian Canola Fields 
TRIPLE-RESISTANT CANOLA WEEDS FOUND IN ALBERTA (Canada)
February 10, 2000 
Western Producer 
Mary MacArthur, Camrose bureau 
<http://www.producer.com/articles/20000210/news/20000210news01.html>http://
www.producer.com/articles/20000210/news/20000210news01.html
Scientists have long said the use of herbicide-tolerant canola would 
eventually, result in super-resistant plants.
Now they've been proven right.
The story says that volunteer canola resistant to three herbicide-tolerant 
canola systems has been found in a field in northern Alberta.
Alberta Agriculture canola specialist Phil Thomas was quoted as saying, 
"We knew it was going to happen. It was only a matter of when." A series 
of chemical and DNA tests confirm the weeds in Tony Huether's field near 
Sexsmith are resistant to Roundup, Liberty and Pursuit chemicals. Denise 
Maurice, agronomy manager with Westco Fertilizers, a fertilizer sales 
company, was cited as saying it's the first official case of natural gene 
stacking in canola since genetically modified canola was adopted by 
farmers five years ago.
Canola scientist Keith Downey, who created modern canola, was cited as 
saying the triple-resistant canola isn't a great problem, adding, "We 
haven't created a superweed or anything like that." He said that adding 
2,4-D or a similar herbicide to a chemical mix will kill any wayward 
weeds, noting, "I don't think it means anything to consumers." [Web note: 
2,4-D is a toxic herbicide]
Jenny Hillard, vice-president of the Consumer Association of Canada [Web 
note Canada's so-called "Consumer Association" is pro-biotech], was cited 
as saying this will just be another "horror story" tossed about to 
frighten consumers, adding, "The backlash now is so little based on fact, 
I know it won't make it any worse. The general public hasn't a clue of 
what's going on. They're frightened with so little science behind their 
fears. They need to get a handle on this or we'll lose the whole damn 
technology."
Still, the story says, farmers like Huether have begun to question the 
technology that led to the canola stew in his field. The gene crossings 
have prompted him to stop growing genetically modified canola, adding, "I 
wouldn't say I'd never do it again, but the way I feel, it's for the best 
interest of the consumer that I don't."
The story says that Huether seeded two fields of canola in 1997. On the 
west side of a county road he planted Quest, a canola tolerant of 
Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. On the east side of the road he planted 20 
acres of Innovator, a canola tolerant of Aventis's Liberty herbicide. The 
rest of the 140-acre field was planted to 45A71, a Smart canola tolerant 
to Cyanamid's Pursuit and Odyssey herbicides. All are Argentine types. The 
two fields are about 30 metres apart. The year after he planted the field, 
he discovered volunteer weeds resistant to Roundup where none had been 
planted.
Double resistance was confirmed the first year. The next year, triple 
resistance was confirmed. Triple resistance can't happen in one year, said 
Downey. The mixing of all three herbicide-tolerant types has been blamed 
on a combination of bees and wind that carry pollen between plants in 
fields too close together. Researchers now recommend at least 200 metres 
between genetically modified canola varieties and any other canola field 
to prevent gene crossing.
Huether was further cited as saying he is bothered by the secrecy 
surrounding the field tests adding, "Many plants were taken and a lot of 
seeds taken and grown out in the lab and sprayed with herbicide, and DNA 
tests done on it, and the results are not being made public. I feel that 
should be made public." Huether points his finger at the close 
relationship between chemical companies and government scientists, 
stating, "It's hush hush because research is funded to a large extent by 
big business. I'm losing more and more confidence in the whole system of 
research and how things are approved." Carman Read, with Monsanto, was 
cited as saying the company had nothing to do with the Alberta Agriculture 
study and hasn't influenced Alberta Agriculture to withhold the results. 
John Huffman, an Alberta Agriculture crop specialist who worked with 
Huether to identify the problems, was cited as saying the report will 
likely be released in two weeks.
BioDemocracy and Organic Consumers Association 
6114 Hwy 61, Little Marais, MN 55614, E-mail:Staff 
Activist or Media Inquiries: (218) 226-4164, Fax: (218) 226-4157 


============================================================
6
According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 4% of midwest ag bankers 
will " not provide financing for GMO seeds" and 28% "indicated they were 
willing but did hold reservations." This is in the AgLetter from February 
2000 - for a copy contact the Public Information Center, Federal Reserve 
Bank in Chicago,312-322-5111. It is also on line at
<http://www.frbchi.org/>www.frbchi.org

============================================================= 
7
The New York Times <=1> View Related Topics February 29, 
> 2000, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section F; 
> Page 3; Column 1; Science Desk LENGTH: 1483 words HEADLINE: 
> New Method of Altering Plants Is Aimed at Sidestepping 
> Critics BYLINE: By BARNABY J. FEDER BODY: Researchers 
> estimate that rice and corn began evolving their separate 
> ways from a common grassy ancestor at least 60 million 
> years ago. But how far did they travel? Intriguingly, 
> researchers have found that the genes in corn that tell the 
> plant what proteins to make to produce its shape, its cob, 
> its roots and its reproductive system -- in short, 
> everything that makes it corn -- have largely identical 
> counterparts in rice, arrayed in pretty much the same 
> order. That suggests that the differences between the 
> plants might come in large part not from the genes 
> themselves, but from the point at which they are switched 
> on and off, how strongly and in which part of the plant 
> they are active. And now some wonder if this insight can be 
> used for a new kind of genetic engineering. No one is more 
> enthusiastic about such inquiries than Dr. Richard A. 
> 
> Jefferson, the 43-year-old founder of the Center for the 
> Application of Molecular Biology to International 
> Agriculture in Canberra, Australia, who sometimes declares, 
> "Rice is corn." Although he knows that is an exaggeration, 
> it serves as a catchy introduction to how his institute is 
> trying to reshape the tangled global debate over the role 
> of genetic engineering in agricultural biotechnology. Dr. 
> 
> Jefferson argues that the high degree of genetic overlap 
> between the plants -- indeed, among all living things -- 
> suggests that much of the gene swapping among species that 
> has stirred up so much opposition to genetic engineering 
> may be unnecessary. Perhaps, instead of moving a valuable 
> trait like resistance to cold from a fish to a plant, 
> genetic engineers could achieve the same result by goading 
> the plant into a mutation that activates genes for cold 
> tolerance already present in its DNA. Dr. Jefferson, a 
> native of Berkeley, Calif., is not opposed to moving genes 
> among different forms of life. In fact, he first made his 
> mark in biotechnology at the University of Colorado in 1985 
> by inventing a way to track the location and activity of 
> genes as researchers moved them from one species to 
> another. In 1987, in one of the first field tests of a 
> genetically altered food crop, he raised genetically 
> altered potatoes at the Plant Breeding Institute in 
> Cambridge, England. Today, though, Dr. Jefferson's 
> nonprofit research center, known as Cambia, is pouring 
> resources into a project to jumble and rejumble the on-off 
> patterns of rice genes, hoping to unleash traits buried in 
> rice that evolution might not get around to exhibiting for 
> millions of years, if ever. Promising mutants -- say rice 
> that produces vitamin A in the grain -- could be developed 
> into viable crops in developing countries within four or 
> five years by crossing them with existing crops, according 
> to Dr. Andrzej Kilian, who was hired to run the research. 
> 
> And Cambia is working with partners to apply the same 
> concepts to cassava, cowpea and other plants vital to food 
> supplies in developing countries. "Evolution uses random 
> forces all the time," Dr. Kilian said. "We are trying to 
> speed it up and make it manageable." 
> 
> Laboratory-driven mutation work is just one of many Cambia 
> projects aimed at the needs of farmers in developing 
> countries. Dr. Jefferson hopes such efforts will create a 
> way for small businesses and developing countries to exploit 
> biotechnology while skirting the fortress of patents that 
> Monsanto, DuPont and other multinational giants have 
> assembled. And that, in turn, could please some current 
> critics of biotechnology. "It's a noble effort," said Hope 
> Shand, research director of the Rural Advancement 
> Foundation International U.S.A., a group based in 
> Pittsford, N.C., 
> 
> which has been a high-profile opponent of the 
> biotechnology industry. "Our main concern has always been 
> who benefits and who controls the technology." 
> 
> Cambia's technology still crosses species lines in ways 
> that could upset some critics of biotechnology. Cambia's 
> process, which it calls transgenomics, does not move genes 
> intended to introduce a novel trait into rice, but its 
> method for changing rice's regulation of its own genes does 
> require on-off switches to be imported from bacteria, yeast 
> or other plants. "People may look at this differently than 
> some of the transspecies work but some of the risks they 
> worry about would still be there," said Dr. Margaret 
> Mellon, who tracks biotechnology issues at the Union of 
> Concerned Scientists in Washington. Dr. Mellon said that 
> Cambia's work might provide valuable research on plant 
> genetics, but that those concerned with world hunger ought 
> to see it as a poor alternative to breeding programs 
> crossing rice with wild relatives, like that being run in 
> China by Chinese researchers and Dr. Susan McCouch, a 
> Cornell scientist. Dr. McCouch has reported increasing 
> yields on commercial rice strains by 10 percent to 20 
> percent by crossing them with wild species. In one case, the 
> offspring surprisingly proved to be resistant to a virus 
> plaguing Latin American rice growers, even though neither 
> parent was. Such work is often cited by opponents of 
> biotechnology as proof that genetic engineering is 
> unnecessary and distracting, but Dr. McCouch herself doubts 
> that traditional breeding alone will meet the developing 
> world's food needs. Dr. McCouch and others say the 
> transgenomics program is a logical, if bold, use of the 
> growing mountain of research on how mutations occur 
> naturally. It has been known for decades that organisms 
> occasionally cut loose pieces of their own regulatory DNA 
> so that they can jump, apparently randomly, to other 
> locations and possibly activate genes with helpful traits. 
> 
> Production of the enzymes, or transposases, that free the 
> mobile DNA, or transposons, increases when organisms are 
> under almost any kind of stress. "One of the genome's last 
> ditch responses under stress is to reshuffle the deck," Dr. 
> McCouch said. Cambia is trying to mimic the natural process 
> by inserting a packet of DNA from yeast, bacteria and corn 
> DNA that can only be activated when a rice gene is nearby 
> and active. When the rice gene is switched on, it 
> simultaneously turns on a cascade of activity in the 
> inserted DNA packet: one result is that a "reporter" gene 
> -- Cambia's comes from bacteria -- begins producing a 
> protein that has no effect on the plant but can be used by 
> researchers to figure out where the packet has landed in 
> the rice genome and how powerfully the nearby rice gene is 
> working. The activity also turns on DNA fragments that 
> Cambia takes from yeast that amplify gene activity. That 
> can boost the activity of the adjacent rice gene, which may 
> produce noticeable changes in the plant. But Cambia's real 
> mutation thrust is based on including in the DNA packet a 
> DNA package that can become mobile when the plant is 
> crossed with another plant containing an enzyme that frees 
> it. If the mobile segment jumps from, for example, a 
> location next to a rice gene active during seed development 
> to the neighborhood of a gene involved in root growth, it 
> will be turned on and stimulate the root gene when the seed 
> gene becomes active. That process mimics what a rice 
> transposon might do naturally if the plant were under 
> stress. Researchers must still screen thousands of plants, 
> just as natural breeders do, looking for mutations that are 
> beneficial to farmers. Cambia is now building a library of 
> plants with the DNA packages inserted near various rice 
> genes. It has about 3,000 rice plants and expects to reach a 
> goal of 10,000 by the end of the year. Theoretically, there 
> is plenty of room to create new functions for existing 
> genes. "Plant genes are generally redundant," said Dr. 
> 
> Susan Wessler, an expert in corn and rice genetics at the 
> University of Georgia. "There may be eight copies of a 
> gene." Thus, one copy of the gene could be reregulated to 
> produce a new trait by a transposon without necessarily 
> compromising the plant. Multinational companies have been 
> notably silent about whether they are doing similar 
> research. Dr. Jefferson said some were negotiating 
> nonexclusive licensing agreements for transgenomics 
> technology, parts of which could be used to make existing 
> genetic engineering more precise. For instance, corn might 
> be engineered so that its bacterially derived pesticide 
> gene is turned on only in the parts of the plant that corn 
> borers eat. Now, engineered corn expresses the pesticide 
> all over the plant, including in pollen that can be deadly 
> to monarch butterflies and other beneficial insects. But 
> plenty of admirers working in research are hoping Dr. 
> 
> Jefferson's aim of using transgenomics to perform an end 
> run around the multinationals' current approach to 
> biotechnology pays off. "Richard's focus is on those people 
> for whom agriculture is most vital," said Dr. Jeffrey 
> Bennetzen, a Purdue University plant genetics researcher. 
> 
> "Our biggest problem is overproduction, but the developing 
> world really needs crop improvement." 
> 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/>http://www.nytimes.com GRAPHIC: Chart/Diagram: 
> "Jumpstarting Mutations" Researchers in Australia have 
> devised a new method to create genetically altered plants. 
> 
> Instead of inserting genes from foreign species to produce 
> new traits, they induce the plant to activate or enhance 
> its own genes. Comparing the Two Systems CURRENT: GENETIC 
> ENGINEERING Traditional genetic engineering involves 
> extracting genes from foreign species and implanting them 
> in the plant to be modified to achieve desirable traits. 
> 
> NEW: TRANSGENOMICS A new method relies on random mutations 
> to switch on unused genes or boost the function of active 
> genes. How Transgenomics Work An artificially created DNA 
> sequence is distributed randomly into a plant's own DNA. 
> 
> SPARKING A CHAIN REACTION The sequence may land near a 
> gene. When the gene becomes active, it activates the 
> nearest segment of the artificial DNA . . . ... which 
> induces its neighbor to produce proteins which activate 
> that other parts of the sequence: a reporter, which alerts 
> the scientists that the sequence has inserted itself into 
> the host DNA . . . and a gene on-switch. The plant with 
> implanted DNA is crossed with another carrying a special 
> DNA-cutting enzyme. REAPING MUTATIONS In the offspring of 
> the crossed plants, the cutting enzyme clips the on-switch 
> segment. The switch jumps randomly to another part of the 
> genome, hopefully near a gene where it can have an impact. 
> 
> Proteins from the artificial sequence encounter the switch 
> at its new location and turn it on. The switch, in turn, 
> activates or enhances the nearby gene, giving the plant new 
> traits. By forcing random mutations, the scientists hope to 
> bring out beneficial characteristics, like a breed of rice 
> that produces Vitamin A in the grain. (Juan Velasco/The New 
> York Times) 
================================================================
> 8
DJ 02/28 1409 DJ Agritope Says Bioengineered Fruit Trials 
> Promisi... 
> 
> DJ Agritope Says Bioengineered Fruit Trials Promising >AGTO 
> PORTLAND, Ore. (Dow Jones)--Agritope Inc. (AGTO) completed 
> the evaluation of its 1999 field trials of bioengineered 
> cantaloupe and raspberry varieties. In a press release 
> Monday, the company said all of the trials involved 
> products containing its ripening control technology. The 
> company said the cantaloupe trials, conducted throughout 
> the summer growing season in 1999, demonstrated that in 
> selected new varieties using Agritope's technology, the 
> fruit exhibited improved harvest and storage 
> characteristics than the control fruit. The control 
> varieties in the study were identical to the improved 
> varieties except that they did not contain the Agritope 
> technology. The 1999 raspberry field trials focused on 
> evaluating the impact of shipping conditions, by 
> simulation. The genetically improved varieties performed 
> significantly better under simulated shipping conditions 
> than the control varieties, the company said. Having 
> successfully completed the simulated shipping phase of 
> evaluation, field trials scheduled for 2000 will include 
> actual transportation of the raspberries to market under 
> normal shipping conditions. "If the next round of trials 
> meets our expectations, we will proceed with obtaining the 
> appropriate regulatory clearances to bring the product to 
> market," the company said. (END) DOW JONES NEWS 02-28-00 
> 02:09 PM Copyright 2000 Dow Jones & Co., Inc. 
==============================================