NEWS AND NOTES
PROCEEDINGS FROM VIRUS WORKSHOP AVAILABLE

A workshop held last spring on Transgenic Virus-Resistant Plants and New Plant Viruses gathered leading plant virologists to discuss the potential risks of transgenic virus resistance. After formal presentations, breakout groups were asked to address a list of questions that probed issues associated with the potential for producing a new virus by recombination between transgenic viral RNA and an infecting virus. Other potentially deleterious effects to be considered were transcapsidation and possible synergistic effects. Proceedings from the two-day meeting, which was conducted by the American Institute of Biological Sciences and sponsored by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, are now available.

The booklet contains abstracts of invited talks and a summary report of the discussion at the final plenary session that also incorporates key points from breakout discussions. Among these are suggested experiments that could be done to remove some of the uncertainty surrounding the issues. For each of the questions posed at the outset, consensus and in some cases minority opinions are given. To obtain a copy of the workshop proceedings, contact AIBS, 1444 Eye Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005; tel: 202-628-1500 ext. 254; fax: 202-628-1509; email: washington@aibs.org.

The following text, reprinted with permission, presents Workshop Highlights as summarized in the proceedings.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the American Institute of Biological Sciences convened a workshop on April 20-21, 1995, to address risk issues associated with the possible generation of new plant viruses in transgenic plants expressing viral genes that confer virus resistance. The workshop did not address issues associated with gene flow between crops and wild species and possible effects on wild plant populations. The following are highlights from the workshop's summary.

Recombination between Plant RNA Viruses
There is no evidence to support the notion that frequent recombination events occur between viral taxa (e.g., between tobamoviruses and potyviruses) resulting in viable virus from growing season to growing season. However, limited evidence does suggest that in an evolutionary time frame, recombination events between viral taxa have resulted in the generation of new plant viruses. In addition, a growing body of evidence indicates that recombination between viruses in the same taxon (e.g., cucumber mosaic virus and peanut stunt virus) may be common. The significance of recombination between viruses in the same taxonomic group is unclear at this time.

Recombination between Plant RNA Viruses and Viral Transgenes
Comparing rates of recombination between two viruses in an infected plant with rates of recombination between a virus and a viral gene being expressed in a transgenic plant must be made with caution. Although certain assumptions can be made, scientists are just now starting to understand the frequency and importance of these types of recombination events. Experiments were proposed to study recombination under varying degrees of selection pressure.

Transcapsidation and Synergism
Genomic viral RNA transcapsidated with coat protein produced by a transgenic plant should not have long-term effects, since the genome of the infecting virus is not modified. Similarly, synergistic interactions between an infecting virus and a viral transgene should not have long-term impacts on the agricultural production. However, these potential interactions are important and should be tested before a new cultivar is marketed.

Benefits and Monitoring
The potential benefits of transgenic virus resistance include increased yield, reduced pesticide use to control vectors, improved crop quality, and increased potential for multiple virus resistance traits. Regular monitoring of all transgenic plants for the production of new plant viruses is not feasible. Any new virus problem that might result from the use of transgenic plants would be detected by farmers, seed producers, and scientists, as would any new plant virus or virus disease.

Conclusion
Virologists are beginning to understand the mechanisms underlying transgenic virus resistance and recombination. More research is needed to explain these mechanisms and to assess the environmental and agricultural risks that might be presented by the commercialization of transgenic virus-resistant crops. Most workshop participants believe that current data obtained from laboratory and field research indicate the risk associated with the generation of new plant viruses through recombination should not be a limiting factor to large-scale field tests or commercialization of transgenic plants expressing viral transgenes. However, some workshop participants believe that commercialization should be delayed until more experimental data are available to assess risks. Some workshop participants expressed concern over the commercial use of wild-type movement protein genes in transgenic plants. With or without the use of transgenic plants, new plant virus diseases will develop that will require attention. No technology is risk free; a determination will need to be made whether the benefits associated with the use of transgenic virus resistance are greater than the risks.

In California's fourth ranking agricultural county, the Board of Supervisors last month voted to change a 1987 ordinance that had essentially blocked all agricultural biotechnology research. The original ordinance, prompted by plans to test bacteria engineered to protect strawberries against frost, required a special permit for field trials of genetically modified microorganisms and prohibited testing within two miles of an occupied structure. It directed companies to go though a planning process that could take six months or longer; the hurdle was so effective that not one biotechnology company tried to overcome it during the eight-year life of the law.

The new ordinance allows the county agricultural commissioner to grant permits for genetic engineering projects on agricultural lands 100 feet or more from an occupied structure. For testing closer to occupied structures, a committee that includes the ag commissioner, the environmental health chief and the planning department director, considers granting the permit. All decisions can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

Motivation to change the ordinance came largely from the closure of the Fort Ord military base and the concomitant loss of $1 billion annually that the base contributed to the local economy. The supervisors' unanimous change of heart is hoped to encourage agbiotech businesses to relocate to Monterey County and develop products for the local agriculture industry. The new plan, according to Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Nutter, takes public safety into consideration, while it creates an environment where the region's position on the cutting edge of agricultural technology can be maintained.

For more information, contact Peggy G. Lemaux, UC Cooperative Extension, 510-642-1589; email: lemauxpg@nature.berkeley.edu or Jeannette Warnert, Public Information, California Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 209-225-5611; email: jwarnert@uckac.edu.

A Patent and Trademark Office decision which narrowed the field for DNA patents was overturned nearly a year ago by a Federal Circuit Court, significantly improving the possibilities for obtaining patent protection for DNA sequences. The particular case concerned an application by faculty from Washington University, addressing genes for heparin-binding growth factors, which had been refused patent protection due to the interpretation that the investigators' claims were "obvious." After a review group upheld the Patent and Trademark Office ruling, an appeal to the Federal Circuit Court reversed the decision, making it clear that established methods of discovery do not necessarily make a discovery obvious. Since the ruling, predictions have been that patent applications for sequences not shown before will be considered patentable as 'compositions of matter.' This will, in turn, put companies in a better position to pursue costly development work. In a related matter, the position of the European Patent Office on patenting of genes and transgenic animals remains unclear, following a meeting in which proposed guidelines were deemed 'ambiguous.'

J. Glenn Songer
University of Arizona

By now, everyone's heard about some of the first generation of transgenic crops - the corn, cotton, potatoes, squash, soybeans and tomatoes engineered for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance or delayed ripening or virus resistance. These products are now or will very soon be marketed commercially. For a look at what's coming next, here's a partial list of products currently going through the regulatory process.

Field Test Permit Requests
Applications for field test permits are starting to roll in to USDA/APHIS's Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental Protection (BBEP) Permits unit. This wave of requests includes several for minor crops and transgenic crops engineered for resistance to multiple pathogens, and the first application to release a transgenic arthropod.

Pending approval, Asgrow will be testing squash engineered for resistance to four viruses, and a virus resistant tomato. Monsanto has applied to test potatoes resistant to Colorado potato beetle and potato leaf roll virus. Betaseed is looking to test a line of beets resistant to beet necrotic yellow vein virus, as well as phosphinothricin tolerant beets. DNA Plant Tech has requested a permit to field test grapes engineered for sulfonylurea tolerance. Breaking new ground, the University of Florida has applied to release a transgenic biocontrol organism - a line of predatory mites engineered with a marker gene.

Permits have already been issued for Plant Science Research to test strawberry resistant to fungal infection, and for the University of California/Davis to test walnuts multiply resistant to virus and coleopteran insects. The University of Florida has received a permit to test herbicide tolerant lettuce, and Agritope will be testing blackberries engineered for altered fruit ripening. PanAmerican Seed has been issued a permit to test petunias resistant to both bacterial and fungal infection. Fungus resistant creeping bentgrass developed at Michigan State University has been approved for release.

Petitions for Deregulation
As of January 3, BBEP has seven petitions for deregulation under consideration. Four are under review for completeness: Cornell University's papaya resistant to papaya ringspot virus; Asgrow's squash line resistant to cucumber mosaic virus, watermelon mosaic virus 2, and zucchini yellow mosaic virus; Agritope's altered fruit ripening tomato; and Du Pont's sulfonylurea tolerant cotton.

Three petitions are pending: Monsanto's Colorado potato beetle resistant potatoes; Plant Genetic Systems' male sterile phosphinothricin tolerant corn; and Northrup King's Bt corn resistant to European corn borer.

A complete list of pending and issued release permits and petitions for deregulation, updated daily, is available on the USDA/APHIS/BBEP home page (www.aphis.usda.gov/bbep/bp).

Pat Traynor
Information Systems for Biotechnology

Since its inception in 1988, the Information Systems for Biotechnology project of NBIAP has provided modem access to its information resources through a toll-free number that initially connected to a dial-up bulletin board and more recently to a restricted internet site. The expense was considered necessary at the time because our constituency in the academic, corporate and government sectors had limited access to network connectivity. However, with the rapid growth of internet providers and improved accessibility through academic and government institutions, most users can now access ISB/NBIAP through the internet. Given this improved access for the majority of our users, coupled with all- too-familiar budget constraints, we can no longer justify supporting the toll-free service. Effective February 1, we will discontinue 1-800 telephone access to the information system. Users requiring modem access may still connect through commercial providers such as America Online or Compuserve. Refer to the end of any ISB News Report for information on how to find us on the internet. For those who have used the toll-free connection, we thank you for your interest over the years, and hope you will continue to use our information resources. See you on the net!

Doug King
Information Systems for Biotechnology

Rabies continues to be a serious threat to human health in developing countries. Mass immunization is difficult where vaccine production costs are high and the medical and technical requirements for administering and distributing currently available vaccines cannot be met. These problems could be circumvented by producing an edible oral rabies vaccine in transgenic plants. As reported in the December 1995 issue of Bio/Technology, researchers at Thomas Jefferson University (Philadelphia, PA) and the USDA/ARS laboratory in Beltsville, MD have brought the concept one step closer to reality.

Recombinant rabies vaccines ingested orally have been shown to be effective in immunizing raccoons. The immune response is elicited by rabies glycoprotein (G-protein), localized on the outer surface of the virus. Wildlife vaccines developed both from a vaccinia-rabies recombinant virus and from baculovirus-expressed rabies glycoprotein confer protection. The same G-protein used in these vaccines has now been engineered into tomato plants.

The complete unmodified glycoprotein gene, under the control of the CaMV 35S promoter, was introduced into tomato plants by an Agrobacterium tumefaciens vector, and regenerated plants that expressed G-protein mRNA in leaves and fruit were recovered. Line Rgp-13 contained a single copy of the transgene that was stably inherited by progeny. Recombinant G-protein purified by immunoprecipitation was estimated at 1-10 ng/mg soluble protein from leaves, and slightly less in fruits. The purified protein was detected as two major bands in Western blots, attributed to differences in the extent of glycosylation and/or processing of sugar residues. Electron microscopy of immunogold labeled leaf tissue showed localization in Golgi bodies, vesicles, and cell walls.

The next steps towards an effective edible rabies vaccine will need to boost expression and accumulation of the G-protein. Tactics could include using a stronger promoter, tailoring the gene with plant-derived leader sequences and signal peptides, and targeting the protein for retention in vacuoles, chloroplasts, or seed oil-bodies. Studies of the systemic and oral immunogenicity of plant derived G-protein are already in progress.

- P. T.

Plants are very efficient producers of proteins, and there are a number of experimental approaches to production of vaccines and antibodies by transgenic plants. Many of the strategies used to date have involved production of immunoprophylactic or immunotherapeutic proteins by leafy plants, but production in fruits, including bananas, is also moving beyond the conceptual stage. It has been demonstrated that transgenic plants can produce a secretory immunoglobulin, one which could afford protection at mucosal surfaces, particularly the gastrointestinal tract. These products may then be administered orally to hosts, and in some cases this can be done with minimal processing. For some therapeutics, the transgenic plants can be cultivated in the locale where the product is to be used, lessening problems of shipping and storage. The edible therapeutics to come first to general use will likely be those directed against diarrheal disease, either in domestic animals or humans.

In spite of important progress over recent decades in protection of domestic animals and humans from disease by vaccination, improvements continue to be made and biotechnology is having major impact. There has been progress in immunization with chimeric molecules consisting of antigenic epitopes of the pathogen of interest with an immunoglobulin molecule to facilitate interaction with T-cells. Another area of research in which some successes have been recorded is the use of DNA vaccines. Plasmids which cannot replicate in vivo but which carry the gene for a protective antigen or antigens of interest can be used for direct immunization in several animal species.

Progress with gene therapies has also moved forward, extending now from studies in animal models to limited clinical use in human patients. Successes have come in the treatment of colonic and brain tumors, and in blood disorders in dogs. In the treatment of tumors, a viral gene was engineered into a 'transportable' form and injected into animals with tumors. The gene was incorporated into the tumor cells, making them susceptible to treatment with an anti-viral chemotherapeutant. In the case of canine hemophilia, an engineered gene can be absorbed by cells with a genetic deficiency, allowing them to function subsequently as normal.

Recent work has shown that transplantation of cells capable of generating sperm converted sterile mice to fertility, but also made possible the incorporation of genetic changes which are passable through generations. There has been a call for a moratorium on germ-line research, while others are trumpeting its potential benefits to mankind. However, there has apparently been little debate at the regulatory level about the use of germ line manipulations. Rather, the discussion has focused primarily on introduction of somatic cells, with strict safeguards against accidental incorporation of these somatic cells into germ cells. The ban on human embryo research seems likely to remain in place.

- J. G. S.

In Australia, Africa, and Central America, domestic livestock are frequently killed by fluoroacetate poisoning after consuming native trees and shrubs that accumulate the compound within their leaves, stems, and seeds. Detoxification of fluoroacetate, which is lethal to sheep and cattle at doses of 0.25 to 0.5 mg/kg body weight, has been a goal in order to reduce economic losses to the livestock industry. Following an initial report in the December 1994 issue of Bio/Technology, scientists at the University of New England, Armidale, Australia reported in Trends in Biotechnology (October, 1995) success in genetically manipulating rumen bacteria to degrade fluoroacetate.

A fluoroacetate dehalogenase gene from the soil bacterium Moraxella species strain B was transferred into the rumen bacterium Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens and expressed in vitro at sufficiently high levels to detoxify fluoroacetate in the surrounding medium. The plasmid containing the dehalogenase gene was retained without detectable loss for 500 generations under non-selective conditions. This suggests that the altered genotype is very stable and that expression of the dehydrogenase is not deleterious to the bacterium. The modified B. fibrisolvens was able to successfully colonize the rumen of two sheep and to persist for an experimental period of over five months. Whether the modified strain is able to protect host ruminants against fluoroacetate poisoning is currently being tested.

Success with stable transformation of rumen bacteria raises some important issues related to field releases of genetically engineered microorganisms. Will new toxin-resistant livestock result in overgrazing of pastures that at one time were protected by the presence of toxic plants? In Australia, fluoroacetate is used as a pesticide for controlling feral rabbits, foxes, cats and dogs. Will the modified microbe be able to colonize other hosts and make them insensitive to the toxin? A population explosion of fluoracetate-resistant rabbits could wreak havoc upon an ecosystem. This scenario, which is based on several improbable assumptions and thus is highly unlikely, nonetheless presents testable hypotheses for evaluating the potential environmental impact of releasing the modified organism. It is clear that significant economic gains could result from genetically engineering rumen bacteria to minimize feed toxicity problems. However, potential environmental consequences also need to be anticipated and closely monitored.

Eric A. Wong
Virginia Tech

Foodborne illness accounts for $8.5 to $20 billion each year in lost productivity, and according to the Centers for Disease Control, 77% of food-related illnesses originate in food service establishments, 20% in the home, and only 3% have been associated with food processors. Bacteria cause a large proportion of these, estimated at 3.6 to 7.1 million cases annually. Disease can be mild, but septicemia, hemolytic:uremic syndrome, and other systemic manifestations also occur. Many of these potential agents of human disease are common inhabitants of the intestinal tract of domestic animals, including Salmonella sp., E. coli O157:H7, Clostridium perfringens, and Campylobacter jejuni. Meat that is contaminated by these organisms during processing serves as an important route to human hosts. Thus, significant emphasis continues to be placed upon food safety from the level of production. Some feel that animal production losses and human illness could be eliminated by on-farm application of hazard analysis and critical control point principles.

The USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) has proposed the implementation of a hazard analysis and critical control point for individual slaughter and processing plants by 1998. The optimum outcome, whether achieved by standardized or plant specific procedures, is simple: elimination of the risk due to pathogens on products entering the human food stream. The broad application of such systems in the European Community has raised concerns that US exports could be affected if similar measures are not instituted in this country. A recent seminar on Animal Production Food Safety, conducted by the FSIS, yielded numerous recommendations and suggestions for the future. Three results are apparent, including (1) the need for more information about food safety at the level of animal production, (2) the continuing, even emerging, importance of Salmonella enteritidis, and (3) the central role of microbial biotechnology in addressing these problems.

The putative association between S. enteritidis and eggs is at the top of the list of the U.S. egg industry's food safety problems. S. enteritidis phage Type 4 has, until recently, been considered an exotic organism. It has long been implicated as an etiologic agent of human disease and has caused economic loss to poultry producers in Europe, but has not been documented in the US. Last year, phage Type 4 was discovered in a southern California poultry flock. Application of traditional and molecular methods allowed investigators to determine that the source of the infection was a nearby creek which received sewage plant effluent upstream from the flock.

Human infections with E. coli O157:H7 continue to be a problem for food producers and processors. Research on this organism has indicated that it is widespread in occurrence, and that traceback to individual herds will probably not result in effective control. When or why shedding occurs, or what brings on shedding are unknown.

Biotechnology stands in a position of major importance in effectively addressing these problems, particularly in the provision of sensitive assays for detection of microbial pathogens during production and processing. An example is the continued emphasis being placed upon detection of enterohemorrhagic E. coli. Recent work, published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, evaluated a test commonly used for detection of E. coli 0157:H7, and found that it yielded a significant number of false positives. Modification of the sample enrichment process increased the specificity, and immunomagnetic separation -- the use of magnetic plastic beads coated with an antibody to capture the target organism from a complex mixture -- improved things even more. Thus, the improved assay has excellent sensitivity and specificity.

- J. G. S.

Scientists in the UK have conducted a study on the establishment, survival, and dissemination of a genetically modified microorganism (GMM) released into the environment in a field experiment on wheat. The releases, the first in the UK of a free- living (non-symbiotic) bacteria, were intended to address three objectives: (1) to assess the ability of an innocuous GMM to survive and disseminate in the environment; (2) to monitor gene transfer to related indigenous microbial populations; and (3) to determine the impact of recombinant microbes on indigenous microbial populations in the soil and the phytosphere of wheat. A report bearing on the first objective was published in the December 1995 issue of Bio/Technology.

The study, carried out at the University of Surrey and Horticulture Research International in Littlehampton and Wellesbourne, used a strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens originally isolated from the phylloplane of sugar beet and engineered with two marker genes. Laboratory studies indicated the recombinant strain was comparable to wild type in growth rate and survival; greenhouse experiments on plants grown in soil cores measured the microbe's ability to colonize the rhizosphere, to spread vertically in the soil, and to survive.

The GMM was released by way of inoculated seed and as a foliar spray applied at the time of tillering. Both vertical and lateral spread of the GMM from seed through the soil were greater in the field experiment than the greenhouse study. The difference is attributed to very wet conditions after sowing and during the course of the field experiment, in which water percolating through the soil dispersed the bacteria. Despite extensive dissemination, the GMM had limited ability to survive in the soil, falling below the limits of detection within a year after inoculation. During foliar applications, plastic enclosures were set up around plots to minimize spray drift. Nonetheless, GMMs could be detected more than 2m away immediately after spraying. Subsequent sampling failed to detect recombinant cells on those plants, indicating the inoculum did not become established. Fifty days after application, GMMs could be recovered from unsprayed plants in guard rows adjacent to the sprayed plots; as with sprayed plants, the populations declined to undetectable levels.

In these experiments, adjacent plots were inoculated with the wild type strain, but no data were reported to allow comparisons between the modified organism and the unmodified parental strain. The study does, however, have implications for future releases of GMMs. Spread beyond the initial site of application is inevitable, but survival and dissemination depend in part on how the bacteria is formulated and applied to seeds or leaves, and the nature of the soil at the release site. Persistence will depend on the relative fitness of the organism in the target environment. The authors observe that if the modified organism is likely to survive and spread, only genetic modifications posing low risk outside the target environment should be used. GMMs having increased fitness in the target environment should be less fit than the unmodified wild type outside the target environment. If these criteria are met, there is no reason to restrict the use of such organisms.

- P. T.

Genetically modified plants are expected to be grown by U.S. farmers in record numbers in 1996 as new engineered seeds are being marketed for a number of crops. Among the new designer crops is herbicide resistant soybean (Glycine max). Soybean has become one of the most important agroeconomic crops in the world, fulfilling multiple needs including use as the dominant crop for edible oil, the major supply for high protein feed for livestock, and a wide range of applications in industrial, food, pharmaceutical and agricultural products. Industrial applications include the use of soybean oil as a carrier in inks and paints.

The U.S. leads the world in production of soybeans, producing 50 percent of the world's supply. Soybeans are grown in 29 states by approximately 380,000 U.S. farmers. The U.S. produces over 2.5 billion bushels a year worth close to $14 billion; soybeans rank second in cash value for U.S. crops, after corn. About 50 percent of the soybean crop produced in the U.S. is exported, with the European Union as the top customer, purchasing 37 percent of the U.S. exports.

Monsanto has developed Roundup Resistant Soybean (RRS) which is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. American farmers are eager to buy the new seeds which will enable them to use Roundup to control weeds in their fields without harming the soybean crop. However, reluctance by the European Union to approve genetically engineered crops has caused a hesitation by many farmers to purchase the new seeds from Monsanto. The engineered soybean has received approval from Great Britain, but Denmark, Austria and Sweden are insisting that harvested beans be labeled as genetically altered.

RRS soybeans will be mixed together with non-engineered soybeans for export to Europe, making it impossible to differentiate them in shipments from the U.S. or to determine whether or not they are even present in a shipment. Argentina and other major producers of soybeans are also ready to approve RRS for farmers. It is anticipated that within two years, all U.S. shipments of soybeans will contain some RRS soybeans.

Companies have felt the impact of the EU's delays in approving genetically engineered crops. Plant Genetic Systems of Belgium (PGS) is still waiting after a year and a half for a decision on herbicide resistant oilseed rape. Although the modified seed has been approved in Britain, the EU directive regulating deliberate release of genetically modified products (90/220/EEC) prohibits the sale of genetically modified organisms, until it is approved by all member countries. Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Austria and Germany are prepared to approve the rape seed only if the harvested seed is labeled as genetically modified. A compromise must be proposed if member countries disagree. Just recently, the EU commission has finally agreed to drop the requirement for the word "modified" to occur in seed labeling, which should hasten the authorization process.

According to Andrew Dickson of the Senior Advisory Group Biotechnology, the biotechnology industry's lobby group in Belgium, the industry opposes labeling of products that are not substantially changed by genetic engineering. Herbicide resistance does not change the characteristics of the product, only those of the plant.

Karen Marshall of Monsanto states that the company remains optimistic that approval for the import of RRS into Europe will come in the first quarter of 1996. Approval should be more straightforward than the case of PGS's broom rape. RRS soybeans are imported as a grown commodity thus approval for field planting is not needed. Monsanto is not seeking approval for the engineered seeds since very few soybeans are grown in Europe.

Europe faces other problems in commercialization of genetically modified plants. In addition to the burdensome regulations which inhibit efficient overview and approval of genetically modified products, public attitude is not fully behind the technology in some countries. Numerous field trials have been destroyed by vandals, and organized environmental groups formally protest release of genetically modified products. Thus, although Europe was first to approve a genetically modified crop (bromoxynil-tolerant tobacco in 1993), their efforts have been stalled and no new products have been approved. In contrast, the U.S. has approved more than a dozen products and held countless field trials.

Surveys of Canadian consumers indicate that 74 percent are at least somewhat likely to buy modified produce (if it required less pesticide use). Similar attitudes are prevalent in the U.S. However, public opinion on acceptance of genetically modified crops in Europe ranges from skeptical to cautious. Public information campaigns are likely to favorably influence the European public into acceptance. However, the funds to promote information campaigns in Europe are currently lacking at many of the European seed companies. Perhaps Monsanto, with a proven success record in the U.S., will be able to have a positive impact on opinions in the EU about the safety and advantages of genetically modified crop products. Until such a time, the U.S. will continue to reign as the biotech leader and Europe will lag behind in competitiveness in this area.

Europe's regulatory problems are likely to continue to cause delays of up to five years in availability of genetically modified seed varieties to farmers that will be readily available in the United States, Canada and South America. In addition to the soybean, Monsanto is launching a herbicide resistant sugar beet, insect resistant potatoes and cotton, and Mycogen is launching corn borer resistant maize this year. Europe is not expected to benefit from these advances until 1998 at the earliest. In addition to setting back EU farmers, it is possible that Europe's unwillingness to accept genetically modified crops will escalate trade disagreements with the U.S. affecting not only soybean exports, but potentially the entire $6.7 billion in agricultural trade between the U.S. and the EU.

References
1. MacKenzie, D. Trouble in the wind over altered soya beans. New Scientist. Vol 148 (2006), p12. December 2, 1995
2. 1995 Soy Stats. American Soybean Association Homepage.
3. Plant biotech will hit farming sector radar screen in 1996. BioBusiness. December 8, 1995

Cynthia J. Sollod and William O. Bullock
Institute for Biotechnology Information
LLC Research Triangle Park, NC

Each month, the News Report contains a variety of articles and news items to keep readers informed about what's happening in agricultural and environmental biotechnology. The mainstay of most issues is news about research to genetically engineer plants, animals, and microbes for applications in agriculture. To provide important context for the research news, The News Report includes articles about policy issues, regulatory agency rules and decisions, environmental issues, and the business side of agbiotech.

It's a fast moving field - research is progressing on so many fronts it's becoming hard to keep up. So Information Systems for Biotechnology is looking for additional writers to report on research and product development in plant, animal, and microbial biotechnology. For details, please send email to traynor@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu.

The material in this News Report is compiled by NBIAP's Information Systems for Biotechnology, a joint project of USDA/CSREES and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or of Virginia Tech.

Information Systems for Biotechnology, 120 Engel Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0308, tel: 540-231-2620, fax: 540-231-2614, email: traynor@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu

For internet access to the News Report, textfiles, and databases use one of the following procedures.
1. Through WWW: http://www.isb.vt.edu/
2. Use telnet or gopher to connect to ftp.nbiap.vt.edu
3. Use ftp to connect to ftp.nbiap.vt.edu. Use "anonymous" as your user-id, your email address as your password. Type "cd pub/nbiap".

To have the News Report automatically emailed, send an email message to news@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu and type subscribe newsreport in the message section.