Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Fwd: [SANET-MG] gene pollution a global threat [Joe Cummins]

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>
  • To: Market Farming <marketfarming@lists.ibiblio.org>, permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [permaculture] Fwd: [SANET-MG] gene pollution a global threat [Joe Cummins]
  • Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:46:05 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SANET-MG] gene pollution a global threat
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:56:13 -0500
From: joe cummins <jcummins@UWO.CA>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

The threat of gene pollution from GM crops is very real. GM free
Scotland did a comprehensive review of some international GM pollution
incidence. The threat injury to humans and animals from GM crops is not
exagerated , a number of potentially dangerous human and animal genes in
food are being tested in the field and several of these may be permited
for open field production in the near future. Canada has legalized gene
pollution on the basis that the current law allows release to the
environment of GM constructs so Canadian consumers beware.
http://www.gmfreescotland.org.uk/News/11jan_wavesofgenepollution.html
News | January '11 | Waves of gene pollution
A land-mark federal court case in the US in 2010 has, at last, formally
recognized the existence of real dangers from gene pollution, and at the
same time highlighted the irresponsible attitude of regulators and industry.

GM sugar beet

The case ended with an order from the Judge for the immediate
destruction of hundreds of acres of GM sugar-beet which he declared had
been planted in violation of federal law.

In the court, the many ways in which GM sugar beets could harm the
environment and consumers were outlined. It was also noted that
containment efforts are currently insufficient and that past
contamination incidents were “too numerous” to allow the illegal beet
crop to remain in the ground. In his court order, the Judge ruled that
“farmers and consumers would likely suffer harm from
cross-contamination” between GM sugar beets and normal crops. He
continued “the legality of Defendants' conduct does not even appear to
be a close question”, and noted that the government regulators and
Monsanto had tried to circumvent his prior ruling which had made the GM
beet illegal to grow.

The problem is that artificial gene constructs can't be contained.
Insect-pollinators, wind, water, farm and transport equipment, GM weeds
and crop volunteers all can and do play their part in spreading man-made
DNA far and wide. This has never been more obvious than in the waves of
genetic pollution seen in 2010.

In areas where GM crops are being legally grown, waves of artificial DNA
will stream in from neighbouring GM crops.

Canola

One Australian organic canola (oilseed rape) farmer has lost his vital
organic certification after two-thirds of his arable land was found to
be contaminated by GM plants. Since rape seed can persist in the soil
for more than 10 years, the farmer is acutely aware that “Our livelihood
is at stake as we ... rely on the premium that comes with selling
guaranteed GM-free organic food in Australia and in overseas markets ...
Governments that allow GM canola to be grown must ensure whatever a
farmer does within their boundary does not impact on neighbouring farms
... clearly, the technology can't be contained.” Gene Ethics Cropwatch
pointed out that

“A majority of people will not buy GM contaminated food products and are
flocking to organics, but this incident puts that trust under a cloud.”

European and Japanese grain buyers have threatened to cancel Australian
contracts over fears of contaminated canola.

The Australian organic farmer is considering suing his neighbour, but as
Monsanto pointed out, the GM grower had complied with all his legal
obligations (a laughable 5-metre buffer zone). The Australian
Agricultural Minister responsible for allowing the GM canola to be grown
in the first place professes to be confident the incident is a
'one-off'. However, this problem could be the beginning of a new
backlash against GM crops, because Monsanto has determined to back the
offending GM neighbour if it comes to a lawsuit. This will inevitably
rally conventional farmers world-wide to support the organic farmer, and
generate a lot of biotech-unfriendly PR.

Several waves of DNA pollution have come from the importing of
contaminated seeds from areas where the GM contaminant is legal or is
under development.

Maize

Conventional maize seed planted in seven states in Germany and in
Ireland was found to be contaminated with NK603 GM (herbicide-tolerant)
maize. The Saxony Environment Minister said the 2000-hectare problem
came from two rogue sacks of seed. Gene pollution can spread from maize
at a rate of up to 1200 metres a year, however in this case both
countries took action to destroy the offending crops before the outward
march of genes could begin. Of more concern here is that the imported
maize was accompanied by a certificate of analysis 'assuring' it GM-free.

Soya

Similarly, a new non-GM soya imported into Europe for trials was found
to be contaminated by an unauthorised GM variety. The French authorities
caught it before it was planted, and the UK Department of Environment
and Rural Affairs, less on-the-ball, discovered it after it was in the
ground in Sussex.

Potatoes

The latest GM crop to be commercialised in Europe, the Amflora potato
for industrial starch and animal feed got off to a bad start when some
of the first batch was found to be another, quite different and illegal,
GM spud, 'Amadea'. The mix-up was spotted in Sweden, and raised an alarm
in Germany and the Czech Republic where Amflora planting was also taking
place. Greenpeace described the discovery of Amadea as a “deplorable
lapse of bio-security”.

Of course, the wave of gene contamination not spotted in the fields will
make its way into the stores.

Rice

Illegal Bt 63 genes for insect-resistance flowed all the way onto
Chinese supermarket shelves in rice products. Ironically, the offending
grains originated in strategic stores intended for emergency relief
following natural disasters. In this case, the 'relief' was the
disaster. These incidents were only uncovered due to testing by
Greenpeace. The Chinese rice-contamination seems to derive from earlier
experimental field-tests of the GM strain.

The big question is, once out there, can genetic contamination ever be
purged?

Previous field tests of a GM grass in America are threatening to become
a significant environmental problem. A herbicide-tolerant strain of GM
creeping bent-grass is spreading uncontrollably on field margins and
irrigation canals in Oregon. The glyphosate-resistant GM seed intended
for golf-courses was trialled in 2005 in neighbouring Idaho. After 5
years, the GM weeds are well-established and spreading rapidly as all
grasses do. The catch-22 difficulty in controlling such a
glyphosate-tolerant plant is that this same weedkiller is the only one
deemed 'safe' enough to use in the waterways through which the GM grass
is spreading.

Flax

Besides these new gene contamination waves of 2010, Triffid flax
continues to pop up around the world (most recently in Finland). It
seems the illegal gene has now been found in seed stocks in Russia,
Turkey, China, the USA and Moldova in addition to its site of origin in
Canada (See THE DAY OF THE FLAX – News, November 2009).

All of the above incidents could have, or did, became global problems,
and the price of picking up the pieces is staggering. The costs include
testing, administration, oversight, market recalls, crop destruction,
cleaning up the environment, and re-establishing the market once trust
has been eroded. These costs have, so far, been overwhelmingly born by
the public and by farmers. Readers will be aware of the on-going US
court-cases, in which biotech giant Bayer is being successfully sued for
very large sums by US rice farmers (see MINEFIELD OF RICE – News, March
2008, and GM POLLUTION - WHO'S LIABLE? - News, March 2010). The most
recent award was nearly $50 million to 12 Arkansas farmers damaged by
the escape of the company's experimental LL601 rice. Time will tell
whether these payments set a precedent for future compensation.

None of these gene contamination waves would have happened if, to
paraphrase Greenpeace, the regulators hadn't said 'no' to public
opinion, 'no' to the health and safety concerns of scientists, 'no' to
biodiversity, ' no' to farmers' livelihoods and 'no' to food security.
The only things they say 'yes' to seem to be the demands of the biotech
companies.

Each of these incidents has been characterised by delays on the part of
regulators and industry, including unwarranted slowness to publicise the
problem, buck-passing, trivialisation denial and concealment:

* The US Department of Agriculture and Monsanto seemed to have pretended
not to understand the court ruling that the GM beet was illegal
* The Australian Agriculture Minister curiously changed his tune from
'trials proved GM and non-GM canola can be segregated and marketed
separately' when he ended the ban on growing GM in March to “... zero
per cent thresholds are unrealistic in biological systems” six-months
(and one serious organic crop contamination) later.
* Officials in Germany took 2 months to warn farmers of the GM maize
contamination
* Ireland was alerted of the GM maize contamination 3 months after the
German discovery and long after the seed had been sown.
* Many of the details of GM contaminations, such as Triffid flax, have
only been revealed through freedom-of-information requests.
* The Chinese province of Hubei, which was quick to try out experimental
GM rice has been the slowest province to implement essential screening
of it's rice supplies for genetic contamination.
* Oregon Department of Agriculture insisted the creeping bent-grass was
a federal problem, and all it had to do was find a new weed-killer to
get rid of the GM weeds.
* The company which caused the creeping bent-grass problem had already
been fined once for a escape of the same GM plants in 2003, but seemed
to shrug it off with “you likely are going to have situations where you
have seed spills here, pollen flows there.”
* Bayer knew about the LL601 rice contamination in January 2006, but the
USDA failed to alert farmers until their crops were almost ready for
harvesting.
* Bayer's attitude to the bankrupt and struggling US rice farmers was
that their damages were minimal and didn't last long.

OUR COMMENT

The next gene contamination might just be the one that kills or
cripples, and if it's not the next one, the perhaps the next again? At
the rate the waves of contamination are circulating around the world, a
genetic tsunami could be just round the corner.

We have much better, safer, more efficient and sustainable techniques
for developing crops to suit our needs. You have the power to promote
sensible use of science: just refuse to eat GM.




  • [permaculture] Fwd: [SANET-MG] gene pollution a global threat [Joe Cummins], Lawrence F. London, Jr., 01/11/2011

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page