|
|
|
Genetic
Engineering on Farms
Farmers and Scientists speak out on GE
The environmental problems with GE There are many ways in which genetic material can spread and cause genetic pollution: the wind, bees (flies, butterflies, ants, beetles and aphids), cross pollination, horizontal gene transfer, human handling, crop transport and holding facilities. Genetic pollution can create many problems for farmers: - Super-resistant weeds - In 1997, Farmer Tony Huether planted three crops of canola that were resistant to different herbicides. Cross-pollination between different GE varieties meant that within two years triple resistance had built up in the canola plants The triple mixing has been blamed on a combination of bees and wind carrying pollen between plants in fields. - Impacts on agricultural biodiversity - GE crops can cross-pollinate with wild and weedy relatives of crop. This can cause the extinction of rare wild relatives and the evolution of aggressive weeds, which may express the engineered trait. - Non GE crops polluted with GE material - The most famous example of this is the Percy Schmeiser case in the USA. Schmeiser's canola crop was contaminated by generically modified canola from another farm. The GE crop was licensed to Monsanto and the company has sued Schmeiser for using their technology. For more information about Percy Schmeiser's legal fight with Monsanto click here. Pollen can travel great distances, so even distant farms can be sources of genetic pollution. Corn pollen carried by wind is capable of travelling hundreds of kilometres . In a Scottish study a canola plant was fertilised with pollen and the nearest known matching plant was more than four km away. - Engineered genes can transfer to the gut of other species GE genes could transfer from parts of a GE plant to the gut of other species following ingestion eg. to pollinators, humans, cattle, farmed fish, birds and wildlife. This may also occur through pathogens (for example viruses) and may transfer into soil microorganisms. New Zealand scientists voice concerns "We find no convincing evidence to date that GM crops offer any benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on our food, which is marginalizing family farmers in several countries and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world." Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics (New Zealand) responding to the NZ Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering. A moratorium will allow time to resolve some of the scientific issues about GE. "I think some of these are very deep difficult questions that are going to take a long period of time to answer - and I wouldn't expect New Zealand to have the resources to answer them. I think it's absolutely not correct for NZ to be a leader in the commercial release of GE. We're under-resourced and there are big, real questions". Prof. Garth Cooper, Biochemist, Auckland University of Auckland. Health concerns with GE Genetic engineering can confer new allergic potential to every day foods. A good example is when soybeans were genetically engineered with a gene from a Brazil nut. Tests on blood taken from individuals allergic to Brazil nuts unexpectedly revealed that they had a similar allergic reaction to the GE soybean. The US Environmental Protection Agency did not approve the genetically engineered maize variety "Starlink" of Aventis for human consumption as there is concern about the allergic potential of a toxin it produces (Bacillus thuringiensis Cry9C). There is evidence that Cry9C is heat stable and resistant to degradation in gastric juice, two important indicators of potential allergenicity. The FDA identified the group in the community most susceptible to allergies were infants and young children, due to their high corn diet, and their stage of development. The weakness of the scientific basis for genetically engineered crops became obvious at a public hearing in Britain on Chardon LL, another herbicide tolerant maize variety for livestock feed, from the "Starlink" producer Aventis. At the hearing Professor Bob Orskov, Director of the International Feed Resource Unit in Aberdeen, Scotland, one of the country's leading experts on ruminant nutrition, stated that the scientific case put forward for this GE maize was not adequate; testing was insufficient both in terms of time and variety of parameters. …"if the GM maize was approved for commercial growing in the UK, then people would be justified in turning their back on consuming milk derived from it". He added: "As a scientist, I wouldn't drink milk from cows fed GM maize with the present state of knowledge." There are still many other unanswered questions about the health impacts and safety of GE food products. In 1998 Dr Arpad Pustzai found that rats fed GE potatoes developed brain, liver, kidney and immune system damage. His work was supported by 21 scientists, however he was not allowed to access his findings in the following controversy to defend his findings. Markets lost as consumers turn against GE products "Farmers are really starting to question the profit-enhancing ability of products that seem to be shutting them out of markets worldwide" Cory Ollikka, Canada's National Farmers Union President calling for a moratorium on GM crops, December 2000 A "two tier market" is beginning to emerge where GE crops are shunned and GE-free crops command large rewards and premiums , according to two farsighted reports entitled GMO's are Dead and Agbiotech - thanks but no thanks by Deutsche Bank analysts. US soybean exports to Europe declined from $2.1 billion in 1996 to $1.1 billion in 1999 as promises by European livestock producers to avoid GE animal feed became reality. By 1998 Canada had entirely lost its $300-400 million of canola sales to Europe. By contrast Australian trade authorities announced Jan. 8, 1999 the largest shipment of canola (rapeseed) ever exported from Australia. The $16.5 million dollar shipment was bound for oilseed crushing plants in Europe. "Europe has moved to become a major buyer this year because Australia is the only country to guarantee non-GM canola" , according to Graham Lawrence, managing director of the New South Wales Grains Board. Australia boasted 150,000 tonne exports of canola by August 2000 and received a premium of $5 per tonne over the price of Canadian canola. The Australian markets soared after GE crops destroyed the competition. GE uninsurable The following is taken from the Insurance Council of Australia's submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries & Regional Services by Robert Drummond, ICA Executive Manager, November 1999. "Genetic engineered risks as previously covered, are either currently uninsurable or unattractive to the general insurance industry in Australia. Coverage that is available is either restrictive or inadequate." Swiss Re is one of the largest and respected reinsurers in the world and is a licensed insurer in Australia. In a report on genetic engineering and liability insurance by this Zurich based reinsurer they have made a number of points: 1. There is a lack of clear loss experience and means for the calculation culminates in the fundamental questions of the insurability of such risks. 2. For the insurance industry, genetic engineering is potentially one of the most particularly exposed technologies of the future. 3. The less acceptance the public shows towards new risks, the less trust is placed in the means to deal with them and the greater the likelihood that the possible negative consequences of each new technology will become a problem for the insurance industry. 4. The insurance industry does not perceive genetic engineering risks as clearly definable but primarily as part of an uncertain societal development. 5. Insufficient loss experience and changing societal values are reflected in a risk of change for which no quantifiable elements are available. 6. The risk profile of genetic engineering is extremely diversified and very difficult to anticipate. There is no clear conception of the risks accepted so how can genetic engineering risks be insured? (It is currently not possible to give a direct answer to the question. A lot depends on whether consensus can be reached on the relevant loss scenarios in a dialogue involving the genetic engineering industry society and the insurance industry.) 7. If one single genetic engineering loss manifests itself not only at the seed manufacturers but also at the farmer's and the food stuffs industry, different underwriting liability covers could be triggered simultaneously. 8. An increasing number of alternative risk financing models are taking their place along the traditional forms of cover. Jointly financed by the insured and insurer. 9. The insurance industry is seeking dialogue with clients and those affected on the subject of genetic engineering. Risk-related information must be exchanged openly differing values taken seriously. With the lack of a suitable product history it is relatively easy to see why insurers would be cautious. This is well founded given other man-made disasters this century involving products for human consumption. In many of these instances it is insurers that have been called upon to meet extensive liabilities which eventually are passed on by way of increased premiums. For example, there have been many pharmaceutical disasters where parallels may be drawn to GM technology. In our view liability insurers would be cautious when considering GM products and more needs to be known about the potential risks. The unforeseen risk at this stage may be too high." Sources 1. "Triple Resistant Canola Weeds Found in Alta" Mary MacArthur. The Western Producer. February 10, 2000. http://www.producer.com/articles/20000210/news/20000210news01.html 2. bid 3. Rissler, Jane and Margaret Mellon. 1996. The ecological risks of engineered crops. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 4. Emberlin, J. et al. (National Pollen Research Unit, Worcester, 1999). 5. Thompson, C.E., et al. in Gene Flow and Agriculture - Relevance for Transgenic Crops (ed. Lutman, P.J.W.) 95-106 (British Crop Protection Council, University of Keele, Staffordshire, 1999). 6. OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNMENT from the Trustees, Members, Associate Members and Supporters of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics (New Zealand). http://www.psrg.org.nz/op_let.html 7. Sunday Star Times Focus on Professor Garth Cooper July 7, 2002. 8. Nordlee, J.D., Taylor S.L., Townsend, L.X, Thomas, L.A., & Bush, R.K. (1996) Identification of a Brazil nut Allergen 10. Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn. A Report to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 11 2001 11. The Independent (London), October 19, 2000, Pg. 8, "INQUIRY WARNED OVER MILK FROM GM-FED COWS" 12. Reports prepared by Alex Brown, Deutsche Bank. July 12 1999 13. David Barboza, 'In the heartland, genetic promises', NY Times March 17,2000 14. Food bytes #17 March 2nd 1999 www.purefood.org Reuters, Aug 18 2000 "Non GM Canola scores first premiums" |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| top
|
||||||||||||||||||
