Recent entries
- Day out at the Department of Transport
- Time for new EU law to ban illegal timber
- Scott of the Antarctics
- Day out at the Japanese Embassy
- Free the Tokyo Two
- Brown's green revolution?
- Live from the IWC -something happen anytime soon now
- Going to Glastonbury? Send us your photos and videos
- Company scores plummet in Greener Electronics Guide
- Double whammy to EPR sites in France and Finland
EC sounds alarm bells over GM crops
Posted by jossc on 12 May 2008.
GM food producers are reeling after new investigations by the European Commission (EC) uncovered problems with three new types of genetically modified crops. The Commission raised concerns over a new type of GM potato and two types of GM maize, all of which had previously been given the green light by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). For the first time, Europe's most senior lawmakers are publicly questioning the safety of GM crops.
Potential problems with the three new GM strains first came to light last year when leading experts from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Pasteur Institute and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) expressed fears about the impact of German chemical giant BASF's GM potato on human health. Their research found that the crop could result in people and animals developing resistance to certain types of antibiotics which are used to treat diseases. Data on Syngenta's two types of GM maize (Bt 11 and 1507) wasn't much better, with scientists concerned that they could harm wildlife such as butterflies and other insects.
"That policy makers at the very highest levels are now questioning the safety of GM crops is very significant."
Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International
Matters first came to a head last October when, after taking these concerns into account, European Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas stood up to big agribusiness and refused to allow cultivation of the two varieties of GM maize. BASF and Syngenta challenged the decision and threatened legal action, leading the EC to order a second investigation into the safety of the new strains. During this process we kept up the pressure by posting comments on Commission blogs and sending numerous emails and petitions. Many thanks to the 130,000 of you who took part in our email action to remind the Commissioners of their responsibilities.
Now the results of that research are in, and while it makes unhappy reading for the biotech companies, it's great news for all of us who oppose the genetic modification of our food in pursuit of a quick profit. A pat on the back is definitely in order for the Commissioners for standing up to intense industry pressure and applying the precautionary principle.
Although, having said that, you have to wonder why the Commission asked the EFSA to look again at the crops when it had showed itself completely incapable of doing so the first time round? There is no escaping the facts. The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is completely unknown. In truth the Commission should have recognised this and rejected the new crops outright first time around but hey, at least they got there in the end.
An unrelated but equally welcome piece of news on the GM front aired last week when the residents of Montville, a small community located in Maine in the US became the first town outside of California to ban the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. To do so, they had to take on the deep pockets and misguided motivations of corporations such as Monsanto, the Halliburton of the farming industry. In this podcast from The Celcias Show Leslie Berliant speaks with some of the courageous farmers and town residents of Montville who helped to make this ban a reality.
Tags:
Misleading reporting
Several problems with the reporting in this story:
"Their research found that the crop could result in people and animals developing resistance to certain types of antibiotics which are used to treat diseases."
This is misleading the way it is written. Animals (including humans) do not develop resistance to antibiotics. Antibiotics are used to kill bacteria, and it is bacteria that can become resistant to them. The concern arises when bacteria that are pathogens of animals become resistant to the antibiotics used to treat disease. This story doesn't suggest how this might occur. What, may I ask, is the proposed mechanism for bacteria to gain resistance from GMO crops? How would the DNA from the GMO crop be transferred into bacteria when no known mechanism for this is known to exist? And even if this could happen, why isn't natural plant DNA being transferred to bacteria all the time, resulting in some unpredictable threat to health?
"The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is completely unknown."
This is another misleading and inaccurate statement. Plants naturally produce many defense compounds against pests... ie. natural pesticides. Many agricultural pesticides actually come from the natural pesticides that are produced in plants to defend themselves against insects and other plant pests. Moreover, the BT toxin comes from a naturally occurring soil bacterium that has been coexisting along with plants almost forever. The toxin is only toxic to insects, its mode of action is well known and it is studied extensively. So there is a great deal that IS known about these kinds of crops, although perhaps not everything is known, as the article suggests.
re: misleading reporting
The first known instance of horizontal gene transfer from GM crops was from genetically modified rape seed to bacteria living in the gut of bee larvae. It does happen, I’m afraid, regardless of whether you or I understand how. This piece explains a mechanism and how it has been demonstrated in the laboratory.
Why would GM crops cause antibiotic resistance? It may be because biotech firms use antibiotic resistance as a marker gene in order to test whether the gene they actually wanted to insert has taken. This is a pointless risk which we could easily avoid, but that’s the biotech industry for you.
Regarding your point on the sentence "The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is completely unknown.", you’re right, it would be more accurate to say that "The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is almost completely unknown."
re: misleading reporting
Im sorry, but the article you provide the link to clearly states that "Researchers were UNABLE to demonstrate this type of gene transfer", so it does not support your argument - quite the opposite.
And the article in essence states that "transfer of plant DNA to micro-organisms is theoretically conceivable, but extremely unlikely." I urge all readers to find the time to read it in full.
While one can understand the reasoning for anti-GM sentiment, I think we should also expect a higher standard of investigation and reporting on this website.
re: misleading reporting
I guess it depends on your definition of "extremely unlikely" - probablility theory dictates that even the most unlikely event is certain to happen in the end - and it's just as likely to be sooner as it is to be later. And the article clearly states that "All the studies indicate that there are no insurmountable barriers to horizontal gene transfer between bacteria" and that "so far horizontal gene transfer has been demonstrated under "optimum laboratory conditions" in two safety research projects".
Although transfer of plant DNA to bacteria is characterised as "an extremely rare event" which "could not be demonstrated under natural conditions" - it would be more scientifically accurate to say that it has not yet been demonstrated. Given the potentially disastrous consequences of such a transfer, Greenpeace believes that the precautionary principle should apply in such cases - the onus must be on those who would introduce these genetic modifications to prove that they are safe - not on the rest of us to prove that they are not. Fortunately the EC appears to be supporting our position on adopting this precautionary stance, and not the gung ho approach you appear to be advocating.
But I'm with you on encouraging anyone who's interested to read the article themselves and make up their own minds.
Data on Syngenta's two types
Data on Syngenta's two types of GM maize (Bt 11 and 1507) wasn't much better, with scientists concerned that they could harm wildlife such as butterflies and other insects.
Scientists being concerned is one thing, but are there any studies showing actual harm to butterfly populations? I'd be interested to read the references.
Thanks
re:Data on Syngenta's two types
Hi Nick,
couldn't find any research relating directly to butterflies but there are examples of other insects being damaged by Bt strains (see Bt Crops Threaten Aquatic Ecosystems for their effect on caddisflies (close relatives of lepidopterans). The Institute of Science in Society also have some good points to make about
links between horizontal gene transfer, and the emergence of infectious diseases in one of their referenced articles.
Cheers,
Joss
GPUK