EC sounds alarm bells over GM crops

Posted by jossc — 12 May 2008 at 4:12pm - Comments

A GM Maize crop

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.

GM Podcast: the Celcias Show

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.

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."

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.

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

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."

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.

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

About Joss

Bass player and backing vox in the four piece beat combo that is the UK Greenpeace Web Experience. In my 6 years here I've worked on almost every campaign and been fascinated by them all to varying degrees. Just now I'm working on Peace and Oceans - which means getting rid of our Trident nuclear weapons system and creating large marine reserves so that marine life can get some protection from overfishing.

Follow Greenpeace UK