Mystery GM contamination in rapeseed crop

SOURCE: Daily Mail
GM contamination discovered in Somerset trial crops

GM genes were found to have contaminated a harvest of oilseed rape in Somerset, linked with an  crop being grown by Monsanto on a seed production site. Defra identified the error and are investigating.

Critics say the GM alert provides further evidence of the lack of proper controls surrounding the growing of GM crops.

The variety involved is known as GT73, which is authorised to be sold as human and animal feed in the EU but not to be grown in the UK. The GM trait in the oilseed rape is designed to protect the plant against heavy spraying with weedkillers developed by Monsanto, the American biotechnology giant. If this trait is transferred to related wild plants it could pass on this same chemical resistance, creating so-called superweeds.

Friends of the Earth said the contamination was only the latest of a number of incidents involving the planting of crops and sale of food containing illegal GM DNA.

Its senior food campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, said: ‘It’s extremely worrying that once again contaminated and potentially unsafe GM seeds have been grown illegally in the UK.

=======

Related articles

• New Scientist ‘Instant Expert’ – GMOs
• GM contamination a real risk?
• Mexico maize gains transgenes
• GM crops could release genes, the SA warned 

Problems of transgene flow – a litigation nightmare

www.feedingtheworldconference.org

Notes from the presentation

Professor Jack Heinemann from the University of Christchurch, New Zealand, a lead author on the IAASTD Report, told the Feeding the World Conference about the experiences of oilseed rape (canola) growers in Canada.

Oilseed rape there has a mixture of herbicide resistances which arose their and which are a classic example of transgene flow from GM crops.

In the marketplace, non-GM rape can suffer a price decrease because exports from Canada have, at times, been shown to be contaminated with GM varieties, said Professor Heinemann.

Liability for this kind of contamination tends to work in two ways: a non-GM farmer found with someone’s transgene may be vulnerable to a court case for being in possession of intellectual property without having paid for it.

On the other hand, an organic farmer say, whose crop is contaminated by a GM farmer, could sue the GM farmer for any reduction in earnings due to loss of market certification.

In part, to avoid such disputes and costs, Professor Heinemann said IAASTD had promoted agro-ecology, a sustainable agriculture which would not benefit from GM crops. “At the same time, there is growing and plausible evidence of hazards to human health and the environment from GM crops.”

He went on to say that failure to contain transgenes can have human health, environmental and legal implications. Gene flow is the key environmental concern for sustainable coexistence between GM and non-GM crops.

“Risk assessment frameworks in most jurisdictions are case by case. Gene flow undermines this case by case approach because the movement of transgenes to different genetic backgrounds and species in an uncontrolled manner will result in the creation of new GMOs that have not benefited from any such assessment.”

The development of GM pharma and industrial crop plants introduces new complexities because these plants are not always intended to be safe. The track record of containment from the last 12 years or so of commercial GM crop development provides little confidence that either the biotech or the agriculture industries can keep these plants on the farm or segregate them away from the human food supply, concluded Professor Heinemann.

Agro-ecology was seen by IAASTD as being the most promising way forward for poor and subsistence farmers, he added. “These are the farmers who feed the world and these are the ones we have to worry about. The main problem for these farmers is the behaviour of the rich countries.”

“Europe, the United States and other countries have subsidised their agriculture and this prevents the development of markets for poor and subsistence farmers and reduces their income. They are being offered a technology – GM and mono cropping – coupled with particular agro chemicals which are unsuitable for their farming conditions. GM crops do not increase yield and they have not been shown to reduce the use of toxic pesticides in any sustainable ways.”

EU Environment Ministers and the promise of new GMO controls

Last week’s meeting (December 4th) of EU Environment Ministers, saw Member States make clear to the European Commission and to the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) that there must be a dramatic improvement in the way in which GMO risks to health and the environment are assessed.

In spite of indications that the UK and Germany might have been intent on interfering with the emerging consensus across Europe, it appears even those two countries have agreed a full, joint statement which includes the following elements –
• a re-statement of the “precautionary principle” as a central tenet of GMO assessments.
• a strengthening of the environmental impact assessment for GMOs alongside a strengthening of monitoring requirements.
• more emphasis on the consequences of the use of herbicides as a result of GMO introductions.

The Ministers have agreed far more of a role for independent scientists – and EFSA’s own powers in this area may be reduced. They also said that pesticide-producing GM crops should be treated in the same way as chemical pesticides and recognised the right of regions and local communities to establish GM-free zones.

The sub text appears to be that EU Environment Ministers are now insisting on transparent reform of what has been seen by some as a secretive and corrupt assessment process.

“Member states have sent a clear signal to the Commission that we need to improve the way we assess the impact of GM crops on the environment, on our health and on the lives of millions of farmers,” said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director. “It’s now up to the Commission and EFSA to implement these recommendations.”

Presentations now online

Feeding the World Conference 2008

We have posted the speakers’ papers from the conference – please find them at the Presentations page.

Speakers included: Dr Michael Antoniou, Dr Jeremy Cherfas, Dr Charlie Clutterbuck, Professor Jack Heinemann, Professor Janice Jiggins, Dr Brian Johnson, Kath Pasteur (on behalf of Eric Kisiangani from Kenya), Cinzia Scaffidi, and Dr Julia Wright.

We have also begun to publish free MP3 audio files of talks and plenary sessions. Download the slides and view them as you play back the sound file – as if you were at the conference!

Please visit the Presentations Page for further audio files, as we continue to update our blog.

GM fightback in Brazil gives organic hope

Organic Research Centre

GM fightback in Brazil gives organic hope

Brazilian farmers and traders endorse non-GM crop body

Is a backlash against GM crops beginning to grow in Brazil? Until recently such a question would have been unthinkable, but now a group of growers and traders have launched a trade body promoting non-GM grains and seeds.

Meeting at the Iguazu Falls earlier this Autumn, the new group was officially launched and constituted as the Brazilian Association for the Producers of Non Genetically Modified Grains (ABRANGE). It includes grain and seed producers, co-operatives, milling industries, transport and warehousing companies, certification organisations as well as research laboratories and others. “Our aim is to encourage the growing, production development and processing of non GM grains in Brazil”, says the elected President, Borges de Sousa of Caramuru Alimentos.

One of the most important priorities of ABRANGE is to promote initiatives to increase the consumption as well as to develop and improve the quality of non-GM products. It also wants to enhance non-GM sustainability in terms of production and the environment along with social responsibility and information flows to customers about the regular and consistent supply that can be achieved from Brazilian non-GM grains and their derivatives.

A key practical step, says executive secretary Tatesuzu de Sousa, is to develop robust certification and supply chain connections for our national and international clients, so that they can have real trust in Brazilian non-GM crops and products. To that end a priority for ABRANGE is the creation of a reference consulting centre.

“This news from Brazil could have real significance for organic producers across the EU. If ABRANGE is successful in certifying and marketing significant volumes of non-GM grains out of Brazil then a key plank in the argument that Europe must accept GM penetration from maize and soya imports (because there is no choice) is removed,” says Organic Research Centre senior policy researcher Richard Sanders.