GMW: Australian Regulator claimed superweed risk negligible

[Guest guest]

GMW: Australian Regulator claimed superweed risk " negligible "

" GM WATCH " <info

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:01:32 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

More on the herbicide resistance found in a distantly related plant,

charlock, near to a GM oilseed rape (canola) trial.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5529

 

For a profile of Australia's Gene Technology Regulator

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=278

------

FROM JEREMY TAGER OF GREENPEACE AUSTRALIA

 

Jonathon

 

The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in assessing the

application for commercial release of GE Liberty Link canola had this

to say re

charlock:

 

" The likelihood of transfer of the introduced genes from the GM canola

to the less closely related brassicaceous weed species Raphanus

raphanistrum, Hirschfeldia incana and Sinapis arvensis is very low "

(Bayer GE

Canola Risk Assessment Risk Management Plan p. 12, 2002) Elsewhere the

risk is described as " negligible " . (para. 569)

 

" charlock is a problem in agricultural areas and is a particularly

serious weed in cropping regions of New South Wales (Groves et al. 2000).

It can also occur in disturbed sites along roadsides and railways in

canola growing regions of Australia (Dignam 2001). " (para 553)

 

Of course, the Regulator dismisses any risk as irrelevant because there

is no evidence that GE contamination causes harm to the environment or

human health - a conclusion based on so little evidence that you can

understand why David Suzuki called anyone making those claims either

" incredibly stupid " or " deliberately lying! " .

 

The OGTR does not even examine the possibility of introgression. The

possibility of hybridisation is recognised but is argued to be of

extremely low likelihood.

 

cheers

Jeremy

------

" GM crops are the biggest threat to the agricultural industry we have

ever faced and industry leaders have no right to accept GM contamination

and industry sabotage on behalf of farmers that can not afford to

accept it.

 

....millions of dollars have been invested by governments in GM

technology in the hope that the scientific sector will be self

funding. No real

benefits have been forthcoming and market risk is rapidly worsening.

 

No government should sacrifice a viable industry in order to prop up a

high risk, failing, fledgling industry and if they do, somebody other

than farmers or taxpayers should be liable for the consequences. " -

Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmers, Australia

 

 

------------------------