National Regulations Should Reflect Risks of GE Crops

[Guest guest]

GMW: Pusztai - National Regulations Should Reflect Risks of

GE Crops

" GM WATCH " <info

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:33:12 GMT

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

EXCERPT: ...since we all want to live in a healthy and natural

environment and eat foods which will not endanger our health, we are all

entitled to scrutinise the evidence relating to the safety of GE crops.

Secrecy is therefore against the public interest and unjustified. GE

technology is irreversible and therefore we have to seriously weigh up

the

pros and cons of its introduction. In democracies it is the people's

inalienable right that they should be able to decide whether society can

afford to take on the very real risks and the possibly dangerous

consequences of genetic engineering for the possibly vain hope of some

future

benefits for society.

---

National Regulations Should Reflect Risks of GE Crops

Arpad Pusztai

Scientific Consultant to GenOk, Tromso, Norway

BioSpectrum, January 06, 2006

http://www.biospectrumindia.com/content/columns/10601061.asp

 

Engineered artificial gene constructs may undergo mutation and

evolution to an end, therefore making the safety assessment of GE

crops an

exercise without a firm predictive scientific basis.

 

Acceptance of products and associated agricultural practices of the

biotechnology industry is running into problems, probably due to the

perception held by many scientists that the technical ability of

biotechnology industry to produce safe genetically engineered (GE)

crops has

developed faster than the understanding of the underlying scientific

principles of gene splicing. Consumers and scientists alike feel that the

possible consequences for health and environment of the spread of GE

crops

are not properly understood and that without sufficient research

funding and having generally agreed methodologies for assessing the

unique

risks of GE crops, we shall never be able to properly address them. It

should not be surprising that societal concerns about genetic engineering

of something as basic as our food and how they are produced are high

and no matter of patronizing platitudes by the scientific, political and

industrial establishments will make these concerns to go away.

 

Bizzare approach

 

The approach of the biotechnology industry to the safety of its

products or the understanding how society perceives risk is bizarre.

The harsh

treatment of sceptics and dissident scientists does not demonstrate the

establishment's great willingness to listen to views not in tune with

their pre-set ideas. Openness is not much helped either that due to the

high cost of biological testing, biotechnology companies only do

minimal and superficial environmental and health risk assessments.

Cost will

also be a major factor in their reluctance to finance research to

develop scientifically sound methodologies but rather they prefer to

declare

the present agricultural practices to grow GE crops as safe and that

foods prepared from them present no risks for the consumer. The fact that

in the decade since the introduction of GE crops only one human feeding

study has been conducted and basic academic animal

nutritional/toxicology studies published in peer-reviewed journals are

also few and far

between gives plenty of ammunition to those who oppose GE crops.

 

Presently there is an intensive scientific and legislative debate in

many countries, including India, about the possibility of the large-scale

growing of GE crops without jeopardizing the GE-free status of

organically or conventionally grown crops. Pro-industry scientists

advocate

that even with cross-pollinating crop species only a few metres of

separation distance between GE and non-GE crops will be adequate to

prevent

genetic pollution. However, in the laboratory to prevent the escape and

proliferation of untested experimental GE organisms, all developmental

work is strictly contained. Moreover, to guarantee the purity of

certified seeds even the industry specifies considerably larger

separation

distances. Thus, for contract growers of certified hybrid seeds, such as

hybrid corn, distances of 400 m or more are demanded. In contrast, the

biotechnology industry proposes to release GE crops into the environment

without adequate biological controls to prevent their dispersal or the

artificial transgenes they express. According to their proposals, the

strict safety guidelines that apply to GE organisms in the laboratory

are not deemed to be necessary when these are grown in open fields, but

without scientifically justifying this double standard in safety

conduct. One might consider that even more stringent safety controls

should be

enforced in the natural environment than in the laboratory,

particularly as we do not have a backup with products of this

irreversible

technology. Moreover, there is already sufficient evidence to show that

engineered artificial gene constructs may undergo mutation and

evolution to

an end that we are not aware of, and therefore making the safety

assessment of GE crops an exercise without a firm predictive

scientific basis.

Indeed, one cannot safety assess something that has not yet evolved.

 

Genetic contamination

 

In the absence of adequate methods to remove inserted transgenes, once

the seeds are genetically contaminated, it will be nearly impossible to

recover the original uncontaminated seed stock. Under the regulatory

systems of most countries, testing of seeds for genetic contamination is

done after the event and not before. In the USA and Canada the whole

seed system has become contaminated after ten years of large-scale

commercialisation of GE crops. Thus, even though only about one

percent of

the corn seeds sown in Iowa (USA) was StarLink, in the absence of

adequate separation between the GE and non-GE cornfields and

segregation of

the seeds after harvest, about 50 percent of the corn produced contained

the StarLink transgene, demonstrating that coexistence of GE and non-GE

crops is impossible. The proposal by the MS Swaminathan Task Force that

regions in India representing either primary or secondary centres of

genetic diversity for major crops such as rice should be conserved for

posterity as " agro-biodiversity sanctuaries " and " organic farming zones " ,

is manifestly impractical and will not stop the genetic contamination

of rice crops in other areas. In a democracy once the floodgates are

opened it is impossible to control who grows what. It also means that

other parts of the country will be opened up for GE crops. This therefore

is nothing but a back door entry to introduce them by a slight of hand

which, on the face of it, appears to give false assurances to people

that there is no threat at all that genetic contamination will spread in

the country.

 

Risks of GEOs

 

In order to satisfy the legitimate demands of the scientific community

and society any large-scale growing of GE crops and their coexistence

with crops grown using traditional and organic agricultural practices

must be based on or at least take into account the scientific guidelines

as laid out very recently in the authoritative ESA (Ecological Society

of America) Report on the possible risks of GEOs (genetically

engineered organisms) because these may create new, and more vigorous

pests and

pathogens; exacerbate the effects of existing pests through

hybridisation with related transgenic organisms; harm non-target

species of

organisms; disrupt biotic communities, including agro- ecosystems; cause

irreparable loss or changes in species diversity or genetic diversity.

Therefore GEOs require greater scrutiny than crops produced by

traditional

breeding

 

We shall also have to consider that GEOs may pose risks to the

environment because we have little or no prior experience with the

trait and

host combination; GEOs may proliferate and persist without human

intervention; genetic exchange is possible between a transformed

organism and

non-domesticated organisms; trait confers an advantage to the GEO over

native species in a given environment.

 

If these principles are not taken into account in proposed

legislations, the large-scale growing of GE crops can irreversibly

harm our

environment by genetic contamination of our traditional crops and

weeds by

cross-fertilization and by horizontal gene transfer respectively.

Moreover, in the absence of science-based regulation of the

cultivation of

pesticide-producing (i.e. Bt-toxin) GE crops, the development of

resistance

in pests to biopesticides which are also used in organic or traditional

agriculture will be speeded up. The uncontrolled large-scale

cultivation of herbicide-resistant GE crops will not only contaminate our

environment but also lead to the creation of herbicide-resistent

superweeds

and thus increase rather than reduce the chemical-load of the land and

endanger our clean water supply.

 

Transparency

 

It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that the environmental and

health risks or safety assessments of GE crops/foods should not be

carried out only by biotechnology companies but it must also be

verified by

independent scientists through a transparent funding system. Any

controlling legislation must also be based on these assessments and

debated

by all stakeholders in the society. The basic rule must be that, since

we all want to live in a healthy and natural environment and eat foods

which will not endanger our health, we are all entitled to scrutinise

the evidence relating to the safety of GE crops. Secrecy is therefore

against the public interest and unjustified. GE technology is

irreversible

and therefore we have to seriously weigh up the pros and cons of its

introduction. In democracies it is the people's inalienable right that

they should be able to decide whether society can afford to take on the

very real risks and the possibly dangerous consequences of genetic

engineering for the possibly vain hope of some future benefits for

society.

 

 

 

 

 

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