GMW: Bt maize in Europe - harmful and illegal

[Guest guest]

GMW: Bt maize in Europe - harmful and illegal

" GM WATCH " <info

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:21:30 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

Lots of interesting detail on 3 separate studies.

---

All plantings of Bt maize in Europe are harmful and illegal

Dr Brian John

 

Summary: IT IS NOW INCONTROVERTIBLE THAT ALL PLANTINGS OF BT MAIZE

VARIETIES (eg MON810 and Bt176) IN EUROPE ARE HARMFUL AND THUS ILLEGAL

UNDER DIRECTIVE 2001/18. HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DO THE 'EXPERTS' AT

DEFRA,

ACRE, FSA, ACNFP, EFSA ETC. ACTUALLY NEED? ARE THEY ALL STUPID?

WHATEVER THEIR PERSONAL PROBLEMS MAY BE, THEY ARE CERTAINLY GUILTY

(EACH ONE

OF THEM, PERSONALLY) OF THE WILFUL SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE AND OF

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.

 

Directive 2001/18 is enshrined in law, and every time a Bt variety is

planted, cultivated or harvested ( " deliberately released into the

environment " ) the law is being broken (1) (2).

 

The notes below just refer to plant toxicity, microbiology and insect

life. There are other studies too (eg Bt cotton), relating to mammals

including human beings. There is now so much evidence of harmful toxic

effects associated with Bt varieties that all past approvals by the EC

must be revisited. The approvals procedures for GM varieties " in the

pipeline " must also be stopped instantly. If they are not, that would

be interpreted by any reasonable person as connivance in environmental

damage and in the extension of public health risk by EFSA and by

Commissioners Dimas and Kyprianou in particular.

 

Evidence of ecological damage associated with Bt varieties is presented

below from Germany, Hungary and Australia. Some of this material has

been in the public domain for 2 years or more, but it has been

systematically and cynically disregarded by the EC.

 

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

 

(1) GERMANY

 

Thanks to Jonathan Latham for drawing attention to this:

 

Lang,A and Vojtech, E: " The effects of pollen consumption of

transgenic Bt maize on the common swallowtail, Papilio machaon L.

(Lepidoptera,

Papilionidae), Basic and Applied Ecology 7 (2006), pp 296-306

 

This is a careful lab-based peer-reviewed study which used moderate

pollen densities in accordance with densities found in the field. The

authors point out that field pollen densities can be much higher in the

pollen shedding period, which lasts from 5 - 14 days. During this period

the toxic effects of Bt exposure will clearly be more marked (including

greater larvae mortality rates and reduced reproductive success in

butterflies) than those revealed in the study. Note that these

effects are

specific to Bt176 pollen -- they have nothing to do with herbicide

applications.

 

The study used Bt176 maize from the Navares (Syngenta) cultivar. The

work was financed by the State Government of Bavaria.

 

Quotes:

 

" Bt toxins are produced in most tissues of the Bt maize, and pollen

with toxin may be transported by wind into adjacent areas, deposited on

plants, and consumed by larvae of non-target species feeding on these

plants. "

 

" Consumption of Bt176-maize pollen had adverse effects on life history

traits of the common swallowtail. P machaon larvae fed with Bt pollen

had a lower survival, a lower weight increase rate, a longer

development time, and lower body-weight and smaller wing size as

adults, and

these effects were significantly associated with Bt pollen density. "

 

" The study demonstrated toxic effects pf Bt176 maize pollen on P.

machaon... "

 

" Bt consumption enhances the negative impact of bacterial infections on

Lepidoptera larvae... "

 

" This study and the papers of Felke et al showed that the Bt176 maize

has the potential to adversely effect larvae of European butterflies. "

 

" We conclude that possible effects of Bt maize on European butterflies

and moths must be evaluated more rigorously before Bt maize should be

cultivated over large areas. "

 

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

 

(2) HUNGARY

 

Recent Hungarian work also confirms that Inachis io (L) (European

Peacock) and Vanessa atalanta (L) (Red Admiral) (Nymphalidae) can be

affected negatively by Bt pollen from the MON810 maize line. Both

species

(which are protected) feed on great nettle, a common weed in the water

furrows of maize fields in Hungary. The eggs of these species hatch at

exactly the time of maize pollination. See this:

 

Darvas, b et al: " Some data on the risk analysis of Bt-corn pollen and

protected Lepidoptera species in Hungary " , Novenyvedelem 40 (9) (2004)

pp 441 - 449

 

A furious row has broken out between EFSA and the Hungarian Agriculture

Ministry, which has imposed a temporary prohibition order on plantings

of MON810 maize in the country. This prohibition was based upon

environmental and ecotoxological studies in the field by a team of

Hungarian

scientists, and part of the row centres on the fact that EFSA has

chosen to pass judgement on these studies without having any expertese in

the relevant areas.

 

The Hungarian team found the following for MON810 maize:

 

1. " The Bt maize produces 1500-2000 times as much Bt-toxin as is

released through a single treatment in conventional crop protection, with

the chemical called DIPEL, which contains Bt toxin. "

2. " Other experiments have found that the residues of Bt plants are

slower to decompose than their isogenic lines. Some 8% of the toxin

produced by the plant remained in the field after harvesting. Indeed, a

substantial share of this active toxin quantity could be identified in

the

soil 11 months later. "

3. " In the soil of the field under the transgenic plant, the entire

biological activity was lower than in the control field. "

4. " The caterpillars thriving on herbs in and on the edges of maize

fields, hatching during the pollination period, are the most

substantially

affected by the Bt toxin produced by MON 810. "

 

On this basis, the Hungarians argue that any use of MON810 in maize

plantings is in direct contravention of the National Nature Conservation

Plan with respect both to protected habitats and protected insect

species.

 

The Hungarians are also furious that EFSA invited Monsanto to comment

on the Hungarian research work and accepted an anonymous critique from

the company and circulated it to Member states without comment and

indeed without prior notification of the research team. This action is

referred to as " unacceptable " and " deeply offensive " . The Hungarians are

also furious with Monsanto, which has refused to supply seeds for a

continuation of the research work and has refused to supply standards for

the content of Cry 1Ab toxins in the relevant maize varieties. The EC

is effectively accused of conniving with Monsanto in this refusal to

cooperate with the research.

 

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

 

(3) AUSTRALIA

 

A reminder of this (circulated via GM-Act in May of this year):

 

Some Australian research not widely reported... It refers to Cry1Ac

toxin and backs up the findings of the Hungarian team including Bela

Darvas. It relates to Bt cotton plants, but the conclusions can

reasonably

be extrapolated to Bt maize and to other cultivated pl;ants containing

Bt toxins.

 

From Gupta and Watson:

 

Quote: " ..... We have shown that different plant parts of Bt cotton

(leaves, stubble and roots) contain large concentrations of Bt toxin and

therefore have the potential to be a reservoir of Bt toxin in

agricultural fields of Australia. "

 

Quote: " ............ our results suggest that Bt toxin has the

potential to enter the soil system throughout the Bt cotton growing

season,

through both a root release process and root turnover. Levels of Bt

toxin entering the soil system could therefore be significantly higher

than

previously suggested ....... "

 

Quote: " ..... roots with Bt toxin are in constant contact with the

soil system (including soil biota) and Bt toxin levels in fine roots

were found to be as high as that in younger leaves. In view of the

results

reported above (large concentrations of Bt toxin in Bt cotton roots and

demonstrated root release), more detailed investigations on the

environmental fate of the root-derived Bt toxin, binding to soil

components

and build up, and movement beyond the rhizosphere and root zone, are

warranted. "

 

The concerns of the authors shine through, although they are careful

(so as to keep their paymasters happy) not to flag up " harm " or even the

potential for harm. We can see the heavy hand of CSIRO here, in

playing down the significance of the findings. But this research is very

relevant, given the new revelations about sheep deaths in India among

animals grazing on Bt cotton plants.

 

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

 

" Ecological impacts of GM cotton on soil biodiversity -- Below ground

production of Bt by GM cotton and Bt cotton impacts on soil biological

processes " Dr Vadakattu VSR Gupta and Dr Stephanie Watson

Consultancy report by CSIRO Land and Water, August 2004

 

http://www.deh.gov.au/settlements/publications/biotechnology/gm-cotton/summary.h\

tml

 

========================================

 

NOTES

 

(1) There are many clauses in the Directive than can be invoked,

including Article 8 Clauses 1 and 2 which state (a) that if and when new

information becomes available relating to the risks to health and the

environment associated with a GM crop, the notifier (or seed owner) shall

take appropriate protective steps; and (b) the competent authority shall

evaluate the new information, communicate it to the public, and if

necessary suspend or terminate the release authorisation. Neither

Monsanto

nor Syngenta has shown any inclination to protect either the

environment or the public, and the EC and its advisory bodies have proved

themselves to be incapable of standing up to the multinationals or

revisiting

past decisions. The Safeguard Clause may be invoked by member states

(Article 23) to provisionally restrict of prohibit a GM variety deemed

to be unsafe or harmful; however, the EC always seeks to overturn

" precautionary " actions by various nations based upon this clause. The

Cartagena Protocol (Article 32) is for the purposes of GM assessments

disregarded by the EC. The preamble to the Directive states that where

there are risks to the environment, preventive action must be taken; but

it never is. The precautionary principle must also -- in theory -- be

taken into account in the implementation of the Directive; on the

contrary, it has been comprehensively abandoned by the EC. The various

national laws which contain the essence of Directive 2001/18/EC are in

many

cases more severe -- for example, the UK Environmental Protection Act

1990 places more stress on the Precautionary Principle and supposedly

affords additional protection to designated wildlife sites and other

protected landscapes and ecosystems. The UK GMO Deliberate Release

Regulations 2002 are also " tighter " in some respects than Directive

2001/18;

but in the event the UK government has a tendency to see all GMOs as

wonders of biotechnology, and invariably votes for GM approvals however

inadequate and corrupt the applicant's supporting information may be.

 

(2) See also Clause 36 of the following legal advice to FoE Europe,

published in January 2005:

http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/Coexistence%20-%20Lasok%20Advice.pdf

 

Brian John

GM Free Cymru

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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