ISIS Press Release 08/01/01
Continuing Blair Whitewash over Farmscale Field
Trials
The new Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission has no
intention of questioning the field trials or addressing any awkward questions
over safety. It appears their job is to pacify public outrage, sweet talk
organic farmers and effectively pour white wash over the whole affair.Angela
Ryan reports on the Commission’s first meeting with the public on
December 7, 2000.
The room was packed with people all anticipating decisive action from
the new Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, especially over
the UK farm scale trials of genetically modified organisms. But they were
disappointed, as it became clear that the new commission has no intention of
questioning the field trials, nor the rigor of the scientific framework upon
which they are based. Instead its policy is ‘business as usual’.
The vast majority of people in Britain today do not want the trials to
go ahead. Many important organisations, such as the Soil Association have
openly condemned them, fearful of GM contamination that even the Department of
Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR) acknowledges as
‘unavoidable’. Farmers are unwilling to participate and those who
have been persuaded through financial payment now stand to lose value on their
land. Supermarkets across Europe have withdrawn GM foods and the public are
angry at being used as guinea pigs in a feeding experiment with no controls.
The resistance to GM crops is widespread and runs deep, to the extent that many
ordinarily law-abiding citizens have taken direct action and have defiantly dug
up GM crops, a trend that is set to escalate this year.
The Commission is choosing to ignore all of this. Instead of facing the
controversies head on, it intends only to analyse the trials, and to recommend
to ministers improvements in strategic decision-making for the future. It will
certainly not resolve any of the burning questions over safety.
Organic farmer Helen Browning pressed the Commission to "tackle the hot
potato of segregation distances" and the problems associated with contamination
of organic farms. But Dr Phil Dale of the John Innes Center, a well-known GM
supporter, stated that the commission could only "gather evidence" on
segregation distances and advise. The chairman, Professor Malcolm Grant, was
very diplomatic and questioned whether the commission needed to "re-prioritise
its work plan to tackle gene flow and cross contamination first". Dr. Matthew
Freeman put forward the idea of a "crisis management strategy", after which
Helen Browning pointed back to the facts: gene flow is an annual crisis,
threatening the livelihood of organic farmers.
The members of the Commission skirted around the issue of contamination
for some time, uttering words like "gene flow is a huge issue and not a simple
one". They contemplated the notion of adding more topics to the work plan but
eventually arrived back at the same position; "we’re not really structured
to react to things, we must take a more long-term view".
Helen Browning, by now exasperated, questioned whether they were all
suffering from "too much too soon" and all that could be realistically done was
to act as mediators, un-blocking channels of communication before the next
growing season?
Although the government has set up this Commission to deal primarily
with the farm scale trials, they are not allowed to interfere with the workings
of the trials. Instead, it appears their job is to pacify public outrage, sweet
talk organic farmers and effectively pour white wash over the whole affair. It
later transpires that the commission has just spent £90,000 of taxpayers
money with a PR agency, presumably to help it achieve those aims.
As the day wore on, the implications began to sink in. If the Commission
is not going to tackle segregation distances, then where does that leave all
the other important safety questions, like horizontal gene transfer and GM
animal feed, for example?
During the deliberations, Deputy Chair Julie Hill proposed a ‘state
of the debate’ paper, which was seconded by Dr Sue Mayer of Genewatch.
Barrister Justine Thornton reported that a background paper was being prepared
and they are looking at liability and ‘who’s going to pay for the
damages?’. She said "There is the possibility of a compensation fund for
organic farmers, along with insurance schemes, and they are considering whether
GMOs should be regulated separately."
One of the major safety concerns with GMOs is the fate of transgenic DNA
released into the environment. Whilst the words ‘horizontal gene
transfer’ are included in the work plan, they are followed by a definition
which states, "by which we mean where a GM construct could be transferred to a
wild relative of the licensed crop (or animal e.g. salmon)."
Not only is this inaccurate scientifically [1] but it suggests the
Commission is adopting the same approach as the biotech industry and avoiding
the issue of horizontal gene transfer altogether.
Strong objections were raised during the open session, which prompted a
re-write. Justine Thornton announced they would delete the words
‘horizontal gene transfer’ and replace them with the words ‘gene
flow’, which is a more generic term, covering both vertical and horizontal
gene transfer. Additionally, they will specify "within species, between species
and between distantly related species". However, this does not resolve the
matter. ‘Gene flow’ is usually interpreted to mean
‘cross-pollination’ only, and is regularly used in this context by
the biotech industry in applications for licence. The Commission should
continue to use the words ‘horizontal gene transfer’ and simply
remove the definition.
The trials are not designed to investigate horizontal gene transfer. The
Royal Society, The British Medical Association and even US FDA scientists have
all stated that the use of drug and antibiotic resistance genes coupled to the
potential for horizontal gene transfer present unacceptable risks to human
health. Despite these warnings, GM crops continue to contain such genes and
those involved in the trials are no exception. In fact, several of the test
crops are even worse, and contain genes and constructs intended to render
harvested seeds sterile [2].
To allow a major potential for harm to proceed unchecked is to exercise
‘the anti-precautionary principle’ [3]. Robin Grove-White explained
that although they would have liked to commission a full scientific study on
horizontal gene transfer, they were unable to do so as the science behind the
trials was framed by industry. In other words, their hands are effectively tied
and no investigations will ensue.
Throughout the meeting, Dr Phil Dale continually asserted that they
needed to question how to make the regulatory process better in terms of
decision making. At one point he became rather frustrated and blurted out "we
are not ARCE! We must give a little judgement and provide a scientific context.
We don’t want to be forced to expand the scope. We can’t take on gene
flow in parallel with the farm scale trials". He virtually ordered everyone to
allow another year of farm trials to proceed unhindered, and to avoid all the
awkward unanswered scientific questions over safety.
Dale also managed to deflect the most important point made throughout
the whole day, which came from an ex- Monsanto employee. She told the meeting
that "the future of biotechnology is genomics [rather than GM]. The scientists
at Monsanto are all jumping up and down about genomics". She strongly advised
the commission to go to industry scientists when seeking the best advice.
When the subject of genomics was broached again during the main meeting,
Dr Phil Dale intervened quickly and stated "I don’t see GM crops as
different from conventional crops. GM is just an extension of traditional
breeding programmes". He then questioned whether genomics and marker assisted
breeding was still biotechnology. How was the Commission going to square what
is biotechnology and what is not, in this respect? Anne Bradley clarified this
point and said that GM technology is biotechnology and marker assisted breeding
using genomics is biotechnology too. Dale then re-phrased the question and
asked "if this be the case, then does the Commission reject conventional
breeding as biotechnology?" The answer to which should have been a resounding
"yes".
Unfortunately, at this point, the chair decided to close the discussion
saying there was a "general pushing out of the term
‘biotechnology’."
The Monsanto scientists are right, GM is an obsolete practice nowadays.
It is evident that transgene silencing or instability is an insurmountable
problem, as is well documented in the numerous scientific papers published on
the subject during 2000, including some out of Dr Dale’s own laboratory
[4]. Moreover, the health and safety risks associated with GM are great and far
out weigh the benefits.
Genomics is much less risky. It is what the human species have been
doing for thousands of years, only "with the lights on", to quote a Monsanto
scientist (farmers weekly). By using marker-assisted breeding, genes of
interest can be tracked as they are passed on in successive generations,
speeding up breeding programmes considerably. New varieties can be obtained
within 3- 5 years, as opposed to 10-15 years with traditional breeding
practices.
This is, or should be, the state of the debate: there are strong
indications that GMOs are dead. Genetic instability renders them too risky
economically and it is time to back off and move on. Genomics is the only way
forward for plant biotechnology. If the commission is to be of any value, then
it must come to terms with this and stop the trials, which are a drain on
public resources as well as hazardous. Among other things, it must arrange
‘clean up’ operations to decontaminate affected land.
- For a recent exposition see "Horizontal
gene transfer – hidden hazards of genetic engineering" by Mae-Wan Ho
- See "Terminator crops at
large" ISIS press release
- See "Use and abuse of the precautionary
principle" by Peter Saunders
- Transgenic instability is well-covered in past issues of
ISIS News
| 
