|
|
 
|
New technique does little to alleviate GM concerns
by Paul Beingessner
(Friday, May 23, 2003 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- A report from Agriculture Canada last week generated some enthusiastic
newspaper stories. One Associated Press report declared that a new
technique would "allow farmers to reseed crops yearly without worry
about affecting nonmodified crops". The actual story was less dramatic
but still attracted attention from media around the world. It seems that
research scientists at Ag Canada have discovered a way to prevent
genetically modified (GM) tobacco plants from outcrossing with other
related plant species. By inserting a pair of genes into a tobacco
plant, the scientists rendered sterile any seeds produced by tobacco
pollen drifting to other plants.
The media were not the only ones to see huge benefits in the new
technology. One scientist with the National Research Council saw the
possibility of "alleviating concerns around the whole issue of
contamination". It was a heady week for the supporters of GM crops.
Some media reports managed to make it sound as if technology had at last
found a solution to GM problems. If only it were so easy.
In fact, of all the issues surrounding GM crops, the issue of
outcrossing and the adventitious spread of rogue genes to related
species hardly makes the top ten. True, farmers once worried that the
transfer of chemical resistant genes into weeds might create a
generation of super weeds, and Percy Schmeiser insisted that pollen flow
to his standard canola contaminated it with Roundup resistant genes.
There is no doubt that both of these situations are possible and do
occur, but many years now of experience with GM crops show they are not
the most pressing concerns regarding contamination.
The spread of GM material will and does occur in much simpler ways.
Likely the most common is when small amounts of seed left in the bottoms
of bins or the edges of truck boxes, seeding or harvesting equipment get
mingled with non-GM seeds. Second most common is probably through
volunteer plants in fields. These events might be minimized by intensely
scrupulous actions on the part of farmers, seed growers, elevator
operators, and all modes of transport, but how likely is that level of
care to occur constantly in all quarters?
Mingling of seed from GM and non-GM varieties of a specific crop is
inevitable. The more widely grown the GM crop, the sooner and more
widespread such contamination will be. Hence the results of studies in
Manitoba show that even foundation seed of some canola varieties is
contaminated with GM canola. This unavoidable contamination has caused
some importers of Canadian wheat to declare that if GM wheat is grown
here they will immediately look elsewhere for their needs.
There is a difficulty with the new technique that received little
mention. Even though it makes seed from outcrosses sterile, it does not
prevent the production of seed if pollen accidentally flows to another
crop. Hence, if organic wheat were grown next to GM wheat, the organic
crop might still produce seeds containing GM genes, and these would show
up in genetic testing. That these seeds could not reproduce is not
likely of much interest to the customer who wants pure organic grain.
And of course, Agriculture Canada's new technique does nothing to change
the fact that large numbers of consumers around the world simply do not
want to eat GM grains and do not see the need for these to be produced.
Right or wrong these folk may be, but the merchant who tells his
customer he is wrong is violating the first rule of successful business.
The technique discovered this week might be useful if outcrossing of GM
crops becomes a major problem at some time, but it does not solve the
many problems posed by their introduction. Enthusiastic media and
narrowly focused scientists could do the public a favor by putting such
stories in their larger context.
(c) Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734 phone, 868-2009 fax | |
