John Horvath on Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:24:06 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> three docs on GMOs |
[These three documents can be found on the CORDIS web site <http://www.cordis.lu>. Although they try to put on a brave face, it's obvious that even the EC is having trouble keeping the bad news at bay. -- John] Document 1. Commission rejects allegations of deliberate GM report delays The European Commission has rejected allegations from environmental campaigners Greenpeace that it was holding back publication of a new report on GMO (genetically modified organism) contamination because it showed GM infiltration of conventional crops could be costly and difficult to avoid. The report, produced by the Joint Research Centre's Institute for Technological Studies for the Commission's Agriculture DG, has just been officially released, although it was compiled in January. Greenpeace says the report was not released earlier due to the nature of its contents. Greenpeace policy advisor Lorenzo Consoli is reported as saying: 'The Commission has tried to keep this study secret because it was afraid of its political implications.' The report found that the one per cent limit on GM content in traditional crops required under EU rules will be extremely difficult to meet. Even with significant changes in farming practice, the cultivation of GM and non-GM crops will be unrealistic even on large farms, states the report. It predicts that to comply with a one or three per cent maximum threshold of GMOs, the costs of changes to farming practice and the introduction of insurance and monitoring systems would add between one and 10 per cent to current production prices. For some crops, including oil seed rape, the costs could be as high as 41 per cent. 'The question is, if the introduction of commercial crops on a commercial scale in Europe increases the costs of production for all farmers, makes them more dependent on the big seed companies, and require complicated and costly measures to avoid contamination, why should we accept GMO cultivation in the first place?' said Mr Consoli. But a spokeswoman for DG Agriculture strongly refuted the group's claims. 'There is nothing secret about it at all,' she said. She explained that the version of the report mentioned in the Greenpeace press release on the issue was a draft that had yet to be passed to the Health and Consumer Protection and Agriculture DGs for their comments. 'This is the normal procedure,' she stated. Now that all the relevant feedback has been obtained, the report has been made available (at the site below). The spokeswoman also emphasised that the study is a computer model designed to predict future scenarios, rather than field research. Copies of the report can be found at the following web address: http://www.jrc.it/ Document 2. GMOs contain greater theoretical risk of extinction, say US scientists The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into wild animal populations has a greater theoretical risk of extinction of natural species than previously thought, according to two scientists working at a US university. The warning from William Muir and Richard Howard, both professors at the USA's Purdue University, will add to the current debate in Europe about genetic modification technology. They used computer modelling and statistical analysis to research the hypothetical risk of mixing GMOs with wild populations. Their work, which identifies three new scenarios in which the introduction of GMOs could lead to the death of a natural species, shows the risk is higher than was previously thought. Mr Muir, a professor of animal sciences, said: 'In the broadest sense, this research tells one how to do risk assessment and what GMOs need further containment.' In one scenario, researchers found that a release of larger fish, which had a higher mating success but shorter life-spans, could drive a wild population to extinction in less than 40 generations. Another scenario examined genetic modification which increases the size of male fish, with the result that they find more mates and live longer, but also become less fertile. The predicted result of this is that the wild population would become extinct in less than 20 generations. The researchers also found scenarios in which the introduced gene could spread through the population but not reduce the overall population size. Mr Howard, who is professor of biology, said: 'This invasion risk is an unknown in assessing the overall risk. Given the biology, all we can say is that the gene would increase in the population. We don't know if that would cause a problem or not.' The Purdue University research is part of an ongoing effort by the university and the US department of agriculture's Biotechnology Risk Assessment programme to assess the risks of biotechnology. 'Consumer confidence in the use of transgenic technology will only happen if there is a thorough, unbiased examination of the risks,' said Professor Muir. Document 3. GM fears raised by UK research New research carried out by the University of Newcastle in the UK has shown that genetically modified (GM) genes can find their way into human gut bacteria, the first time that this has been proven. The consequences could be far reaching, as many GM crops have marker genes inserted into them which make them resistant to common antibiotics. The new findings indicate that antibiotics could have little or reduced effect on humans who have consumed these GM products. Response to the research was divided. While the body which commissioned the research, the UK food standards agency, emphasised that that 'the likelihood of functioning DNA being taken up by bacteria in the human or animal gut is extremely low', the environmental group Friends of the Earth described the results as 'dynamite'. It also called for an immediate end to the use of marker genes in GM crops. The research is the first trial of GM foods on human volunteers. It compared the results of two groups eating a GM meal, one group who all had colostomy bags and one group with complete stomachs. They found that a relatively large proportion of genetically modified DNA survived the passage through the small bowel of the colostomy bag group, but not in the other group. They also found that almost half the stool samples provided by the colostomy bag group showed that bacteria had taken up the herbicide resistant gene from GM food at very low levels. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net