Mail & Guardian reporter
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the European Environmental Bureau released a joint media statement last week urging European Union governments and the European Commission to safeguard European agriculture and biodiversity by preventing any genetically modified (GM) crops of beet and oilseed rape being grown in the EU. The statement is backed by a recent report by the European Environmental Agency that confirms a risk of massive contamination if GM crops are commercially grown in Europe.
In its report the European Environmental Agency warned that “oilseed rape can be described as a high-risk crop for crop-to-crop gene flow and from crops-to-wild relatives. It is predicted that plants carrying multiple [herbicide] resistance genes will become common post-GM release. Oilseed rape is cross-compatible with a number of wild relatives and thus the likelihood of gene flow to these species is high.” The problem was already recognised by the French government, which banned cultivation of GM oilseed rape in 1998.
Massive and unmanageable genetic contamination is not only probable but has already happened in Canada where so-called “super-weeds” tolerant of three different herbicides are becoming commonplace.
The problem occurs when one variety of GM oilseed rape pollinates another, causing “gene stacking” and multiple tolerance. When seed is spilled at harvest, it remains in the ground and germinates later as unwanted weeds in crops of different species. These multi-tolerant superweeds were identified in 1998, only three years after GM herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape was first grown in Canada. A study found evidence of gene stacking at all 11 sites sampled in 1999, with gene flow taking place at distances of up to 800m.
Agrochemical companies are now actively marketing new chemicals designed to deal with herbicide-tolerant super-weeds. Rather than GM crops reducing the use of harmful chemicals as the biotech industry claimed, weed-killer applications for herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape in Canada are actually higher than for conventional oilseed rape. Similar contamination problems exist for beet, another plant that is indigenous to Europe and has a number of wild relatives. According to the European Environmental Agency: “Sugar beet can be described as medium- to high-risk for gene flow crop-to-crop and from crop-to-wild relatives The possible implications of hybridisation and introgression [of transgenes] between crops and wild plant species are so far unclear because it is difficult to predict how the flow of genetically engineered genes will be expressed”.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the European Environmental Bureau claim that EU authorities cannot ignore the European Environmental Agency’s findings, and that the report fully justifies the use of the Precautionary Principle, enshrined in the EU Treaty, in order to prevent irreversible damage to European agriculture and biodiversity. The NGOs therefore demand that cultivation of GM oilseed rape and beet should not be allowed in the EU, and that the European Commission and member states take action to suspend several authorisations already granted for GM oilseed rape.
The three groups’ call on the European Commission which is currently drafting a directive to establish tolerance levels for adventitious contamination of non-GM seeds by GM seeds to set a maximum threshold no higher than a detectability level of 0,1%. Anything above that, say the NGOs, will lead to creeping contamination of seed supplies and ultimately to the erosion of Europe’s agricultural and natural biodiversity.
In Australia, Farmers Weekly Interactive reported that the green movement received an unlikely boost in its fight against GM crops last week when the insurance industry admitted it was reluctant to cover the biotechnology industry against litigation.
The Insurance Council of Australia says it is loath to insure farmers and biotechnology and food companies for claims involving GM foods.
The Weekly Times newspaper reported that the insurance industry feared a repeat of the situation similar to the Wittenoom asbestos disaster, in which mining companies were sued for millions of dollars in damages by workers who contracted cancer years after being exposed to the deadly mineral.
The insurance council believes “the unforeseen risks of GM foods may be too high for insurers”.
The newspaper said insurers were wary of lawsuits involving consumers claiming allergic reactions to GM foods, contamination of non-GM crops and the development of mutant herbicide-resistant weeds.
The insurance council said that because the technology is new and complex there is no way of assessing the risk of damages claims arising in the future and therefore no way of setting insurance premiums.
“It is such a new technology, it is virtually impossible to assess the risks down the track,” insurance council spokesperson Rod Frail says.
And defending GM claims in court could prove difficult because of the complexity of the technology, the council said.
Two of Australia’s biggest farm insurers, CGU and Elders, confirmed their uneasiness with GM crops to the Weekly Times.
“GM technology is still in its infancy and research on any direct or indirect impacts is far from conclusive and farmers who intend to grow a GM crop should declare it and cover would be assessed on its merits,” CGU spokesperson Chris Jackson says.
Product liability lawyer David Poulton, from Minter Ellison, told the Weekly Times that insurance companies were likely to insert exclusion clauses in policies or decline to cover the risks associated with biotech- nology altogether.
For more information visit the following websites: www.reports.eea.eu.int/environmental issuereport200228/en and www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story. asp?ID=335