What is the difference between this GM wheat and conventional wheat? What do
the added genes do?

For RR wheat, it means that Roundup can be sprayed on the wheat. This
means that there will be more glyphosate residue on the food/feed when
it is consumed.

The UK government increased the allowed residue by 200 times,
otherwise RR crops could not go ahead (see below).

The safety of the RR gene inserted has not been proven, as safety
tests have never been carried out. Instead, the UK government relies
on "assessment" of data provided by the manufacturer, which is not
based on testing.

regards
Marcus



Publication Date: September 21, 1999

Pesticide safety limit raised by 200 times 'to suit GM industry'
DAILY MAIL
CAMPAIGN/GENETIC FOOD WATCH
Daily Mail

THE limits on pesticide residues allowed in soya have been
increased 200-fold to help the GM industry, according to one
of the country's leading food safety experts.

Malcolm Kane, who has just taken early retirement as head of
food safety at Sainsbury's, warned that higher levels of pesticide
residues could appear in a range of foods from breakfast cereals to
biscuits.

He raised concerns that although the toxin levels are low, there may
be dangers associated with long-term consumption.

The claims were rejected by the Government's GM spin unit but are
bound to fuel hostility to the tainted technology.

The fact that the warning comes from such a respected source is
highly embarrassing for the Government and biotech firms.

Previously, UK and European rules stated that residues of the
pesticide glyphosate left on a crop of soya beans should not be higher
than 0.1 parts per million.

But according to Mr Kane, the Government has increased this figure by
200 times to 20 parts per million specifically to smooth the path of
GM soya into the national diet.

The soya has been modified to withstand spraying by glyphosate which
is sold by the giant U.S. biotech firm [ Monsanto ] under the brand
name Roundup.

This means it can be sprayed more heavily without any of the soya
plants being harmed. But one negative result could be that higher
residues of the chemical are left on the plant when it is harvested.

Mr Kane believes that rather than force the industry and farmers to
meet the existing safety levels, officials have instead relaxed the
rules to ensure GM crops remain legal.

While soya is sprayed with glyphosate, other crops, specifically
maize or corn, have been manipulated to contain their own
insecticides. These are designed to kill off pests which attack the
plants so leading to bigger crops, but Mr Kane raises the possibility
that these pesticides will also find their way into human food. A
major loophole in the regulatory system means there is no way of
monitoring or policing levels of pesticide which
are effectively injected into plants through GM technology.

Mr Kane argues that the development of crops which are herbicide-
resistant
and pesticide-resistant was a major mistake by the biotech industry
because
these do not offer any benefits to consumer.

He believes that a better handling of the technology with an emphasis
on
the production of foods which are higher in important vitamins or
other
chemicals which promote a more healthy lifestyle could have produced
a much
more positive reception.

'One does not need to be an activist or overtly anti-GM to point out
that
herbicide-resistant crops come at the price of containing significant
chemical residues of the active chemical in the commercial
weedkiller,'
said Mr Kane. 'Conventional food crops will have no such residues.'
He
added: 'Consumers are understandably concerned about chemical
residues in
the food supply, and it is the responsibility of food industry
professionals
to protect and defend their requirements.

Undoubtedly, GM offers longer-term benefits in food quality and
nutrition.
However, the two most significant GM food developments currently
being
exploited, herbicide-resistance and insect-resistance, offer no
consumer
benefits.' A spokesman for the Government's GM spin unit said that
the
residue level had been changed in 1997, after GM soya was approved in
Europe.

'The change was made because of a change in farming practice for all
soya,
both conventional and GM, it was not done to suit the GM industry,'
said
the spokesman.

While in the past the crops had been sprayed early in the growing
season,
farmers had now decided to spray them before harvest to speed up the
drying
process, she said.

However, Mr Kane, who now runs his own food safety con-sultancy,
Cambridge
Food Control, described this explanation as a red herring.

'This whole debate has been dogged by misinformation,' he said.

'There is absolutely no good reason for raising the residue limit on
soya
other that to satisfy the GM companies.' Friends of the Earth biotech
expert
Adrian Bebb said glyphosate was a suspected 'gender bender', adding:
'It is
extremely long lasting in the food chain and has been implicated in
changing
hormone levels in humans and reducing sperm counts in men.'