View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2003, 01:23 PM
Torsten Brinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Recent Evidence Confirms Risks of Horizontal Gene Transfer

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 03:49:02 +0000, Marcus Williamson
wrote:


serious look for experimental studies that supports her opinions.


Have biotech companies done studies which test for this? If not, why
not?


this article might be of interest:

____Forwarded from genet mailing list _________________

The disappearance of science in public interest
Beatrix Tappeser, Institute for Applied Ecology, Freiburg, Germany
19. 10. 2002, Vilm (D)

Over the last two decades there has been a silent shift in research
policies in biology and agriculture. Biotechnology percieved as one of
the key industrial technologies of the new century is the main field
forinvestment. The focus of research programmes is on those fields
where dominating commercial interests are found.
In addition scientist are more and more dependent on money by big
industrial players. Conflicts of interest are one consequence. Another
consequence is that certain research questions are no more addressed
because these questions are not in the interest of the commercial
partners and they are not willing to give money and material for such
research projects (e.g. biosafety research)

An international analysis of biosafety research, that is, research on
possible ecological and health impacts (Sukopp and Sukopp 1997) came
to the conclusion that less than 1% of the world-wide biotechnology
development budget has been used for research regarding safety
effects. In other words, before the first commercial plantings in
1996, ten years of field testing had been performed without looking in
depth into possible ecological consequences.

A review published 2000 in Science came to the conclusion: "A review
of existing scientific literature reveals that key experiments on both
the environmental risks and benefits are lacking." (Wolfenbarger and
Phifer 2000)

The German government spends about 1o,2 Million Euro or 3 % of the
biotechnology budget each year for biosafety research. That seems
quite a lot at least in comparison with the EU-Budget (About 71 Mill.
Euro in 15 Years or 4,7 Mill. _ per year = less than 1% of the
biotechnology budget) or the US-budget (2,1 mill. US $ in the year
2001) but part of the money is dedicated to the development of sterile
plants, new marker genes or better designed gene constructs. That is a
help to develop biotechnology-products to meet public concern, not a
research design to look into the possible outcome of such products in
the environment.

On the other hand investment in agricultural research with direct
benefit for the farmer and the environment eg in the context of
ecological farming is even less than the investment into biosafety
research. The german minister for research and education does not fund
a single project, even though the ministry is spending about 250 Mill.
_ for biotechnology projects.

The German research community funds 12 projects out of 9267 projects.
Only the agricultural ministry is investing a bit more, 20 projects
out of 4230.
But Renate Künast has installed a new research programme dedicated to
further develop ecological farming. About 9 Mill. _ will be spend in
2002 and 2003.

Science in public interest and a proper evaluation of emerging
technologies has to fight with additional difficulties. There are
quite a number of data indicating that aspects of earlier risk
scenarios based on hypotheses derived from biological and ecological
knowledge may become reality but there appears to be a lot of
considerable disconnection between the emerging data coming from
biosafety research and the handling of these data in the context of
evaluation and decision making. There are strong hints that double
standards are used when evaluating the evidence submitted for
market approvals. To arrive at the following summary I refer both to
a study performed by Les Levidow and Susan Carr commissioned by the
European Commission (Levidow and Carr 2000) and to an own study done
for the German Technology Assessment Bureau (Vogel and Tappeser 2000).
The main outcome of both studies is the following: studies or
statements which underline the benefits of transgenic plants are
readily accepted by regulators in the US and the EU even if those
studies are not peer-reviewed and rely only on laboratory experiments.
Studies indicating risks and possible negative ecological or health
impacts are heavily criticised no matter if they are peer-reviewed and
published in scientific journals. These studies are strongly
criticized when they rely only on laboratory experiments.

A central issue that has figured in the discussion on the cultivation
of transgenic plants since its very beginning is that of outcrossing
of such plants and the introgression of the recombinant genes into
related weed and wild plants. It was more or less agreed at least in
the beginning of the debate that pervasive spread of transgenes should
be avoided as if at all possible, as this may have problematic effects
on species networks and on biodiversity in general. A point now
attracting increasing attention is the implication of resistance
development (herbicide and insect resistence) through outcrossing and
the consequences of that development for agricultural land use
systems. In Europe canola is at the center of interest because several
related species are prevalent there. Allexperience and data gained in
the course of the past years point to a high probability of transgenic
rape populations becoming established outside cultivated areas and the
subsequent possibility of gene flow into non-transgenic populations
and related wild herbs. Nowadays gene flow as such is often judged as
being of no special concern. It is said, gene flow only constitutes a
risk when the outcome, the possible impact in the complex networks can
be described and these impacts are judged as having specific negative
consequences. Otherwise such gene flow is qualified as a "so what"
type of conclusion.

But the demand to describe the impacts of gene flow can only be met
with a broad longterm research programme because of the complexity,
the multiple knowledge gaps and uncertainties that exist. Given the
current level of investments in the field of biosafety and assessment
of ecological impacts, such a research programme would extend into the
next twenty years at least.
Allison Snow, a professor in the department of Evolution, Ecology and
Organismal Biology, Ohio State University describes in a commentary
for "Nature Biotechnology" the importance and the investment in
research dealing with gene flow with the following words: "Most
government agencies that regulate GM plants ask for information about
gene flow and its consequences, but it`s often difficult to find
peer-reviewed publications with relevant data. To some extent, the
problem can be traced back to a lack of funding (and interest) from
government programs that sponsor competitive agricultural research
grants. Š To complicate matters further,few biotechnology companies
are willing to fund independent risk assessment research or provide
precommercial transgenic cultivars for study" (Transgenic crops - Why
gene flow matters, Nature Biotechnology, June 2002,page 542)

Looking into the promised benefits of pesticide reduction the
situation oes not improve. The EU Directorate General for Agriculture
published n nalysis on yields, pesticide use and financial return for
the Americanfarmers. The overall conclusion reads as follows: "The
studies reviewed o ot provide conclusive evidence on the farm-level
profitability of GM-crops." (DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE 2000,
Executive Summary, page 4).

Data publisded [sic] are quite diverse and often not comparable. 3 -
13 % less yield, and growing pesticide use since 1998 after a short
period of reduction is the result of the EU analysis concerning Round
Up Ready soy beans. These data are confirmed by Benbrook, an
independent agricultural consultant specialist (BENBROOK, C. (2001) Do
GM crops mean less pesticide use? Pesticide Outlook, Oktober 2001,
p.204-207.). Even a study published by the Economic Research Center of
USDA admits that soy farmers don`t see any financial return (Adoption
of Bioengineered Crops, ARS Report No. 810, May 2002).
Planting of herbizide resistent maize did not allow for herbicide
reduction but led to a 30% higher consumption of herbicides on the
field (Benbrook 2001) Again the use of Bt-maize did not reduce
pesticide use, yields were the same or slightly more according to the
EU Analysis.. (DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE 2000)
Herbicide resistent canola yielded between 15% less to 15 % more.
There are no clear-cut data on herbicide use, but emerging data on
double and triple resistent canola plants becoming a severe weed.

Only Bt-cotton allowed for pesticide reduction. (BENBROOK 2001)
But resistence development and weed shift can be observed and produce
new problems. Because of emerging resistant weeds in herbicide
resistent cotton Monsanto recommends spraying with additional
herbicides. New herbicide-mixtures are on the market to fight
resistent volunteers and less sensitive weeds. (Farm Press online
15.8. 2002)

According to a study published by the Soil Association not only the
claimed ecological and economic benefits are missing. To the contrary
the adoption of GM soya, maize, and oilseed rape could have cost the
US economy US $ 12 bn since 1999 in farm subsidies, lower crop prices,
loss of major export orders, and product recalls., the report
estimates. The Soil Association based its report on interviews with
academics, advisers, and industry analysts in North America, as well
as organic and conventional farmers in the US. (www.soilassociation.
org)

What rests: We spent billions of Euro and Dollars in favour of 5
global players: Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont , Dow and Bayer. These are
the winners of a research agenda fitting into an industrial paradigma.
Science inpublic interest has been lost on that way.

References:
Agronomic Research Service (2002) Adoption of Bioengineered
Crops,USDA-ARS
Report No. 810, May 2002
Benbrook, C. (2001) Do GM crops mean less pesticide use? Pesticide
Outlook,
Oktober 2001, p.204-207.
Directorate General for Agriculture (2000) Economic Impacts of
Genetically
Modified Crops on the Agri-Food Sector, A First Review
Levidow, L., Carr, S. & Wield, D. (1998). Market-stage precaution:
managing
regulatory disharmonies for transgenic crops in Europe. Binas Online:
Biosafety Reviews.
http://binas.unido.org/binas/Library...levidow1.shtml
Sukopp H, Sukopp U (1997) Ökologische Begleitforschung und
Dauerbeobachtung
im Zusammenhang mit Freisetzung und Inverkehrbringen gentechnisch
veränderter Kulturpflanzen. In: Thüringer Ministerium für
Landwirtschaft
NuU(TMLNU) (eds.), Erfurt, Chancen und Risiken der Gentechnik im
Umweltschutz, 43 -51
Snow, A. (2002) Transgenic crops - Why gene flow matters, Nature
Biotechnology, June 2002, p. 542
Vogel B, Tappeser B (2000) Der Einfluss der Sicherheitsforschung und
Risikoabschätzung bei der Genehmigung von Inverkehrbringung und
Sortenzulassung transgener Pflanzen. Öko-Institut e.V.; Study
commissioned
by the German Technology Assessment Bureau Auftrag, Berlin, available
as
pdf-file under www.oeko.de (only german)
Wolfenbarger L L, Phifer P R (2000) The Ecological Risks and Benefits
of
Genetically Engineered Plants. Science 290: 2088-2093.


Florianne Koechlin
Blueridge-Institute
Blauenstrasse 15
CH 4142 Münchenstein

http://www.blauen-institut.ch
http://www.blueridge-institute.ch