To GE or not to GE?
Once again the release of some crazy genetic experiments have been foiled. A couple of weeks ago the High Court did what our so called ‘environmental risk’ management agency (ERMA) didn’t. The High Court effectively stopped the release of numerous genetic experiments involving genes from possums, goats and people – to name but a few.
And these experiments weren’t going to be kept in a lab (not that I’m advocating that either) but were going to be coming to a field near you!
The proponent of this loopy application was AgResearch which, funnily enough, claims to position itself as putting; Farming, Food and Health. First.
Hmmm. At what point within these experiments did it see farming, food or, indeed, our health coming first? Load of bollocks if you ask me.
But all this got me thinking. What is our new Government’s position on genetic engineering and will it change the current regime favoured by ERMA – the renegade authority with the out-of-control-rubber-stamp attitude?
Well, sadly there’s not much in the way of anything really in relation to GE on the National party website. Apart from some vague comment from Nick Smith during the run up to the election in which he said the GE issue was blown out of proportion and that half of the recommendations made by the royal commission of enquiry held years ago have yet to be implemented. What half I wondered? The good half or the bad half? His speech didn’t say.
I then turned to the parliamentary website. Apparently the patent laws are being reviewed by the Government – that slipped everyone’s radar – well except maybe the greens and mine. Patent laws are generally crap. They protect big corporate interests rather than the small business man, your average Joe, or anything else for that matter i.e. environment. It’s pretty much a way for a corporate to have complete ownership of something – a total monopoly.
Like what happens around the world with GE behemoths – think Monsanto (it owns about 70 per cent of the worlds GE interests). The company patents its GE experiments, then commercialises them. In some instances farmers, who have had their fields contaminated by GE seeds from neighbouring properties, have been sued by Monsanto for illegally using its patented seed
It doesn’t seem the new Government is taking much notice of the GE issue – at the very least I hope it sees sense and makes the patent laws stronger and fairer.
Related posts
Email This Post
I am a Greenpeace supporter but have to say, I think far too much time is spent on the “genetic engineering” issue. I am a scientist by trade and feel that most people opposed to genetic engineering in fact have no almost idea of the REAL benefits or risks involved whatsoever. Sure, I don’t agree with large companies being able to patent genes and hold farmers for ransom, but the dangers from genetically engineered organisms have been vastly overstated. It’s the same scaremongering that has people afraid to eat anything that might have “chemicals” or “DNA” in it (if you don’t see the absurdity in that, my point has been proven).
I always think of Greenpeace as a voice of truth in all their other campaigns, but the genetic engineering debate is simply preying on an easy target to gain political appeal. It’s the same low tactic used by politicians who claim they have zero tolerance for crime” (pffft!). There is no intelligent debate involved. And it diverts focus away from the REAL and PROVEN dangers to our planet.
Shame on Greenpeace for taking the easy way out and playing this game like politicians.
Well said, Steve. Genetic engineering seems to be one of those boogey-men under the bed that people are scared of through word-of-mouth alone. I do like your zero tolerance for crime analogy.
Yes, there are risks involved, but, oh my, the benefits… (think insulin etc).
A shame the scientist sees it as absurd that people might be afraid of eating food with chemicals or GE products in it. More and more we are pulling chemicals from the food chain and from use in the wider environment because of their incremental effects and also effects in combination (cocktail effects). GE foods are also more and more being found to have serious risks associated with them.
WHO ARE YOU REALLY ANONYMOUS SCIENTIST BY TRADE?? because there are plenty of other scientists who do not share your opinion. Unfortunately some more independent minded ones have lost their jobs because of industry pressure supporting your view.
Massey University’s Centre for Public Health Research has just released an analysis of a study of cancer patients that found an elevated leukaemia risk among horticulture workers, with risk to market gardeners and nursery growers, especially women, particularly elevated compared to the general public.
In a separate study released by US government health staff in the June 18 issue of the American Society of Hematology journal, Blood, (2,3) it was found that exposure to certain pesticides, including dieldrin and chlorothalonil (Bravo) increased the risks 5.6 fold and 2.4 fold respectively, of a blood disorder that can lead to multiple myeloma.
Considering that dieldrin was banned in agriculture in New Zealand in 1968 and from other uses in 1989, Bravo may be a significant culprit in New Zealand cancers.
We in Soil & Health Association (www.organicnz.org) and others in Pesticide Action Network and in Safe Dood Campaign have seen enough of New Zealand and international regulatory bureaucracies ‘pragmatic’ acceptance of poor industry led science to have serious concern at the risks to consumers and environment from the pseudo science that the above scientist is supporting.
New Zealnd Food Safety Authority and Food Standards Australia New Zealand seem to follow the above unamed scientists view that dose denotes risk. That is a convenient way forward to facilitate trade and to allow the petro-chemical industry more ways to exploit farmers and consumers, but fails to put in serious research into the myriad combinations that synthetic chemicals are consumed in and their effects in those combinations.
One of the few research papers out on cocktail effects was by Lodovici, M. et al 1994,1997
Check out http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCN-3RH123D-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=935242972&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c8e96fd36709a6617d101f34322937c4
These results indicate that the toxicity of low doses of pesticide mixtures present in food might be further reduced by eliminating diphenylamine and chlorothalonil.
We could get back on the GE issue which has animal feeding studies showing very negative effects. One overview can be found at
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18101.cfm
Hi Steve
Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately throughout the world farmers, consumers and the environment are suffering due to genetically engineered organisms that have been released into the environment.
I won’t go into a long personal email on this – however below I’ve outlined the Greenpeace position below with links to the headers and also here’s a link to a factsheet I helped to write and research during my time at Greenpeace International where differing cases (with links) are listed. These cases show why genetic engineering is in fact an outdated and unnecessary technology – and has been far overtaken by other less invasive technologies such as marker assisted breeding. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/7-deadly-sins
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/genetic-engineering-exposed.pdf
Also heres a link to a recent Greenpeace report on climate, agriculture and GE. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/food_security_and_climate_change_dec08
We believe:
GMOs should not be released into the environment since there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health.
We advocate immediate interim measures such as labelling of GE ingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops and seeds from conventional ones.
We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity. When we force life forms and our world’s food supply to conform to human economic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our own peril.
Steffan Browning;
I have no disagreement with your views on the negative health effects and herbicides and pesticides. I have no doubt that posions are undoubtably posionous, and their use should be minimised.
Unfortunately, you slipped up on entirely the point I was making. Food is literally composed of “chemicals” and “DNA” and lots of other scientific words, and it is that blanket scaremongering with jargon that I disagree with.
As for genetic engineering; I agree there are risks there too – the altered potato is a good example. However, lot of the propaganda comes across as saying that it is something in the DNA itself which is evil and toxic, when in fact it is just the overproduction of the toxin – which could have arisen from simple selective breeding. The difference is that something arising from selective breeding is unlikely to be studied enough to pick up on these toxic effects. Just think of how little we really know about the common, natural foods we eat – they have never been studied for subtle nutritional interactions or toxicities like GE plants have.
Anyway, that aside; I TOTALLY agree with Greenpeace’s “stated” policy on genetic engineering; to the letter. GMOs shouldn’t be released until proven safe. Foods should be labelled (not that I personally have a problem with eating GE ingredients). The problem is they obviously go beyond their stated aims and try to put a picture in the public’s head that GE is so unbelievably evil that no GE products should ever be made at all, ever – even if proven safe and benefitial. Fear is the blunt tool for gaining emotional support but doesn’t educate anyone on the matter. GE does (and HAS, thousands of times over the last two decades) offer great benefits.
My biggest concern, however, is how the issue takes the limelight away from much more deadly threats to this planet. I mean, GE gets listed up in the top three environmental concerns these days! But our planet is going to die of global warming, pollution, overpopulation, depletion of resources, deforestation, extinction, nuclear war – long before GE ever makes an inroad into everyday life.
GE is just the easiest target as it fascinates people to think of mad genetic experiments and conspiracy theories going on behind closed doors.
Speaking of which, where did “annonymous scientist by trade” come from? The accusation of conspiracy may have you all excited but I am simply a Greenpeace member giving a personal opinion. I’ve already stated I worked (past tense) in science. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say I worked at AgResearch (no suprise considering they employ at least half of the country’s scienctists), but not anything to do with GE. And I can tell you that no scientists there are in fear of dismissal for disagreeing with companies. They lead their own research programs according to their own interests. That is, when they are not losing their jobs through lack of funding.
However, in general, most of them are educated enough in the matter not to take the scaremongering about GE at face value.
Hi Steve Scientist
I believe you are keeping a simplistic view of the ‘chemistry’ and procedures of GE. New proteins are in fact formed on occassion when an assumed outcome would have been a more simple ‘this gets shifted to there therefore this will happen’ scenario. The unpredictability is one of the issues. The fact that independent science is lacking is just one other. There are more. Feeding studies on animals eating GE foods now in our food supply system, that you say you are happy to consume, are showing undesirable results. These studies need to be increased substantially.
Results to date are enough for Europe to be becoming increasingly precautionary with some states opting out of EU rulings on what our regulators have also allowed (eg Mon 810), albeit FSANZ anfd NZFSA decided against good NZ independent scientific advice.
Trade is another good reason why NZ shouldnt go down the GE path. We trade on a clean green image and GE does not fit with that in our identified best value export markets.
In terms of taking the limelight away from the pressing global warming through to nuclear war scenarios, GE is part of the industrial agro-chemical complex that has got us most of those problems. The same movers and shakers are behind much of this. We should not be looking at climate change in a silo. GE and synthetic agribusiness need turning around in the process of correcting the carbon mess.
Organic agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and primary production in general works for the earth on all fronts. Ecological, economic, social and spiritual benefits build from an holistic approach.
In terms of AgResearch scientists disagreeing with companies, try getting a scientist to speak without getting clearance from a senior manager or comms person. In our recent shake of the sloppy Plant & Food GE field trial, the comms staff took over instantly. It is all about damage control.
Truth only came when it was clear we had the evidence and the best way forward was some transparency. Just some transparency mind.
Steve, I agree that science deserves better funding, certainly secure funding, but the direction science goes needs to be looked at hard. You say the AgResearch scientists lead their own research programs according to their own interests. That doesnt quite paint the correct picture. AgResearch following the demise of the DSIR is not solely public funded and CRI’s are required to have enough commercial focus -including collaboration, to achieve a dividend for the government. In todays news the govt is calling SOEs to give a bigger dividend, so the pressure to respond to the $$s will not disipate soon. I have seen many a scientist on an RMA or ERMA hearing stand ducking and diving from the truth as they protect their career, blinkered self interest, or the interest of their customer or funding partner. The majority of dedicated scientists do not need some form of castigating but dont lets get mislead about freedom of opinion within the CRI’s.
FORST needs a major shake as does the full HSNO Act, ERMA and MAF regulatory system. It is fundamentally corrupt in design and even then fails in delivery in its own inadequate processes. Between the failed and breached GE trees experiment at Scion where the regulators and Scion were complicit in coverup of risk of pollen release etc, in AgResearch where non-compliance again has occured and institutional arrogance with ERMA complicity notified crude broad brush applications, then to Plant & Food Research’s non-compliance with the earlier GE onion trial, then big time with GE brassica pollen breaches even while we were at the High Court appealing that decision. In this situation, why should the public have any faith in the new technologies safety or the scientists at the helm.
Back to AgResearch. There are scores of cattle at the Rurakura GE field trial site that should be permanently removed from experiments and no more animals should be tampered with in the same way. Those that are in the GE field trial site look just fine and healthy, albeit that they are not allowed to be experimented on just now due to the trials consent having expired. I have fresh photos following some from a year ago. However many cattle there are not genetically engineered and for every GE one several embryos failed – died.
As Jeanette Fitzsimons has recently quoted on frogblog http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/06/17/100-pure-clean-green-ge-llamas-um-no/ It (AgResearch) admitted to “a less than 9 percent live birth rate, aborted deformed foetuses, deformed calves, gangrenous udders and ‘animals suffering from respiratory conditions’”.
That is damned crude and cruel experimentation, for what. Careers and greed, some smart IP. The theoretical health benefits from there would hardly be necessary if there was a holistic approach to agriculture, health and nutrition. The other intentions are just unecessary fiddles for unecessary milk based consumer items. The theoretical need does not outweigh both animal welfare or environmental risk.
In terms of climate change, AgResearch has been wasting resources on doomed nitrification inhibitors as well. More arrogant science after bad. The use of chemistry to deal with over intensive chemical based farming is missing the point, missing the root cause of the problem. Try converting to organic production with mixed swards, building soil biological activity (storing carbon in the process), soil structure improvements, better animal welfare etc etc instead of persiting with urea based hydroponic dairy farming with its climate change enhancing urine patching etc.
Get some clean green vision and get the science away from the risky GE, chemical direction and put it into something that New Zealanders can be proud of.
I agree with Steffan Browning. GE is part of a mindset of dominating and exploiting nature, and controlling food, fibre, seed, oil and pharmaceutical supplies for financial gain.
There have been no long-term, independent tests on the safety of GE food for humans, and there have been a number of animal feeding tests that have shown damage to animals, including to the immune system, liver, kidneys, and reproductive systems.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine recently called for a ban on GE foods. Their position paper asks doctors to educate patients about the risks of GE, and recommends people avoid eating GE foods, because they have not been properly tested for human consumption. The AAEM states that ‘there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.’
See http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
But it’s not just about our food – the negative effects of GE are potentially devastating to biodiversity and to the world’s already severely out-of-balance natural eco-systems, via impacts on soil biota, via GE species crossing with non-GE species. It is just one giant experiment, and once released cannot be recalled.
There are also negative social impacts. Claims about high yields of GE crops are proving false, and farmers (many in poor countries) are finding themselves locked into financially disastrous contracts in which they cannot save their own seed but must buy it each year. Suicide among Indian farmers (many of whom grow GE cotton) is increasing alarmingly.
GE is an incredibly important issue – it’s about the world’s food supply, and the natural world we are part of and dependent on.
Steve wrote : “Sure, I don’t agree with large companies being able to patent genes and hold farmers for ransom, but the dangers from genetically engineered organisms have been vastly overstated.”
Steve, I think there’s a significant danger in this – significant enough that we shouldn’t allow GE!