Traces of a GM material known as Topas 19/2 were have been found in Victorian canola ready for export.
GM canola was approved by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in Canberra sometime ago for commercial production in Australia. However, bans on GM food crops introduced by State Governments have prevented the legal commercial production of GM canola. GM canola is grown overseas including in Canada, the US and Argentina.
It is unclear how the Australian canola became contaminated.
Bayer has field trials of GM canola in Victoria. However, the Topas 19/2 is apparently not consistent with the GM material in the canola being grown in trials by Bayer in Australia at the moment – though was in trials grown prior to 1998.
While investigations continue, perhaps the more likely explanation is that the contamination is from an Australian breeding program. There are apparently a number of different companies that breed and sell canola seed in Australia – but not Bayer (because state governments have banned their GM product). Anyway these breeding program exchange material with overseas companies and it is possible that in an exchange of germplasm the impurity/the Topas 19/2 was introduced.
Topas 19/2 includes a gene from a soil bacteria that confers herbicide resistance. The same gene, known as the pat gene has been used as a marker in a wide range of research in a variety of crops around the world. The pat gene is a Bayer creation.
According to Greenpeace Campaigner Jeremy Tager, Bayer should take responsibility for the organism it created. Do you reckon we should get Jeremy’s Mum to take more responsibility for the campaigns he runs?
Bayer media release: http://www.bayercropscience.com.au/news/index.asp?id=20050714GMTraces3
Greenpeace media release:
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/media/ge_canola_details.php?site_id=55&news_id=1728
ABC online:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1416183.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
jennifer , fair go , there is no comparison between jeremy,s mum and bayer .
the female GM co representative talking on the radio while trying to avoid usefull questions that needed answers even resorted to calling the genetic material [not what occured] an “event” – that was a first for me – its almost sporting like ! if it wasn’t so serious .their high paid lawyers will do anything to take the responsibility off the GM companies and put it on the shoulders of the farmers .
no doubt the National Farmers Association will be ducking for cover shortly. be interesting to see if they will enable contaminated farmers use the “Fighting Fund” for their defences in court ??
jennifer , listening to jeremy tager after his greenpeace occupation of bayer’s office , he said they were against GM releases because possible long term negative affects were unproven due to lack of research. doesn’t he have a point ?
what sort of negative effects?
oil from Gm canola is chemically identical to oil from non-gm canola. we have been eating fish and chips cooked in gm cotton-seed oil for about 7 years. about 35% of the vegetable oil consumed in Australia is from cotton seed – not labeled GM because it is chemically identical to non-Gm cotton seed oil. and anyway takeaways don’t need to be labeled anyway.
why aren’t greenpeace making a fuss about Gm cotton?
Jennifer
my mother died of throat cancer – a disease entirely attributable to smoking. At the time she was diagnosed, tobacco companies knew that their products were dangerous – and were swearing on bibles that they weren’t. My mother would have said to me, don’t let get away with saying their product is perfectly safe (particularly when they refuse to take legal responsibility for it) when they don’t have the evidence to support it. Don’t let another generation of scientists with vested interests tell the community that they are simply ignorant and idiot victims of fear campaigns.
Why doesn’t Bayer have an onus of demonstrating the safety of their GE patented product when they apply for commercial release? Why can the OGTR get away with approving a release with no independent or peer reviewed literature to support it declarations of safety? Why won’t the industry accept that it should be liable for the behaviour of the patented product they design and sell?
And you’re wrong about oils. Oils do contain proteins and dna. A study in 2002 published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that exposure to creams and lotions containing peanut oils at a young age significantly increased the likelihood of developing peanut allergies in later life. Not a GE study, but one that established that oils had active effect on allergenicity even as as a result of absorption through the skin.
Finally, the highly promiscuous nature of canola and it numerous related species (approximately 160 in Australia) mean it is a species likely to contaminate and to cross with other species. You may be willing to accept genetic contamination because you see little risk of harm – I’m not. And I think from a precautionary and public policy point of view, there is plenty of precendent for saying you can’t dump your toxic or poisons in rivers, or oceans – not because we know exactly what harm it will cause – but because we don’t. The announcement this week that Bayer’s canola had crossed with a distant relative was an event that scientists had said was virtually impossible. It wasn’t…
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy
I am sorry about your Mum dying of throat cancer.
Regarding canola, I understand that vegetable oil from GM cotton is not labelled as such because it is an oil and doesn’t contain protein and therefore is chemically identical to the non-Gm. I understand that if Gm canola was grown commercially it would also not be labelled Gm because it would not be disguishable from the non-Gm.
Given your concern I wonder why you don’t campaign against GM cotton?
I do consider the Greenpeace campaign to be fundamentally dishonest.
But again, I am sorry about your Mum.
Jennifer
Even FSANZS no longer claims that oils are free of DNA or protein They do claim that it is inactive. That claim appears to be based on levels of processing (heat etc) that is not necessarily the norm for oils. Take a look at the peanut oil study – how do you explain increased susceptibility to allergies as a result of absorption through the skin?
As to why we don’t campaign on cotton oils – not from lack of concern but decisions made about priorities. It is certainly our view that the failure to label vegetable oils as containing GE cotton seed is inexcusable. Full labeling – regardless of your view of GE – would seem the only equitable position to take in order to allow consumers to make informed choices.
You maintain that our campaign is fundamentally dishonest – are you referring to anything specifically or is it simply that you disagree with our position?
thanks for the comments re my mother.
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy
I think your campaign is fundamentally dishonest because:
1. Greenpeace have claimed GM is inherently unpredictable, that there are food safety issues. I can’t find the evidence – lots of claims, but no evidence.
2. Greenpeace has claimed that GM is not good for the environment – in my view it is so good for the environment, e.g. reduced pesticide applications (in cotton 88% less insecticide used), reduced water use (eg. potential new wheat varieties) and the list goes on.
I understand your comments about FSANZ/oil are correct – in the context that FSANZ has said some oils (such as cold pressed oils) should be labelled Gm.
But, please confirm that vegetable oil from Gm canola and non-GM canola would be identical?
Best,
Jennifer
There is a huge body of evidence that putting novel genetic structures into complex organisms and releasing them into complex systems is unbelievably unpredictable. Here is what Dr Lonsdale of CSIRO said about unpredictability at an OECD conference in 2002:“It may take decades, or even centuries, for the full ramifications of a new biological introduction to be played out” (185)
“Predictability of harm for biological introductions is low for various reasons, including the following
Cascades in systems – food webs, and so forth amplify or dampen effects;
Scale effects are paramount in ecology – what is true in field plots at 1 ha is unlikely to be true at 104 km2;
Lag phases-It may take 150 years for trees, for example, to become invasive (Kowarik 1995)” (190)
“Those wishing to release living organisms into the wild must be prepared to deal with uncertainty and to acknowledge that what we not know vastly outweighs what we know” (192)
Safety issues. It is extraordinary that worldwide there have been around 10 peer reviewed live animal studies looking at the safety of all GE foods for human consumption. In other words, the vast majority of safety work involves only compositionsal analysis of the GE organism – frequently not even in the host organism (ie the plant). Of the 10 peer reviewed studies all 5 that were fully indepependent showed serious impacts on lab animals. I would think that is sufficient to say there are legitimate concerns that need further examination and that it raises the question of whether the safety assessments that our regulators currently use – they don’t require any live animal or clinical work – are adequate (the source for this is Pryme & Lembke, 2003)
Environmental benefits. In relation to herbicide tolerant plants, a 9 years study conducted by Dr Benbrook in the United States showed a decline in herbicide use on herbicide tolerant plants for the first 3 years – followed by 6 years of increased herbicide use – so that significantly more herbicide is now used on RR soy than on conventional. Benbrook found a decline in chemical inputs on Bt crops in the same study. (although he points out that the vast majority of crops are herbicide tolerant not insecticidal producing). But even the claim that chemical use on Bt plants such as cotton are not straightforward – Bt plants are chemical factories – they produce their bt toxin 24 hours a day. No one knows how much Bt is produced. It wasn’t even known until several years after release that Bt was exuded from the roots of the Bt plant. They know that the exudation results in a significant change in soil composition – they don’t what it means because the research hasn’t been done. It’s the same story in the entire GE agricultural world – the commercial push has happened without the science being done.
As far as ge and non-ge oils – my understanding is that if dna or protein persists in oils then it is unlikely that ge and non ge are the same.
Jeremy
ionolsen23 Your home page its great
ea65f850a899 I bookmarked your site and will read it regularly
f9c3b7e11100 Keep writing so good posts
How can a plant that produces toxin to kill friendly as well as non friendly insect be good?
Save the bees I like Honey