Genetically Modified Organisms

What are they doing to soya . . . and does it matter?

The process of genetic modification or genetic engineering consists of physically transplanting genetic material from one organism into the cells of another in order to produce specific new characteristics in a new animal or plant. GM is no respecter of the natural orders of the animal and plant kingdoms, but freely mixes and matches the desired properties of either to suit those financing the research. Thus a new "breed" of tomato actually contains an anti-freeze gene from an arctic fish.

The Monsanto Corporation have a licensed agreement with Novartis Incorporated (formed by the recent merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz) whereby Monsanto produce a herbicide called ROUNDUP and Novartis produce a soya bean S14M7 which has been specifically genetically modified to resist the herbicide which suppresses competing weeds.

While this "breed" of soya bean has been cleared for consumption by the FDA and European authorities, and may well be fit to eat, there are many consumers who do not wish to eat it. Furthermore environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace express serious concerns about the unpredictable effects on the eco-system of the release of modified organisms.

"Monsanto is gambling that their new soya bean will not destroy, mutate or harm native plants and animals, that it will not harm human health," said Tzeporah Berman, Greenpeace Biodiversity campaigner. "This is a new life form that has not been subjected to long-term tests. Allowing it to be grown and consumed without a thorough understanding of how it will affect the environment and human health is careless at best." Greenpeace press release

Offshoot's policy is to help consumers to eat only what they choose, and to allow them to be fully informed in making their choices. Offshoot does not preach that you should eat what is good for you, although it hopes you will. Offshoot does make a stand about food production methods which are politically or environmentally unsound, and will discourage their use by not stocking them.

Because the USA has failed to heed European calls to keep modified soya separate from regular produce, no consumer of soya anywhere in the world can avoid eating the S14M7 bean incorporated in 70% of processed foods available in supermarkets. No labelling system has been developed to warn consumers of this willful adulteration. Whether he or she acts from global conscience or for reasons of health there is no way he or she can avoid this new crop - EXCEPT - by specifying only Organically Grown soya. OG soya crops are rigidly separated from other produce and are guaranteed not to be genetically modified. Naturally organic soya (and processed products) is the only type on sale at

Offshoot.

SOIL ASSOCIATION PRESS RELEASE

Government advice on genetic contamination challenged by new independent report

Evidence that pollen from genetically modified crops can cause contamination over considerable distances has emerged in a new report. ‘The Dispersal of Maize Pollen’ by Dr Jean Emberlin, Director of the National Pollen Research Unit (1), was commissioned by the Soil Association to establish hard scientific data on the risks posed to the integrity of organically grown maize and sweetcorn from cross-pollination by genetically modified crops.

Last summer Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, refused to order the destruction of a crop of genetically modified (GM) maize bordering a Soil Association registered organic farm in Devon and claimed that “there were no grounds for halting the field trials as it will not interfere with the sweetcorn crop being grown on a nearby farm”(2). The Soil Association regrettably had to inform the farmer that the organic status of his sweetcorn would have to be removed if there was any evidence of contamination from the GM maize(3,4).

The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), the Government’s statutory advisors on the release of genetically engineered crops into the environment, stated that “at a standard separation distance of 200 metres between the organic sweetcorn and the GM maize the likely cross-pollination frequency would result in no greater than 1 sweetcorn kernel in every 40,000 being a GM hybrid”(5). However, Dr Jean Emberlin, having looked at all the research available, concluded that “in conditions of moderate wind speeds the rates of cross-pollination at 200 metres would be in the order of 1 kernel in 93.”

Evidence is cited in Dr Emberlin’s report that maize pollen is collected by bees in notable amounts. In this way the pollen is transported several miles from the crop plot in suitable weather conditions. In the case of the organic farmer in Devon, ACRE failed even to consider cross-pollination of the organic sweetcorn by bees, even though there are several hives adjacent to the test plot.

ACRE also brushed aside concerns about freak weather conditions by saying that ”this was generally taken into account with seed certification standards and there was at least 200 metres from the nearest GM maize to the organic farm”(6).

However the report states that: “Substantial evidence exists for long range transport of considerable numbers of pollen grains….Maize pollen remains viable under normal conditions for approximately 24 hours giving potential for pollination by grains that had travelled many hundreds of kilometres on the airflow….Overall it is clear that the maize pollen spreads far beyond the 200 metres cited in several reports as being an acceptable separation distance to prevent cross-pollination.”

This new report undermines confidence in the advice given to the Government by ACRE who have so far given permission to trial GE crops at over 500 sites around the country. At least 8 members of ACRE have direct links with biotech research, and 6 members are involved with companies that have been given permission by ACRE to conduct these trials. The Soil Association believes that the apparent failure of ACRE to give impartial advice on the likelihood of cross-pollination threatens to remove choice from those who want to avoid GM contamination.

Agriculture Minister, Nick Brown, has recently stated that ”The Government is absolutely committed to making sure that those who do not want to eat crops that have been cross-contaminated (with GMO ingredients), or to have their crops cross-contaminated (with GMO pollen), have their rights in this protected as well”(7).

Food Safety Minster, Jeff Rooker, has also repeated this promise, “The Government is about in April to double the aid to persuade farmers to convert to organic production. We’re not going to allow that public money to be put at risk by a cross-contamination of GM crops when they are grown.”(8)

The Soil Association is calling on the Government to honour these pledges and provide a response to this report with the utmost urgency in order to avoid potential cross-pollination from GE trial plots due to be planted in 1999.

The Soil Association believes that it is not good enough for the biotech industry to be allowed to introduce these crops under a voluntary code of practice that fails to take cross-pollination of organic crops into account(9).

Patrick Holden, Soil Association Director, said, “The only way that the Government can fulfil its promise to protect organic farmers (and indeed conventional farmers) who wish to provide a GM-free choice for consumers is through a ban on the growing of genetically engineered maize. This report demonstrates that farmers who are attempting to grow GM-free crops will find it increasingly difficult to supply consumers with the GM-free food products that they are demanding.”

PRESS RELEASE ENDS