EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
EU Farmers Face Genetic Contamination of Seeds
BERLIN - Biodiversity, already decaying fast as a result of climate change and intensive farming, is under further threat by genetic modification (GM) of seeds, says a leading German ecological activist.
Genetic modification of seeds is dangerous, "since it is at the beginning of the agricultural chain, and can spread all over," says Benedikt Haerlin, former campaign manager at the environmental organization Greenpeace and former member of the European Parliament.
Haerlin now leads the global ‘Save our Seeds' campaign in cooperation with some 300 environmental organizations across Europe.
The campaign is currently calling attention to plans by the European Commission (EC) to tolerate "accidental or technically unavoidable" contamination of conventional seed with GM varieties.
In September 2004, the EC sought to pass a directive allowing up to 0.7 percent of GM organisms (GMO) in maize and oilseed rape seed without being labeled.
But fierce protests by organic farmers and environmental organizations forced the EC to withdraw the proposal. Since then, EC has not submitted any new recommendations.
Some commissioners, such as Stavros Dimas, who was in charge of environment between 2004 and 2009, have even questioned whether thresholds are necessary. Although the mandate for the present EC ended last October, Dimas is still serving as commissioner for environment until a new commission is approved and takes office.
"The official position of the EC remains, however, that a new proposal for the specification of threshold values for genetic contamination of seed is in the works," Haerlin told IPS.
Haerlin said that calling such contamination "accidental or technically unavoidable" with GMOs is misleading. "For fodder or even food, that genetic contamination under 0.9 percent is not declared can be acceptable," Haerlin explained. "At least, I can be sure that such contamination won't spread to other areas of life."
This is not the case with seeds, he said. "GM seeds can contaminate the fields of peasants and farmers who oppose them. After contamination, they would be forced to prove the origin of the pollution.
‘'Farmers using what they believe are organic seeds, but which have been genetically contaminated, would continue using part of the polluted crop as seeds for the next season, and multiply and spread the contamination, " he said.
"The most important impact of GM agriculture is on the social and economic conditions of farmers," Haerlin told IPS. "In general, GM agriculture makes farmers dependent on the big agrochemical business, and also provokes conflicts between peasants and landowners."
Haerlin accused the agrochemical giants that control the market for GM seeds to use "back doors and bad legislation to put their seeds on the market. They know that otherwise they would not sell their seeds."
Haerlin warned that research and development in agriculture is taking place "more and more only in the chemistry labs, and not on the field, and are concentrated in only a handful of companies." Because of this, organic, traditional seeds are disappearing, he said.
"The environmental consequences are enormous and extremely dangerous, and, once they have happened, it will be too late to turn back the tide," Haerlin said.
According to environmental and agriculture experts, 25 years ago there were at least 7,000 seed growers worldwide, and none of them controlled more than one percent of the global market.
Today, after a takeover spree, ten major biochemical multinationals, including Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, BASF and Dow Agrosciences, control more than 50 percent of the seeds market.
"The goal of these companies is, of course, to make profits," Haerlin told IPS. "In order to improve their profits, they all apply one strategy to increase their control of the market: they impose upon farmers worldwide the so-called vertical integration of inputs, from seeds to fertilizers to pesticides, all from one brand."
Such "vertical integration of agricultural inputs" has transformed agriculture in developing countries into a two-class business, Angelika Hillbeck, researcher on bio-safety and agriculture at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, told IPS.
"In the developing countries there is a class of farmers with large plantations and enough money who can afford to buy all inputs from the major biochemical companies, from seeds and fertilizers to pesticides and conservatives,'' she said.
But there are small farmers for whom the biochemical markets are out of reach. Additionally GM seeds have crowded out organic seeds, reduced botanical diversity, especially in developing countries, and contributed to a further decimation of biodiversity.
All European Union (EU) member countries have joined the United Nations campaign declaring 2010 ‘The Year of Biodiversity' in an effort to emphasize the need to protect variety in flora and fauna. The U.N., which launched the campaign on Jan. 11 in Berlin, has recognized that the objective set in 2003 to stop the decimation of biodiversity by 2010 would not be reached.
This European engagement in favour of biodiversity appears to be only lip service to the environment cause since, in reality, European institutions support biochemical multinationals that are out to make genetic contamination legal.
Additionally, European institutions appear to have revolving doors connecting some of their leading officers to private biochemical and agribusiness companies - as the case of Suzy Renckens shows.
Renckens was until 2008 head of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)'s GMO Unit and coordinator of the European scientific expert panel dealing with GMOs. One month after she quit the EFSA, Renckens became head of Biotech Regulatory Affairs for Europe, Africa and Middle East at Syngenta, one of the largest European agribusiness companies.
In her own words, Renckens now lobbies on behalf of Syngenta to influence EU decision-making on genetically engineered organisms. This is the very same issue she was responsible for regulating while with the EFSA.
Haerlin said that ‘Save our Seeds' has formulated a petition, addressed to the EC and other political authorities in Europe, calling for a ban of GMOs in seeds.
The petition, which has been so far signed by well over 200,000 citizens all over the EU, says that "the uncontrolled spread and propagation of GMOs is incompatible with the precautionary protection of the environment and human health."
The petition also says that "the purity of seeds has to be ensured by those who produce or wish to grow GMOs and not by those who wish to continue farming and consuming products without GMOs."
"Costs arising from this obligation must not be borne by consumers and certainly not by farmers," the petition adds. "Liabilities will have to be covered by the producers of GMOs. Such a guarantee may have to be ensured in other directives, regulations and legislation before the proposed directive enters into force."
The initiative ‘Save our Seeds' is being coordinated by the Berlin-based Foundation on Future Farming, which primarily supports the development and breeding of organic seed.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

19 Comments so far
Show AllWhenever contaminated seeds are found, the owner of the GM seed patent should be sued for negligence for failure to control their pollution of the seed stock. The contaminated seeds should be destoyed and replaced with uncontaminated seeds at the expense of the patent holder. Damages above and beyond the replacement cost should also be assessed for loss of the improvements that normally occur with proper breeding.
Companies like Monstanto need to be held accountable for their irresponsible actions.
here's a canadian example of GM contamiation of flax.
the GM productknown as "Triffid" was banned in 2001, but here we are 9 years later and they're still finding it.
"The European Commission's Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food is said to have confirmed the contamination of Canadian flax with an illegal GM flax. The contamination was not detected prior to use in foods such as cereals and bakery products."
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279012
"The *triffid* is a highly venomous fictional plant species, the titular antagonist from John Wyndham's 1951 novel 'The Day of the *Triffids*.' The University of Saskatchewan appears to have used that great novel as a model for its GM creation"
[http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11507-re-illegal-gm-contaminates-flax
The fewness of responses to this article is significant. Among all the dreadful dangers is over-complication of the subject. This often happens in agricultural disputes. So-- please-- a simplicity check-- the only way to involve general public beyond farmers and anti-nature meddlers. Keep calling Monsanto and the others the villains they are. The truth must never be distorted (do so and you will immediately be knocked out by a counter-punch). But, focus needs to be sharpened and sharpened again. Only a thin stratum of Americans-- maybe some special audience who saw a movie in a Tai Chi center-- currently knows how truly awful and dangerous Monsanto is.
If a company has the right to sue a farmer for growing plants with their patented gene, for which they have not paid a royalty, then the farmer should be able to be sue for negligence in controlling the propagation of that gene.
The negligence is that the company did not incorporate male sterillity into their GM seed.
Your argument is true enough. A company has no business patenting a gene that they found but didn't create. On the other hand, one of the reasons for not putting male sterility genes into the plants was objections from those who wanted peasant farmers to be able to grow the seeds without having to buy them every year.
That is just a crock of.....well you get it, maybe not. Yeah, right, peasant farmers have SO MUCH power in these negotiations. I suppose they all showed up at a stockholders meeting in their loincloths just so show you all your errant ways. Yor are really reaching here, ya know! ....And you are right ' A company has no business patenting a gene........'. Period, paragraph
Rubbish.
It has already been demonstrated the Genetically modified crops have led to the mass death of insects such as Butterflies that normallly feed off the same.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/347638.stm
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
Food allergies and other concerns due to GM seeds in the scientific community.
http://food-allergies.suite101.com/article.cfm/genetically_modified_soy_and_food_allergies
Studies on GM modified Soya.
There are people today that will DIE from a minimal exposure to the peanut plant. This is caused that NON TOXIC Dna you speak of.
RBGh has already been demonstrated to be harmful to humans both by Canadian and European Scientiists at the use of such is banned in the same countries.
I am not going to spend the next 20 hours pulling down links of scientific studies that show how wrong your claims are. If DNA is just DNA I have some Mushrooms here you can eat.
Furthermore if DNA is JUST DNA then pray tell how can a Geneticaly Modified seed be designed to kill a SPECIFIC species?
I notice that your references are to articles in the popular press and not to actual scientific articles. I suspect that they have the same validity as the article that violated every use of statistical methods to "prove" that somehow GM corn was causing undetected damage to kidneys and livers of rats.
What Popular press? One was the BBC citing a Scientific study. The others hardly qualify as "Popular Press".
The Popular press has reported the World is round, man has landed on the moon , that there Hydrocarbons on Titan and that A Galaxy has been observed that is 13 billion light years away. Is it your contention that none of these are true?
I have been posting on Commondreams for quite some time and in all manner of topics and threads. Most of the regulars here will confirm my statement that we have a few persons that post whom we never see post in any topic but one pertaining to a certain theme.
So as example if an article carried that is critical of Israel we will either see a rash of new names calling it anti-semitic or the same old names who never post on anything BUT a "State of Israel" thread that will defend Israel no matter the crime.
So we have a rather rare occurence where an article speaks to GM modified foods and of a sudden two screenames appear of which I can not remember ever having posted before ridiculing those that have concerns over those seeds being introduced into the enviroment.
Furthermore the tactics are very much the same as the Hasbarists use. That is the use of the straw man arguement and trying to link a multitude of studies by implication to some other discredited study, so as to discredit them all.
So what is your sudden interest In Common dreams?
Very troll-like of you to say something so patently false. Bivins at work?
Not toxic ...
Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals
Jan 14, 2010 ... Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, ...
www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20009.cfm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Reject-Bt-brinjal-as-poison/articleshow/5496633.cms
In addition, there are the pesticides they are meant to sell and the patents which they are all about.
The patents are most toxic of all.
Speaking of patently false, why did you fail to mention that the pair that published that piece used statistical procedures that no ethical statistician would use the way they were used? The easiest one to see is that instead of using an ANOVA which tests several groups against each other, they used a series of paired t-tests until they were able to find one that gave them the answer they wanted. P<0.05 means that 5% of the time (1 time of 20) you will get a false answer so if you keep running a series of paired tests, eventually you will find one that looks like it gives you the results you want, but it really doesn't. Then they also did some false comparisons between genders of the rats being tested.
This is the type of argument the creationists use to argue against evolution, and they are no more honest or accurate than when the creationists use them.
Monsanto and their ilk must put everready batteries in folks like you, just to keep 'their' movement growing. I would suggest you folks 'load' up on those tasty GMO morsels, yes stuff yourself to the gills! What an incredible travesty this is. I hate liars and intellectual thieves.
Considering that the world's most completely nutritious and useful organic agricultural resource has been illegally prohibited for the past seventy-three years, it is not surprising that those same unscrupulous economic entities would initiate irreversible control over the the competition through genetic contamination.
The question is, has industrial hemp ever been within the rightful jurisdiction of any court? Is our freedom to farm "every herb bearing seed" the first test of religious freedom?
Schizophrenic leadership that treats a "strategic food resource" as a "Schedule One drug" is criminally conflicted, beyond moral accountability. There is no obligation to obey extinctionistic laws violating the First Amendment, just for starters.
It's good to see that most of you have a brain. I'm afraid that individuals who fail to avail themselves of the real science fail to see the dangers of GM foods for one, but they probably also think organic is hype and stem cell bad and suck down colas til their bones melt.
Some day the magical thinkers (see Bottle - "anti-nature meddlers") will learn that it is the particular genes that are found in the new strain of plant that are important, not how they got there. It is to laugh at how the magical thinkers have become all bent out of shape because they don't know what to do about the Canadian herbicide resistant canola that was created by standard selective breeding techniques. It is no different from Monsanto's product and is just as likely to spread herbicide resistance to related weeds, but since it wasn't produced by GM techniques, they can't complain. Some of them are likely in catatonic shock. The only good thing likely to come out of that experience is that some of the magical thinkers will learn the difference between reality and religion.
And for those of you who sing the praises of organic methods, remember that those are the same techniques that were the only thing going before the Green Revolution and that they were responsible for the periodic massive famines that occurred then. I can hear some of the Republicans out there claiming that we need some severe famines to bring the world's population back down to manageable size. You disgust me.
It is time to stop fighting the 'cause' and go after the root: those bio chemical companies that produce GMs in the first place. We keep tip-toeing around and the only thing we have to show for is more and more people, animals and plants getting sick. If Mother Nature wanted to have genetically modified items it would have done so. We have to stop meddling, but of course...profits before people.
Mark Abram says:
"There is no reason to think that just because a gene fragment can be traced to a "GMO" crop that it is therefore a harmful contaminant. This obsession with genetic "purity" is stupid nonsense."
No reason except scientific facts, do the research. You probably have but choose to ignore it. I just can't believe all the naysayers, there is absolute proof that GMO maize degrades internal organs. People and 'multinational seed companies' tell lies for profit, because they can. When is it that we all become human and compassionate again?
Also, Canadian farmers cannot sell their FLAX seed to Europe now because GM contaminated seeds were found in some shipments.
The source of the contamination is unknown.
Monsanto is a threat to all of us. Our government[s] refuse to recognize the threat so we have to fight this one ourselves. Consumer boycott is difficult when we do not buy any Monsanto products - any suggestions on how to remove Monsanto from our world?