London (9.8.10) – The latest GM flap to hit the US and British media is the finding that feral (i.e. uncultivated) canola (the North American term for oilseed rape) along the highways of North Dakota is largely GM (1). Some headlines, in the traditional lurid fashion of such things, have described these as “escaping into the wild” (2) and “break[ing] free of farm”: almost like triffids (3), those clever plants have “found a way to leave the farm” (4). (Who would have guessed that the transfer of a single gene from a bacterium into a plant would make it intelligent enough to know about escaping.) It may be useful to remember that the total U.S. canola acreage (for 2007) was well over a million acres, 92% of it in North Dakota. The total in Canada, just across the border, was over 14 million acres (5).

There are, as usual, a number of interesting considerations in the subtext. The survey was actually done “…by establishing transects along road sides throughout the state. 1 X 50 m transects were established every 5 miles of roadway in which all identifiable B. napus plants were counted. One plant from each transect was collected, photographed and vouchered. A leaf fragment from the voucher specimen was tested for the presence of CP4 EPSPS protein.”

The researchers travelled a total 3,370 miles of interstate, state and county roads and collected 406 plants of which 347 (86%) tested positive for the gene and protein which confers resistance to the herbicide glyphosate in transgenic canola. In two cases stacked traits were found; there is little doubt that these plants really were derived commercially cultivated GM canola. (Incidentally, The New York Times (6) reported that 604 plants had been collected, but no matter: anybody can get a number wrong or it may have been a misprint.)

Of course, one plant every 5 miles offers an interesting insight but it might not actually be representative of any of the collection sites. But let us suppose it is. We do need to note what Barry Coleman, executive director of the Northern Canola Growers Association and canola grower in North Dakota had to say (7): "Because 85 to 90 percent of the U.S. and Canadian canola crop is grown from biotech seeds, we would expect the same percentage to be reflected in volunteer canola…..As with conventional canola production, it is not unusual or concerning that volunteer biotech canola was found on roadsides due to occasional seeds being misplaced during transport or harvesting."

His colleague, Dale Thorenson, assistant director of the U.S. Canola Association and former canola grower in North Dakota, noted that: "When planting canola, especially biotech varieties, farmers are expected to keep good records of fields and watch for volunteer plants. If they occur, they should till or use any herbicide currently registered for control of volunteer canola. This is part of routine crop management.” Most farmers have to be pretty good managers or they don’t stay in business too long; CropGen noted the importance of good management just three months ago (8).

One last point. A number of people have observed that the verges alongside public highways are not "wild” territory, wilderness areas untouched by human hand. Seeds (including those of GM canola) fall from lorries – along roads. And as long as the highway maintenance authorities spray glyphosate to control vegetation on roadside verges, a little bit of Darwinian selection is inevitable in favour of GM-canola (specifically made resistant to glyphosate in order to facilitate weed control in the fields) when compared with other, glyphosate-sensitive species and varieties. Exactly the same selection would take place with canola that had spontaneously acquired resistance to glyphosate; in this regard there is nothing magic about transgenesis.

So for once some headline writers have got it right and the one used by PR Newswire (7) seems precisely to fit the bill: “Research confirming volunteer canola not surprising or concerning”.

Sources:

1. Meredith G. Schafer, Andrew X. Ross, Jason P. Londo, Connie A. Burdick, E. Henry Lee, Steven E. Travers, Peter K. Van de Water, and Cynthia L. Sagers (6.8.10). PS 103-166: Evidence for the establishment and persistence of genetically modified canola populations in the U.S. 95th ESA (Ecological Society of America) Annual Meeting (http://eco.confex.com/eco/2010/techprogram/P27199.HTM)

2. GM crops are 'escaping' into the wild. UPI (6.8.10) (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/08/06/GM-crops-are-escaping-into-the-wild/UPI-26701281133311)

3. John Wyndham (1951). The day of the triffids. (Michael Joseph)

4. Molly Webster (6.8.10). Transgenic canola plants break free of farm. Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=transgenic-canola-plants-break-free-10-08-06)

5. 2007 U.S. canola crop: higher acreage, lower yield. US Canola Digest, 2(4), 10 (Nov./Dec. 2007) (http://www.northerncanola.com/update/canolajournal/upfiles/NovemberDecemberCanolaDigest.pdf)

6. Andrew Pollack (6.8.10). Roadside invader; engineered canola. New York Times (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/An-Invader-Biotech-Canola/)

7. Research confirming volunteer canola not surprising or concerning. PR Newswire (6.8.10) (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/research-confirming-volunteer-canola-not-surprising-or-concerning-100149919.html)

8. The importance of management. CropGen (20.5.10) (http://www.cropgen.org/article_305.html)

<<<back