London (12th
June 2006) – Ever since GM crops were first introduced commercially
in 1994/5, and especially once they appeared on the European market, the agricultural
biotechnology industry itself has been curiously muted and ineffectual about
its own achievements. This is an industry which, over several decades, has
shown great pioneering spirit by making massive investments in a new technology
for which, at the beginning, neither technological nor commercial success
could be assured.
As the objections to imports into Europe of GM-soya and -maize became coordinated
and organised, the industry found it difficult to speak out loudly in its
own defence. A series of expensive advertisements at the end of the 1990s
was, by common consent, not particularly effective.
Since then, the industry has done rather better but largely in a hesitant
way, refraining from meeting their opposition head-on. There are signs of
change.
BASF Plant Science is one of the major European and world players. A few weeks
ago, Dr. Hans Kast, their President and CEO, was interviewed about the prospects
for GM crops and foods (1).
Stressing the need for consumer choice, he said that “If consumers do
not like it they will not buy it. Governments decide to police the consumer
instead of letting them decide on their own. We cannot accept a situation
whereby these products are proved safe and then countries say we do not want
this product.”
Asked about the the choice for those organic farmers whose fields may be “contaminated”
by GM seeds, Dr. Kast was clear: “If an organic farmer wants to grow
organic, he can. He simply needs to take care that he has sufficient distance
from the other fields”. But surely it is not that simple persisted his
questioner. Dr. Kast was ready for that: “I am not aware of any cases
of organic farmers who said they have had their fields contaminated. You go
to the US and you can buy organic or GM.”
The interviewer asked why the people of Wales could not say they should be
GM free; what happened to their choice?, Dr. Kast was yet more forthright:
“….then they should not be in the EU – they should get out
of the EU and say we want to be on our own…. I have not heard that the
people of Wales want to be GM free. Would Wales be allowed to say we don’t
want to have cars?”
Strong statements have not been confined to BASF. Recently we have had another
of the endless scare stories, this time about sheep in India becoming ill
after having grazed on Bt cotton stubble. There was, of course, no mention
in those stories of gossypol (2), a rather poisonous chemical present in cotton.
Monsanto, whose cotton, it was supposed to have been, responded with a reasoned
and effective defence (3), citing a 90-day feeding study carried out by the
Industrial Toxicology Research Center, Lucknow in 1998. The 48 goats used
in the evaluation were assessed for gross pathology and histopathology, showing
that Bt cottonseed is as wholesome and safe for animal feed as non-Bt cottonseed.
Monsanto’s statement concluded: “It would be appropriate for those
who have genuine concerns about crop biotechnology to bolster their case with
the weight of scientific evidence and debate, rather than seek to divert attention
from a failed cause by making unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations”
Is the ag. biotech. industry waking up in its own defence?
Sources:
1. Support GM or leave EU, says biotech chief. eupolitix.com (June
2nd, 2006) (http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/Interviews/200605/27eeedea-65a3-4b79-b57d-83467c4ff13d.htm)
2. Premarket notice concerning bioengineered foods – proposed rule.
US Food and Drug Administration (January 18th, 2001) (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr010118.html)
3. Monsanto statement regarding Bt cotton leaves. Scoop (May 12th,
2006)
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0605/S00039.htmhttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0605/S00039.htm)
<<<back
