|
Genetic modification happens slowly and naturally in nature. Always has. There is a forced rapid modification of genes happening today by large profit driven corporations who are churning GM products onto the marketplace that are not properly tested. We should be concerned about this method of rapid genetic modification, that in effect, is trying to control the miracle of nature. There are untold connected ecosystems and variables to consider when modifying one crop or species. For example, when we must consider the micro organisms, insects, earth worms, etc. that dwell in the soil, the birds that feed off same and what effect will introducing laboratory genetically engineered plants have on all of these. In nature genetic modification occurs over a long period of time normally and does this through a natural selection process. Hopefully the EPA will see both sides of the story and protect the Irish population from the looming disaster that is the introduction of intensive genetically engineered crops to Ireland's environment. When the Irish public has become desensitized by the first trials (if they proceed) it will become acceptible to rush to market many more varieties of GM crops that have not been adequately tested (over life times). Why not conduct trials in a controlled laboratory environment in Ireland and mimic the natural soil and ecosystem first instead of going straight to an open field trial. The Inca of the Andes developed their thousands of varieties of potatoes over 100 years and more.
What is the rush with western development? The answer is profit driven global corporations who wish to control our food.
The Amflora potato that is being proposed for release in the Irish environment has been engineered by mega corporation BASF. It is stated as not being suitable for human consumption,and is developed for the production of starch, a raw material for paper and animal feed. Hence, the potato produces considerably more of the starch amylopectine. What needs to be recognised is that these designer potatoes are not part of a design by nature rather a human interference in the complex multi level bio systems that make up nature. Genetic animal feed is an indirect way of introducing genetically engineered products to the human diet. The genetic constitution of animals are similar to a human as was proven in the genome project. Remember you are what you eat. Eating animals fed with gm animal feeds is still eating gm food. i recently wrote to Teagasc (Irish Agricultural Research Department) regarding the proposed GM potato trials at Teagasc Research, Oak Park, County Carlow. We have already unwittingly accepted over 1 million tonnes of genetically modified animal feeds into our country (and diet) each year. If we allow the cultivation of genetically modified crops to take place in Ireland we will forever lose our green image internationally and slow poison our population. It is like the Lisbon referendum again folks, if you don't get it the first time they will keep feeding it to you until you do get their (the money masters) agenda. They work slowly and with stealth.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” -Joseph Goebbels
The following are the letters sent and the response received from Teagasc: March 15th 2012 Hi Ewen, i lived for two years with indigenous peoples in South America and was amazed to see the variety and diversity of potato crops that exist to ensure successful harvests each year. The Inca were agricultural scientists who researched and bred thousands of potato varieties to ensure if one crop did succumb to blight others would succeed and flourish each year. GM crops when what we actually need to do is work with real scientists like the indigenous of Peru and slowly build resistance to diseases in crops and generate naturalised disease free varieties in Ireland and other countries. We are all well aware of the funding that large companies such as Monsanto and Bayer provide to research institutions to facilitate their agenda and thankfully we now live in a time of revelation when all those connected with the work of those that work to manipulate nature for the profits of the clandestine few will be held accountable.
Response from Ewen Mullins, Senior Research Officer Teagasc Oak Park Crops Research March 16th 2012 Thank you for your email Micheál, I’ve attached an FAQ that we have compiled in response to peoples queries on the proposed studies. In this you will see, and I reiterate, this Irish study has no links with the biotech industry and neither has the programme since I started it in 2002. To do so would be irresponsible of us, in light of the fact that we are paid to provide impartial research information to stakeholders and the public at large. I hope you find the attached informative and we appreciate your interest. Regards Ewen -------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Ewen Mullins Senior Research Officer Crop Science Dept. Teagasc Crops, Environment and Land Use Programme Oak Park Crops Research Centre, Carlow, Ireland +353 59 9170298 (tel.) +353 59 9142423 (fax) March 17th 2012 Thank you for your response Ewen and Lá Fheile Pádraig sona duit. Why not work with the thousands of varieties of potato that are proven to be resistant to a diversity of diseases instead of working with new genetically modified varieties that will in effect use our population and other European communities as dietary guinea pigs. The old saying 'if it is not broken, why fix it?'. As you are probably aware Peru 'home of the potato' and 1000s of varieties adapted to a diversity of growing conditions and diseases have a 10 year moratorium on GM. A wise decision by their now empowered indigenous leaders as they realise that their 'green' agricultural image, like Ireland's, will be tarnished in their now global consumer marketplace. to GM potatoes in Ireland. We will come out of this recession as a stronger nation and if we can establish a good foundation, with a relatively small island population, we can be a leading light for responsible development in the eyes of the world. laboratory conditions, not in the open. Your research programmes may not be funded directly by biotech companies but the biotech industry is such a major player in the European and global marketplace that their tax euros and dollars have a lot of strength when it comes to the lobbying behind closed doors that you or i are not privy to, and never will be. There is a hidden global agenda at work by a minority of the global population, the money masters, that are so disconnected from nature by their greed for profit that they do not even realise what they are doing and the dangerous waters that they are entering. The owners of these mammoth vertically integrated corporations are known openly to choose organic food for their personal consumption and their staff cafeterias are likewise. If you wish i can provide evidence of this but if you use our counteractive tool the internet and google it you will see for yourself. It is hypocrisy that the people who give us genetically modified foods would not eat the stuff themselves.
As the potato cv. Desiree will be given the DNA of a wild potato variety – why can this not be done by conventional breeding methods? It can but there are two problems. First of all it takes considerably longer. It took potato breeders 49 years to develop current varieties containing genes from wild potato species. Fortunately, significant advances have been made in potato breeding to the point where this could theoretically be reduced to 17 years. Secondly, and the biggest problem is what we call ‘linkage drag’, which occurs when you try and breed in new traits from wild potato species. Linkage drag means that while you get for example improved disease resistance in your new variety its overall agronomic performance for other traits can be reduced What is the herbicide that you will be using to kill the remnants of the field trials? It will be generic glyphosate, which is readily available in garden centres and hardware shops and used in conventional tillage crops all over the country. 40m sounds like a very low buffer zone to protect the Irish non-GM crops. On the contrary, it is almost double what we have observed as being necessary in field studies at Oak Park. Over 3 successive years (2008 – 2010), the average pollen dispersion for cv. Desiree was 10m. In a separate study in 2006, which was designed to maximise pollen transfer in a ‘worst case scenario’, we observed berry formation (indicating pollen spread) at 21m. Yet, only 2.8% of the berries formed contained viable seed. However, taking this single result into account we have suggested 40m as a minimum distance. Based on the cropping rotations at Oak Park, it is likely that the distance will exceed 100m. With most of the EU consumers not wanting GM on their tables, and farmers not wanting to grow it, why is it so important to waste taxpayers’ money on this? We are focussed on the Irish consumer and the Irish tillage sector. We have consistently been asked through our discussion groups, farmer meetings, public lectures etc… to produce Irish-specific information on the environmental impacts, so that people can make an informed choice. For over 10 years now we have witnessed the intractable GM debate between the anti- and pro-GM sides. There is a clear need for scientifically sound, Irish-specific information on this matter and that is what we propose to deliver. Separately, it is important to note that the potato cultivar that we have sought a license to study is a ‘cisgenic’ line. Cisgenic refers to the transfer of genes within a species, but because of the method used to transfer the genes they are still covered by GM legislation. This contrasts with the traditional understanding of GM, which is transgenic. In this case, genes can be taken from one species and transferred into any other species. Significantly, in the most recent survey of European consumers it was reported that while only 36% of Irish people surveyed would accept a transgenic variety, 61% would accept a cisgenic variety. Late blight resistant potatoes are around already, through conventional breeding methods, without the need for bacterial infection (GM). There seems little point to add new varieties. Quite the opposite. The potato sector faces significant challenges in the next 10 years. Increased EU legislation will curtail the amount and type of crop protection products that farmers can use. As conventional potatoes get sprayed up to 15 times per growing season to preserve the crop, this will be a major issue for Irish potato growers. In addition, we have monitored Irish blight populations for over 30 years and in the last 4 years we have recorded the emergence of highly aggressive strains of blight disease that are also exhibiting levels of fungicide resistance. There are no varieties available to commercial farmers with complete resistant to late blight. Material is available with some resistance to late blight which are used by organic growers, but they too can require additional control measures to keep blight out. There is surely enough evidence out there that Ireland would benefit from a GM-free status, for its own food supply, and for the export market. This trial could reduce our foreign status significantly, when many countries on the European Mainland are reducing, and even banning, GM crops. We will lose our foothold, and our exports, at a very critical time in our economic history. Ireland is not GM free and the proposed work will not be the first use of GM in the country. GM sugar beet was grown in field experiments some 13 years ago and we import almost 1 million tonnes of GM animal feed every year to support our food export industry. The proposed environmental study will therefore not compromise our export market. The proposed study is at odds with Ireland’s green image and is at odds with initiatives by other agencies such as Bord Bia It would be irresponsible of Teagasc to contemplate such a scenario as the organisation’s role is to underpin the Irish agri-food industry and no other agency has done more to achieve this. Each year Teagasc invests millions in agri-environmental research projects, which support the development of environmentally conscious farming methods and minimise the impact of farming on our water and soils. The proposed study is about quantifying the impact of a blight resistant potato on levels of soil biodiversity. By acting in this manner Teagasc is addressing the GM question in a responsible and contained manner that will not impact on existing crop systems and will not compromise Ireland’s world leading food export market. Heritage seeds are important for genetic diversity. Creating clones of crops reduces this genetic diversity, and therefore evolution of the crop to cope with Irish conditions will not happen. Genetic diversity is important as a source of useful genes in breeding programmes, but all varieties of potato are clonal, as they are multiplied from tubers rather than sexual reproduction, the variety we are proposing to test is no different to this. However this can be seen as a benefit because, as it is clonal, its potential to spread outside the confines of the managed environment of a field is restricted. Useful genes from heritage varieties (or wild relatives) can be used to produce new improved varieties of potatoes either through conventional breeding or more rapidly by developing cisgenic lines. What scientific background do the scientists carrying out this trial hold? Have they worked with other agri-tech industries, and will one of the main industries be given the contract if the field trial ‘succeeds’? The scientists involved in this study are qualified crop scientists with no affiliation to any industry. Since the GM research programme was started at Oak Park in 2002, Teagasc have not received, nor sought, any funding from either side in relation to the GM debate. The variety being tested is not from a biotech company but from publically funded research in Europe. There will be no ‘contract’ at the end of the study. The objective of this work is to quantify the environmental impact of a blight resistant potato compared to a conventional potato system and make that information publicly available so as to address the current knowledge deficit that exists for Irish-specific crops. In the USA, organic standards have been weakened due to the contamination by GM pollen (which now allow up to 2% GM in their crops). Although I understand this will not happen with GM potatoes under this trial, if they do get to the market, these potatoes will go to seed, and they will contaminate heritage varieties, so our organic standards will be compromised. There is no commercial interest in this project and Teagasc is not in the business of developing GM crops for commercialisation. In regards to the coexistence of GM and non-GM potato systems, we have researched this with the goal of designing crop strategies to preserve the genetic integrity of non-GM potato crops. Coexistence is possible for potato due to the biology of the crop but there must be adequate regulatory measures put in place by the Irish competent authorities to ensure that it is maintained. As outlined above potato varieties are preserved through the clonal propagation of tubers, as soon as a potato variety sets true seed the resulting plants are no longer the variety you started with, whether they cross with a GM or another conventional variety. The use of GM varieties would not therefore alter the risk of loosing heritage varieties compared to what we have lived with since potatoes varieties were first bred by man. What are the details of the genetic constructs used to generate the GM potato? This information has been included in the Teagasc submission to the EPA and is available at www.epa.ie. Why is Teagasc spending taxpayer’s money on this research? This project is funded through the European Framework 7 programme and the Irish study is part of a larger EU project. Entitled ‘AMIGA’ (Assessing and Monitoring the Impacts of Genetically modified plants on Agro-ecosystems), the project has 22 partners from Research Centres, Universities, State Agencies and SMEs across 15 EU countries. The main objectives of AMIGA are to:
It is important to note that the alternative to public-funded research is to wait for privately funded programmes to deliver the research assessments. While that work may be scientifically sound, it cannot claim to be impartial and as such would not contribute constructively to the public’s desire for unbiased information on this matter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: The word AMIGA is Spanish for a 'female friend'. Interesting how they use such an acronym to make the research seem friendly to the subconscious. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION: Get Teagasc and EPA officials to eat GM potatoes for 4 years trial ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Click here to read Stella Coffey's Irish Times article on proposed GM Potato Trials in Carlow. (26th March 2012)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More info on GM in Ireland can be found here: Genetically Modifying Ireland----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ANIMALS FED ON GM COMPONENTS ARE DIFFERENT: - A LANDMARK RULING NZ Commerce Commission:In a landmark ruling, the NZ Commerce Commission has accepted evidence from Prof Jack Heinemann, from an exhaustive review of the literature and on the basis of his own extensive professional experience, that animals fed on GM components ARE different from those which are reared using non-GM feed. This is a direct challenge to EFSA and FSA, who have maintained consistently that there are no differences between GM- fed and non-GM-fed animals, and that there is therefore no need for labelling or segregation of feed supplies to meet consumer demand for GM-free products. This issue came to a head because of complaints that NZ poultry producer Inghams claimed, in a high-pressure advertising campaign, that its chickens contained no GM ingredients, in spite of using up to 13% GM soy-based feed. In one of its adverts, Inghams said: "Research confirms that animals that consume feed with a component of GM are no different compared to animals that have been fed a low GM or GM free diet." The Commission has now told Inghams that it was breaching the Fair Trading Act by making false or misleading claims. Inghams continued to argue on its website that the use of GM soy did not compromise an absolute GM-free status and animals that ate feed with a GM component were no different to animals that may have been fed a low GM or GM- free diet. This position was verified by numerous feeding studies, the website said. The company cited publications by a New Zealand Royal Commission, the Royal Society and the Federation of Animal Science Societies. However, those publications were at least 7 years old; and the company accepted the CC ruling and stopped the advertising as soon as Prof Heinemann's investigation was commenced. Prof Heinemann's Report, entitled "Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed" (July 2009), makes interesting reading. It surveys all of the published animal feeding studies which are cited by EFSA, FSA and other bodies, and subjects them to a careful analysis. He refuses to be drawn on human health and safety safety issues (since that was not his brief) but concludes that there are many deficiencies in the studies which purport to show "no effects" from the consumption of GM animal feed. Sometimes, in animal feeding experiments, GM components have been used in both the test group and the control group, as a mechanism for masking GM effects. Many animal feeding experiments are too short to reveal physiological changes. Other deficiencies are related to variability in the GM DNA of feed supplies, the sensitivity of the testing methods used, and the use of surrogate proteins rather than whole GM feed in the testing protocols. Nonetheless, there are abundant studies (including some conducted under the auspices of the GM industry itself) that show statistically significant physiological changes in GM-fed animals, and that reveal the presence of "DNA and protein unique to GM plants within animals and animal products." Prof Heinemann also concludes: "There is compelling evidence that animals provided with feed containing GM ingredients can react in a way that is unique to an exposure to GM plants. This is revealed through metabolic, physiological or immunological responses in exposed animals." This is a very important study which should form the basis of a direct challenge to EFSA and FSA to change the wording on their websites and to abandon their fondly-held beliefs that GM components fed to farm animals do not enter the animal and animal product food chain. NOTE: Prof Heinemann's study is available via the Commerce Commission web site. http://www.comcom.govt.nz//MediaCentre/MediaReleases/200910/inghamswarnedovergmfreechickenclai.aspx Inghams warned over GM free chicken claims Release no 50, Issued 18 November 2009 Commerce Commission (NZ) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/documents/landmark.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read about the next GM food that is on the menu in North America ... The EnviroPig (TM)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Genetically Modified Foods: Panacea or Poison?
|
