A quirky look at wildlife. To be taken with a pinch of

salt, but with more than a grain of truth!

Do you understand fully the issue of genetically modified crops and foods or are you, like me, simply feeling a gut reaction against this 'step too far'?

The more I read, the more I worry about the effects on wildlife, both in the short term and the long term. The effects on the human race worry me too. The health effects appear largely unknown, but the financial effects are already manifesting themselves.

Trials of genetically modified crops are held in such secrecy that it is difficult to ascertain the impact on the wider world, and though some are conducted in 'controlled conditions' how can that mimic the effects on nature once the crops are released in the environment? Those trials conducted in the field carry a great risk of contaminating nearby crops and plants, insects and other wildlife too.

A crop modified to defy the application of herbicides which wipe out all other plants means there is no food for beneficial wildlife. Many weeds are the sustenance for numerous insects, birds, bees and other animals. It is also likely that farmers will be more heavy handed with the application of such herbicides, knowing their crop will not be harmed. In any event the application of large amounts of herbicides or insecticides damages the quality of the soil upon which all plant and insect life depends. Since weeds consume water, sunlight and nutrients it could be argued that some GM crops would indeed produce higher yields without such competition - but only if all conditions are right.

A crop modified to produce a toxin that kills insects and other creatures that feed on it (Bt) will undoubtedly decimate wildlife, from tiny insects to many mammals. Who is to say that such a modification will not affect humans eventually, even if only used for non- edible crops?

Bt cotton is modified with an insecticide from the spores and toxic crystals of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, and has been available commercially since about 1960. While it is considered not to be toxic to most insects, fish, animals and humans it is known to be highly toxic to the caterpillars of butterflies and moths. It is said not to contaminate groundwater and is used in some fifty countries around the world.





It seems that at first farmers are content with the new technology, seeing increasing yields, but long term there is concern about pest resistance, cross pollination, and toxic effects. Pests may become resistant to the Bt cotton where the seeds have been used long term and pesticides might have no effect. This could lead to greater costs and lower yields.

Some countries have taken the whole idea on board (of increased yields, the built in resistance to pests and the freedom to spray indiscriminately), and invested heavily. A study in northern China showed that the use of Bt cotton reduced pests such as Bollworm both in Bt cotton crops and other unmodified crops in the vicinity. Other countries report differently.

Countries like the UK are showing substantial resistance to the whole idea, especially at grass roots level. However, there are serious doubts as to whether we can avoid the effects, since we import so much of our food and raw materials these days.

Detractors are not in favour of meddling with nature, and some supporters of GM technology tell us that we have been doing that for years already, in hybridising plants, and cross breeding animals. However, this has generally been done between different strains of the same species. GM technology introduces 'alien' species, or cells from them, to an entirely different species with unknown consequences.

Progress may well bring some benefits but trials that are too short, or stop short of finding adverse effects, are common whether in the chemical, pharmaceutical or food technology industries. It must be remembered that every action has a reaction, and not always the intended one. So can we trust what we are being told?

Many years ago I came across a briefing paper on the Patenting of Plants and Animals which set alarm bells ringing. It seems to have been ignored by governments.

For example, some years ago the most well known Bio-technology company stated categorically that it would never sell commercially its 'terminator gene' technology for crops. This statement was greeted with delight by those opposed to such practices, yet the company is now doing just that!

Proof of the effects of patenting, i.e licensing the sale of seeds, plants or animals that have been genetically modified, are now manifesting themselves. The biotechnology companies spend huge amounts of money on their research, and see it as their right to recoup that money (and make vast profits) by selling their products, with severe restrictions, and at great cost to farmers and subsequently to consumers.

The most worrying of these are the aforementioned seeds which carry a 'terminator gene'—the ones they said they would never market commercially. This means that future seeds from a crop are sterile. They cannot be saved from one year's crop for the next, as has been done in farming for generations, particularly in poorer countries. Farmers using genetically modified seeds now have to buy new stocks each year from the company which supplied the original seeds. Incidentally the same companies which market the herbicides and insecticides.

Subsistence farmers in countries like India have been tempted with promises of huge yields of cash crops like cotton, no problems of pest control, and a big return on their investment. Is it any wonder that in their innocence they fall for the snake oil salesmen's chat up lines? Put yourself in the shoes of such farmers. You have no money with which to buy such magic seeds but the temptation is great. There is a way though: to borrow the money needed from local moneylenders, which is often a woefully small amount (to us). Naturally this involves an additional payment of interest, but with such huge yields and no problems it would be easily repayable, wouldn't it?

Too good to be true? It seems so. These innocent souls are not told that these crops (cotton in particular) need double the amount of water required by normal crops, in areas where lack of water can be a huge problem. Neither are they told that even this genetically modified cotton grown in some areas is still susceptible to bollworms, the bane of any cotton farmer's life.

Crop failures in the past have always been disastrous but seeds could be saved for the next year, and they were not in debt, just hungry! Now, if crops fail they still owe the original loan, plus interest, and have to buy new seed at astronomical prices for the next year. In one season they can find themselves up to their eyes in debt with no way out. A sympathetic response from their lenders? No chance.

There is nowhere to go for help or advice, unlike here. To very many, they feel their only way out of this hell hole is by suicide. Using the very insecticides they used to protect their crops. A vile and painful death, with huge traumas for their families to follow. The debt does not die with the farmer but is carried by their families, leading to loss of family land and even greater poverty.

In some areas much bigger yields have been recorded, and these may well benefit more prosperous farmers, if all goes well. If …… huge consequences can accompany such a tiny word.

Such patenting gives massive control to just a few large companies which seem able to override governments, often by dubious means. It also means less choice for farmer and consumer, and higher costs as royalty payments are passed on.

As the bio-technology seed companies are in the main also the purveyors of agrochemicals, an increase in such intensive agriculture is on the cards in many countries, just when most consumers are turning away from such methods and opting for organically grown food, and less use of chemicals generally.

To grow genetically modified crops without contaminating other crops and plants, a buffer zone must be in place. However, such trials as were carried out showed that much greater buffer zones were necessary than originally thought. Insects and animals know no boundaries, and wind carries insects, pollen and seeds far and wide. Contamination is inevitable, and the consequences are not known. The disastrous and massive collapse in the honey bee population in many countries, as yet unexplained, could well have been caused by such activities, and who knows how many other plants and creatures have been affected without our knowledge or consent.

Of course, there may well be occasions when genetic engineering has health benefits. We are already seeing food engineered in this way, such as omega-3 fatty acids added to eggs. This is believed to reduce heart disease. Probiotic yogurts are popular as an aid to digestion, and recently a new purple tomato has been hailed as a possible super food to protect against cancer and heart disease. These were obtained by adding a couple of snapdragon genes!

Yet here again detractors say normal tomatoes are well able to do the job for us without such tinkering. Yet again the long term consequences are unknown. It is interesting to note that no-one is supposed to eat a whole GM tomato (yet) in case the seeds 'escape' via the human digestive system. Apparently this would be an unlawful release of a GM organism in to the environment. If there is not a problem why would it matter? Except that once having escaped it would be difficult to claim ownership, and therefore royalties.

It has been pointed out by some that many of these companies are the very ones that gave us Agent Orange, bovine growth hormones and many more chemicals, since proven to be harmful.

Secrets and lies. Who do we believe? I have great faith in our gut instincts, and where our health and that of the natural world could be at risk, we should take every statement with a large pinch of salt.

Websailor's Wacky Wildlife

World Archive

Websailor

20.11.08 Front Page

Back Issue Page