BASF Apply to sow GM-Potatoes in April 2006 in Meath

by freek Fri Jan 27, 2006 16:10

http://www.epa.ie/Licensing/GMOLicensing/DeliberateReleaseofGMOs/ProposedFieldTrialwithGMPotatoes/

by spud Fri Jan 27, 2006 19:34

that it would be profitable enough for a chemical giant [motto- "the invisible contribution"] to go messing with genes they little understand, and then sell it to farmers to help them stave off famine?

We stop this one.
we've less than 20 working days.
what do the greenies say?

by freeek Tue Jan 31, 2006 18:13

headline by Aideen Sheehan via the excellent FIE enviro-news filter

"Farmers do not want them, consumers do not want them, big food companies and supermarkets do not want them, so what's the point of developing them?"

"GM crops are likely to contaminate our conventional and organic produce. The Green Party will continue to fight any predatory tactics of any GM food company to undermine the viability of Ireland as a green, clean food-producing island," he said.

The Irish Farmers' Association said they do not take a stance either for or against GM crops.

However, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association has taken a strong position against GM food, arguing Ireland must be a GM-free country.

Sinn Fein called on Agriculture Minister Mary Coughlan to prevent the granting of a licence to BASF to grow their GM potatoes on a farm in Summerhill, Co Meath, as Irish farming was her responsibility, it said.
Aideen Sheehan © Irish Independent

On what basis would the EPA reject the license, The EPA using the narrow terms of reference trick will not hear on general matters, and this particular crop will not be eaten of course. The only one I can think of is on cross-contamination, Im sure green groups will have the latest scientific reports reports on this and people can look for more, I can't think how an open field trial could not contaminate. But then government has just published a report on GM co-existence...

by mm - none Thu Feb 02, 2006 23:03

Potatoes are one of the main biofuel crops along with soya and the other main crops that the GM companies have tried to patent
this is really a battle about who controls the fuels of the future
petrol cars can be mass converted to run on alcohol for as little as $150 and diesel cars are already able to be converted to run on vegetable oil
I have come across GM company websites that openly promote the idea that they are preparing to control the fuels of the future with their GM crops
the arguments againsty gm crops are as clear as day with horizontal gene transfer being an obvious - i believe this has already happened in Canada - if so could be used as an objection.
the fact that ireland has the potential to make a profit from being Gm free and also possibly saving future generations form the harms inflicted on our environement and thus our food production from the super weeds etc of gm crops has been lost in a haze of marketing by the GM company
John Gormley explained that during the first debate on this subject a couple of years back the minister in charge referred to these crops as "generically "modified crops but i the notes of the day it says he says "genetically" this is the level of intelligence we are dealing with
a system that puts people who have no prior experience in charge of ministries means that it can be easily subverted by slick pr people
one other point the term GMO was introduced by the genetic engineering industry and i feel it would be more productive if we went back to the the term genetically engineered crops becase this is actually more accurate to the word modified which denotes only minor interference from conversations i have had on the subject with the general public

by vince Tue Feb 07, 2006 20:50

The BASF folks have their heads screwed on, apart from shovels, which they have risk assesed, the proposal could be hard to defeat.

Is this a case of using a fairly medium risk examplar trial to remove our GM free status thus preventing that line of argument cropping up in future applications?
some other comments based on initial reading of the BASF release notes...

If the potential for transfer of genetic material form one cultivar of potato to another is accepted (para A6) then the transfer of the foreign DNA inserts is also to be accepted. Are we comfortable with the possible uncontrolled spread of GM material through our current potato crops.

The minimum 20m exclusion zone between the GMO cultivated area and other potatoes is somewhat trivial considering the not uncommon transfer of tubers by birds and mammals over much longer distances.

The similar exclusion zone between GMO potatoes and ordinary potatoes is also considered trivial considering the high likelihood spillage during harvest , transport and processing. Whilst acknowledging that potatoes are much larger than grains there is concern that little attempt has been made to ascertain the spread of GM material from such accidental spillage. I am sure that risk assessment of this type of accidental release is present in all other GM trial proposals.

The statement “Potatoes are not persistent outside the agricultural environment” in Risk Assesment (i) seems to be quite a sweeping generalisation. Potato plants are commonly seen surviving for multiple seasons in field corners under solely arable rotations which do not had cattle or sheep present. The “volunteer monitoring programme” intended by BASF indeed acknowledges the survival and persistence of unharvested or spilled tubers.

In (iv) no consideration is given to the increased selection pressure on the target organism (blight) by its intracellular interaction with the GM resistance genes. This type of interaction is totally different from that normally experienced by blight with current chemical fungicides. It can be suggested that this pressure may cause a more virulent blight strain to emerge. Why has this possibility has been left out of the risk assessment?

Anyone seen or heard of submissions to the EPA yet?

by Seán Ryan Tue Feb 07, 2006 21:39

I'd like to add my opinion to mm's comment. I'm not going to focus on the contamination issue, I believe it to be a very clear and present danger.

Big business owns the GM industry. Big business owns most food and produce outlets. If big business patents a product, big business can then see to it that this product is the only product offered in their outlets. Tis much bigger than just controlling the fuel for machines of the future, it is about controlling us. It will tell farmers and manufacturers what they can and can't grow or make. And it will ensure this by limiting what we may buy. You control supply and demand. Simple Machiavellian economics.

GM potatoes in Ireland?

You'd patent a spud?

Fuck off.

Seán