Crown Research Institute Fails Its Science Test
5 May 2008
Crown Research Institute Fails
Its Science Test Big Time
Scion’s GE Tree Field
Trial Research Result Claims Unsubstantiated.
Crown
Research Institute Scion’s claim that its research shows
that GE trees are environmentally safe is seriously
misleading, according to the Soil & Health Association of
NZ.
Soil & Health also believes that aspects of the
GE pine tree field trial at Rotorua were continuously in
breach of consent conditions and international obligations,
for the trial’s entire life.
Scion has issued a
media report stating that its research based on its field
trial shows no gene transference into insects and
micro-organisms by GE trees and consequently genetically
engineered trees are safe.
“Scion’s prematurely
terminated research is incomplete in design, unfinished, and
unpublished in a peer reviewed journal,” said Soil &
Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “Without good design
and an appropriate research period, followed by publication
in a peer reviewed journal, how can a CRI make credible
claims?”
In respect of concerns that modified genes
could be inadvertently transferred from transgenic plants,
into the wider environment, Scion chief executive Dr Tom
Richardson had said, “In the case of this trial, our
results show that this did not occur. The trial has been
monitored for nearly five years and there is no evidence of
gene transfer into other organisms, or negative impact in
the soil environment or insect population in and around the
trial site.”
Monitoring at the site is intended for
another two years following removal of the trees in the next
few weeks, aimed at detecting any potential gene
transfer.
“For Scion to say that there was no
horizontal gene transfer (HGT) following a primitive and
short term study of only 5 years so far, is naïve or even
duplicitous, certainly misleading” said Mr
Browning.
Canterbury University School of
Biological Sciences Professor Jack Heinemann (1), has asked,
“Given that it would take all 6 billion people on earth,
working in parallel, 30 thousand years to properly
demonstrate no transgene transfer from those trees to just
soil bacteria (much less all the other organisms in the
environment) how did this independent research achieve a
previously impossible detection
capacity?”
“Scion’s attempts to vindicate
incomplete research is more likely a ploy to satisfy its
giant US dominated GE forest partner ArborGen’s
multi-million dollar investment in Scion, and to urgently
satisfy Government concerns about key recommendations by the
Royal Commission into Genetic Modification not being met,”
said Mr Browning. “Other claims made by Scion also lack
credibility
A recent report by think-tank
Sustainable Future, analysing key recommendations by the
Royal Commission into Genetic Modification, found that some
recommendations accepted by government yet not
implemented, and requiring significant policy work,
included
6.12 That the Environmental Risk Management
Authority (ERMA) requires research on environmental impacts
on soil and ecosystems before release of genetically
modified crops is approved.
and
7.4 That, in
connection with any proposal to develop genetically modified
forest trees, an ecological assessment be required to
determine the effects of the modification on the soil and
environmental ecology, including effects on soil
micro-organisms, weediness, insect and animal life, and
biodiversity.
The authors of the Sustainable Future
review also think that New Zealand may be in breach of the
United Nations Convention on Biodiversity: that is, the
research currently undertaken by Scion is using GM sterility
traits (often referred to as terminator technology or more
technically as Genetic Use Restriction Technologies
(GURTs)).
New Zealand had undertaken to have the UN
position changed but following worldwide condemnation of
GURTs in 2006, then Environment Minister David Benson-Pope
said that New Zealand fully supported the consensus
agreement reached by the international Working Group on
genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) and supports
further research on the impacts of GURTs.
“If
Scion’s short term research is portrayed as also saying
GURTs in trees are safe in the environment, then New Zealand
will be open to worldwide riducule,” said Mr
Browning.
“Soil & Health has raised critical
non-compliance issues at Scion in December 2007, with MAF
Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) the compliance auditors potentially
allowing GE pollen release. The trees were never trimmed
to the 2m hedge, making pollen detection all the more
difficult.”
The Environmental Risk Management
Authority in its pre hearing assessment (2) had stated,
“ERMA New Zealand considers that it is likely that some
pollen may be inadvertently shed during the trials due to
reproductive structures not being removed (either by being
missed or not being recognised) prior to maturity.,” and
in its approval of the Scion field trial had stipulated,
“To facilitate detection and removal of reproductive
structures, all genetically modified trees shall be trimmed
to maintain a 2m lower “hedge” with a single leader
growing to a maximum height of 5m.”
Scion chief
executive Dr Tom Richardson stated,” The results from this
research trial support the argument that genetically
modified trees are low-risk and can be safely introduced
into the environment, without having a negative effect on
other organisms.”
“However a very few years of
trial is grossly inadequate to make such a sweeping
statement of environmental safety.” said Mr Bowning, “It
would seem commercial imperatives are the stronger in
Scion’s objectives. Dr Richardson would do well to
remember that his role is on a New Zealand Crown Research
Institute and the New Zealand environment must come before
investment partner ArborGen’s dreams of global forestry
and biofuel domination.”
“New Zealand forestry
company Rubicon as a third share holder in ArborGen is also
implicated in the mad rush to plant large scale GE eucalypt
plantations in the USA and Brazil. These commercial
imperatives are blocking good science and precaution and New
Zealand must take a stand against the risk of global
ecological disaster.”
“Poor science with a New
Zealand label also has the potential to ruin the clean green
reputation that New Zealand’s primary production and
tourism currently enjoys.”
“Considering
overwhelming opposition to genetic engineering in New
Zealand, field trials should be treated as a privilege and
run to the highest level of precaution."
Soil & Health
has a vision of an Organic 2020 and is opposed to GE in food
and
environment.
ends