[MPWG] GMW: Contaminating the wild? New report

[Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov]

GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
---
A new report on gene flow from experimental GM field trials in the US to 
sexually compatible wild plants, has just been released by the Center for 
Food Safety in Washington, DC.

The report's author is Doug Gurian-Sherman, CFS's Senior Scientist, who 
was formerly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where he was 
responsible for assessing human health and environmental risks from 
transgenic plants and microorganisms, and for developing biotechnology 
policy. 

His report concludes that given the large number of field trials, some of 
which are on a massive scale and many of which contain genes that may 
spread in wild relatives, permanent escape of largely untested 
experimental genes is virtually inevitable given USDA's current leaky 
confinement requirements and inadequate safety testing.

Here's the press statement from CFS - www.centerforfoodsafety.org -  that 
accompanies Gurian-Sherman's report.
---
Contaminating the wild?
Press Summary

Before genetically engineered (GE) crops are marketed, developers conduct 
field trials of these
experimental GE varieties for several years. Field trials include all 
outdoor cultivation of
experimental GE crops, and thousands have been planted across the country 
since the mid-1980's.
Because research on these crops is incomplete, their risks are often 
largely unknown. But a new report, "Contaminating the Wild?," from the 
Center for Food Safety shows that despite unknown risks, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) regulations cannot be relied upon to keep 
experimental genes from escaping from field trial crops into related wild 
plants. This process, called "gene flow," occurs when pollen from 
experimental crops fertilize wild species related to crops such as wheat, 
grapes or carrots.

Experimental genes that make their way into crop wild relatives may become 
a permanent part of the
landscape because, unlike most crops, these wild plant species can grow 
without cultivation by farmers.

Anyone who has seen fields of Queen Anne's lace (a wild relative of 
carrots) can understand how
prolific these wild relatives can be. And once they escape from crops, 
some of these genes could spread through the environment, where they may 
harm animals and plants.

As noted in a recent critical report by the USDA Inspector General (IG), 
for the vast majority of field
trials issued as "notifications," gene confinement measures are rarely 
reviewed by USDA prior to planting.

"Contaminating the Wild?" also shows that risk assessments are not 
generally performed, and
where risks are examined, the process is usually superficial.

USDA has assured the public that the risks from experimental genes are 
insignificant because they are confined to the field trial site. But the 
many cases of contamination from GE crops seriously challenge this 
assertion. Most startling was gene flow from a field trial of transgenic 
herbicide-tolerant creeping bentgrass that exceeded the 900 ft 
USDA-accepted separation from wild relatives by at least 13 miles.

"Contaminating the Wild?" asks whether gene flow could similarly occur 
from some of the thousands
of previous field trials, and by extension, whether gene flow may happen 
in the future. The report considers these questions through a detailed 
examination of the scientific literature and data from previous field 
trials, and concludes that untested genes from field trials of crops with 
wild relatives may breech their confinement and spread in the environment.

THE REPORT FINDS THAT:

*There have been at least 1710 field trials of 20 types of crops in states 
where one or more wild relatives grow. These have included 170 for 
creeping bentgrass, 332 for wheat and 107 for rice, among other crops that 
have serious weeds as wild relatives.

*The USDA/APHIS confinenement standards cannot ensure that permanent gene 
flow will be prevented.
Review of the scientific literature and USDA Environmental Assessments 
shows that gene flow can occur beyond the confinement distances accepted 
by USDA.

*Many field trials contain genes that may provide an advantage to 
wild relatives, and can thereby spread through the wild population, even 
if initial gene flow occurs at low levels. For example, there have been 
about 600 field trials for biotic and abiotic stress resistance genes, 
identified by the National Academy of Sciences as having properties that 
may facilitate spreading through wild relatives.

*As with the escaped creeping bentgrass example, many field trials are 
large, often hundreds or thousands of acres, facilitating gene flow. These 
large trials produce much more pollen than small trials, and can cause 
more gene flow at longer distances. There have been 290 field trials of 50 
or more acres for crops with wild relatives.

*The vast majority of field trials, currently about 95%, are conducted 
under simplified notifications that require no Environmental Assessment. 
These notifications require only that any problems noticed
during the field trials are reported to APHIS. But as widely recognized, 
without specific testing for
environmental harm, most problems may not be detected.

The risks from gene flow in the future may be even more troubling as 
multiple genes, genes with less
predictable consequences, and more powerful genes (for example designed to 
kill more types of pests), and new types of plants such as engineered 
forest trees, are developed.

USDA is currently revising its regulations of GE crops. This is an 
opportunity to strengthen the regulation of field trials to prevent gene 
flow or harm if gene flow occurs. The report therefore makes several 
recommendations for strengthening confinement requirements and improving 
risk assessment. Given the large number of field trials, many of which 
contain genes that may spread in wild relatives, and current leaky 
confinement requirements, permanent escape of largely untested 
experimental genes is virtually inevitable unless USDA substantially 
improves its confinement and safety testing requirements.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060626/6a4b0526/attachment.html>