JUSTIFYING RESTRICTIONS ON THE

CULTIVATION OF GMO CROPS?

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST
European Parliament
31 March 2011

Marco Contiero
Greenpeace European Unit
marco.contiero@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace European Unit

 Reasons to oppose GMOs
1. Facts vs myths
2. Risks
3. Environmental impacts
4. Expensive
5. Boost corporate control
6. Hinder available solutions
7. Consumers rejection
8. Legal requirements

Greenpeace European Unit

Greenpeace European Unit
Greenpeace European Unit
Greenpeace European Unit
 2. Risks
Prone to unintended and unpredictable effects

1. Complex regulation mechanisms of genes

2. Complex interaction with plants metabolism
3. Complex interactions plant‘s genes and its environment
4. Inserted genes may
- disrupt the plant's own genes
- be unstable in their new environment
- function differently than expected (producing diff. protein)
5. Fragments and Rearrangements

Greenpeace European Unit

GE Product Fragments and Rearrangements Reference

Monsanto Roundup Ready  2 additional unintended fragments Monsanto (2000)

Soya  534 bp1 segment of “unidentified” DNA Windels et al.
Resistant to glyphosate  One of the fragments and the unidentified DNA (2001)
herbicide are transcribed to RNA, one step away from Monsanto (2002)
creating an unintentional protein

Syngenta Bt11  Rearrangements of insert, truncations and Moens & de

Resistant to European Corn unexpected insertions Schrijver (2003a)
borer (Bt – Cry1Ab) and  Unexpected “stop” signal T35
glufosinate herbicide  Possible contamination by Bt176
 Possibly extra copies of genetic insert

Syngenta Bt176 1. Glufosinate resistant insert: At least 4 Moens & de

Resistant to European Corn fragments of the insert are present (Dossier Schrijver (2003b)
borer (Bt – Cry1Ab) and describes 2 copies).
glufosinate herbicide  Possible rearranged fragment of bacterial vector
 “Stop” signal (T35S) missing
1. Bt insert: At least 5 copies (dossier states 2-5
copies)

Monsanto Mon810  Probable rearrangement at 3’ end - explaining Hernández et al.

Resistant to European Corn the partial loss of the inserted gene. (2003)
borer (Bt – Cry1Ab)

Greenpeace European Unit

 3. Environmental impacts
Insect-resistant crops:
1. Toxicity to ‘non-target’ organisms and beneficial insects.
2. Threats to soil and river ecosystems
3. Development of insect resistance

Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops:

1. Toxic effects of herbicides on ecosystems.
2. Increased weed tolerance to herbicide
3. Loss of native flora and other biodiversity.
4. Effects on soil-plant system (e.g. microbial community,
manganese uptake).

Greenpeace European Unit

 Soya and herbicides (Glyphosate)
Use of Glyphosate in Argentina from 1991 to 2007
Million of
Liters

Year
Source: Pengue, "Transgenic Soybean in Latin America", and Nature Protection Center (CeProNat)

Greenpeace European Unit

 4. Expensive - for the industry

Slide 79

Greenpeace European Unit

 Expensive - for farmers
IAASTD - World Bank, FAO, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, WHO
(400 scientists – 4 year process – 11 million Euro)

“In developing countries especially, instruments such as patents

may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual
farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining
local practices that enhance food security and economic
sustainability”

Contamination
• 230 contamination accidents (www.GMcontaminationregister.org)
• Unauthorised Bayer LL601 rice
• Unauthorised BASF Amadea potato
Greenpeace European Unit
 5. Corporate control
GM Crops
market
Bayer BASF
Monsanto Syngenta
DuPont Dow

100%

Source: ETC Group

Greenpeace European Unit

 5. Corporate control
GM Crops
market
Bayer BASF Global Agrochemical Market
Monsanto Syngenta
Bayer
DuPont Dow
Syngenta
Other

100% P o nt Dow
BASF

Du Monsanto

74% Source: ETC Group

Greenpeace European Unit

Owners of the Seed Market

Source: ETC Group

Greenpeace European Unit

 6. Hinder sustainable solutions
Agro-ecology
• UN Report Human Rights Council [United Nations ,Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, 2011]
- Agroforestry
Can double
- Water harvesting food
- Integration of livestock into farming systems production
- Integrated nutrient management in 10 years

• J. Pretty analysis 286 sustainable agriculture projects (57 poor countries)

- Average crop increase 79 %
- Supply critical environmental services

• UNCTAD UNEP analysis [UNEP-UNCTAD, 2008] UK Foresight Report (40 projects, 20 African countries)
- Average crop increase in Africa 116% and
- Average crop increase in East Africa 128%

Greenpeace European Unit

Climate-smart farming?
Agroforestry
Fertilizer trees (Faidherbia albida)
-Transfer nitrogen to the soil

- Enhance crop production

- Increase resilience of the system

- Store carbon

- “Reverse leaf phenology” (leaves fell rainy

season and grow dry season)

Malawi: increased maize yields by

280%

World Agroforestry Centre

Greenpeace European Unit

Greenpeace European Unit
Crop enhancement

Greenpeace European Unit

 Crop enhancement
Marker Assisted Selection
1. Increases stress tolerance (Drought tolerance regulated up to 60 genes)
2. Respects species barriers (All genes incorporated present within natural gene pool)
3. Fewer safety concerns (backcrossing and introgression long history of safe use)
4. Much cheaper

i. Bacterial blight rice (28 genes confer resistance) [Xieyou 218 China; Tubigan 7 Phillippines; Pusa 1460 and RP BIO 226 India]
ii. Low Amylose rice cooking and processing quality [Cadet and Jacinto in the U.S.]
iii. Drought tolerant rice [MAS 946-1 India – saves 60% water]
iv. Salt resistant rice [BR11 and BR28 Bangladesh]
v. Flood resistant rice [Swarna-Sub 1 India/Bangladesh; Samba Mahsuri and CR1009 India; IR64 Philippines; TDK1 Laos; BR11 Bangladesh]
vi. Drought tolerant ZM521 maize [conventionally-bred by CIMMYT]
vii. Drought tolerant Drysdale and Rees wheat [Graingene JV]

viii. Wheat stem rust (Ug99) [fungus spreading across Africa]

Greenpeace European Unit

7. Consumers rejection

Greenpeace European Unit

 8. Legal requirements
Risk assessment
Evaluate and consider long-term effects of GMOs
Directive 2001/18 Annex II

Assess GMOs effects on the ‘receiving environment’

Directive 2001/18 Annex II

Consider diverging scientific opinions

Reg. 178/2002 Art. 30(4)

Identify scientific uncertainty

Comm. Decision 2002/623

Greenpeace European Unit

 2008 Council Conclusions

1. Improve the implementation of the legal framework

2. Assess long-term impacts of GM plants and effects on non-target organisms

3. Take full account of specific regional and local characteristics of Member States

4. Assess the environmental consequences of changes in the use of herbicides

5. Ensure systematic and independent research on the potential risks of GMOs &
give independent researchers access to all relevant material

Greenpeace European Unit

 Concerns on MON810 maize
- Proven adverse effects on NTO (including indirect and long-term effects[i] [ii] [iii])

- Proven adverse effects on soil health[iv] [v] [vi]

- Proven adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems[vii] [viii]

- Causes insect resistance to the toxin it produces (Bt).[ix] [x]

- Laboratory tests submitted use the pure version of Bt toxin produced by bacteria
not the one produced by the plant.[xi] (invalidating MON810 environmental ‘safety’ tests)

- Strong variations in Bt toxin levels produced by MON810 (locations, time, even

between plants on the same field).[xii]
[i] Prasifka, P.L., Hellmich, R.L., Prasifka, J.R. & Lewis, L.C. 2007. Environmental Entomology 36:228-233.
[ii] Andow, D.A. and A. Hilbeck. 2004. Bioscience 54: 637-649.
[iii] Obrist, L.B., Dutton, A., Romeis, J. & Bigler, F. 2006. BioControl 51: 31-48. 39 scientists + 36 peer reviers
[iv] Baumgarte, S. & Tebbe, C.C. 2005. Molecular Ecology 14: 2539–2551.
[v] Stotzky, G. 2004. Plant and Soil 266: 77-89.
[vi] Zwahlen, C. Hilbeck, A. Gugerli, P. & Nentwig, W. 2003. Molecular Ecology 12: 765-775.
[vii] Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Tank, J.L., Royer, T.V., Whiles, M.R., Evans-White, M., Chambers, C., Griffiths, N.A., Pokelsek, J. & Stephen, M.L. 2007. PNAS 41: 16204–16208.
[viii] Bøhn, T., Primicerio, R., Hessen, D.O. & Traavik, T. 2008. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology DOI 10.1007/s00244-008-9150-5.
[ix] Chilcutt, C.H. and B.E.Tabashnik. 2004. PNAS 101:7526-7529.
[x] Andow, D.A. 2001. GE organisms: assessing environmental and human health effects. Letourneau, D.K. and B.E. Burrows (eds.) Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
[xi] Rosati, A., Bogani, P., Santarlasci, A. Buiatti, M. 2008. Plant Molecular Biology DOI 10.1007/s11103-008-9315-7.
[xii] Nguyen, H. T. & J. A. Jehle 2007. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 114: 820-87.

Greenpeace European Unit

 8. Legal requirements
Risk management
"Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection… It
shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that
preventive action should be taken,…"
Article 191 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full

scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.“
1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

“Decision-makers faced with an unacceptable risk, scientific uncertainty

and public concerns have a duty to find answers. Therefore, all these
factors have to be taken into consideration."
Commission Communication on the precautionary principle COM(2000)1

Greenpeace European Unit

Thank You

Greenpeace European Unit