[pf] NZ's Royal Commission on Gene Modif.; last two days' PA coverage.

by David MacClement

06 December 2000 20:17 UTC

· Jonathan Hill work for The Greens @parliament.govt.nz    D.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 20:43:48 +1300
From: Jonathan Hill <jonathan.hill@parliament.govt.nz>
To: GreenNews<GN@greenLists.org.nz>
Subject: [GN]Roundup of last two days' coverage of Royal Commission in NZPA
             {NZ Press Association}

FARMER TELLS INQUIRY OF HEAVY-HANDED TACTICS

Wellington, Dec 5, NZPA - Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, a folk hero
among opponents of genetic modification for his long battle with chemical
giant Monsanto, told the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification today
that ``heavy-handed'' tactics by GM companies must be resisted.

The former Saskatchewan mayor and member of parliament told the hearing
that his position in defending a Monsanto court action charging patent
infringement was that his GM-free farm had been accidentally ``contaminated''.
Giving evidence for organic certifier Bio-Gro, he said his 53 years' work
as a farmer and seed developer, including of some strains naturally
resistant to diseases, was now wasted.

He said that he and other people had been harassed by the ``gene police''
-- Monsanto-employed former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
He also gave examples of one-sided contracts, threats, herbicide ``spray
bombs'' dropped without permission on farms to test if they were growing
Monsanto products, and of demands for money to prevent court action.

He cited a Monsanto statement that it did not matter whether a farmer knew
it or not, if any genetically altered Monsanto product was found from
direct seed movement or cross-pollination, it was Monsanto's patent and
therefore its product. ``It angered me because it was my seed,'' he said.

Mr Schmeiser disagreed with the cross-examination of Chris Hodson, QC,
representing the Life Sciences Network, that the Monsanto position in his
trial was that he had deliberately planted its crops.
``Monsanto withdrew all those accusations and said they had no evidence
whatsoever to justify an allegation, and proceeded just with an
infringement of patent no matter how it got on the land,'' he said.

Another Saskatchewan farmer, Laverne Affleck, appearing by video link, said
he had been treated fairly by Monsanto, but his crops had been contaminated
by GM canola seed blown from a neighbouring farm. He doubted that Monsanto
would wish or could afford to pay for removal of his and every other
farmer's contamination, a process that could take up to six years of spraying.

Also appearing, American Corn Growers Foundation chief executive Gary
Goldberg argued that the GM debate was not about science, the environment
or health, but economics.
``Can farmers deal with the concerns over on-farm segregation, the risk of
liability caused by pollen contamination, and the fear of having only a
small handful of companies control the production and distribution?'' he
asked.

``Consumer resistance in Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Mexico, South
Africa, Brazil and the growing resistance in the United States makes it
unlikely that many market opportunities will be available for GM crops.
``Therefore, rather than take the risk, corn growers are going back to
conventional, non-GM seeds.''

Mr Goldberg gave evidence of plummeting US exports of corn and soybean,
because of the loss of European and other markets. With Japan now tipped to
put segregation demands, ``Americans could very well lose this vital
market'', he said. ``Maybe when we have lost all our major grain export
markets, will the realisation of what we have done begin to sink in.''

Agency: NZPA DOM reg gt
Keywords: GENETIC-COMMISSION
Slug: GENETIC

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMISSION TOLD GENETIC MODIFICATION RISKS `ASTRONOMICAL'
Wellington, Dec 4 - Once genetically modified seed had ``contaminated'' the
land, there would be no turning back, the Royal Commission on Genetic
Modification heard today.

Associate professor of plant science at Canada's University of Guelph, Ann
Clark, who today gave evidence for the organic group Bio-Dynamic Farming
and Gardening Association, also said the much heralded ``promise'' of
golden rice was little more than a PR exercise.

The world was about to be hit by the next wave of genetic modification
introducing foods such as ``nutra-ceutics'', vaccines and plastics, Dr
Clark said. ``Each one has a direct potential to affect human health,''she
said.

Under cross-examination by lawyer for the Life Sciences Network, Chris
Hodson, QC, she said: ``If you do decide to go this route, it's
unreturnable. Once dormant seed is in the soil, then your land is
contaminated.''

When Mr Hodson suggested to Dr Clark that the answer might be good
regulation, rather than banning the technology, she said: ``Regulations are
indications of design failure. ``The more we need regulations to stop us
killing each other, the more we should think about the design we're
following in the first place.''

She called golden rice, heralded as a breakthrough in overcoming
third-world vitamin A deficiencies to prevent blindness, ``a PR initiative
to humanise the benefits of genetic modification''. Natural foods were
available to correct the deficiencies, she said. ``The problem is poverty
... they can't afford it.'' New technology would not benefit third-world
people, she said, ``it will disfranchise them''.
Gene-food posed different risks from other plant breeding because of its
vast scale and the random way genes were inserted into a chromosome.
``Where the gene lands on a chromosome and which chromosome it lands on has
a huge influence on that gene and other unrelated genes,'' Dr Clark said.
``Order matters.''

Johannes Wirz, senior biologist at the Goetheanum research institute in
Switzerland, told the commission that up to 80 percent of all genetic
functions remained unknown.He also expressed the view that organisms were
``whole entities. ``If animals are whole, you come to certain ethical
decisions,'' Dr Wirz said.
He opposed genetic interference, for example, that would interfere with the
normal behaviour or physiology of cows. Highlighting a ``lack of trust due
to the BSE debacle, the Pusztai affair (a scientist sacked from Scotland's
Rowett Institute for voicing concerns about the new technology), and
negative images of companies like Monsanto'', he said most people did not
want modified food items or additives.

Agency: NZPA DOM mae gt
Keywords: GENETIC-COMMISSION
Slug: GENETIC