WASHINGTON, DC, March 3, 2004 (ENS) - 

The 8,000 member Ecological Society of America (ESA) is calling for more interdisciplinary studies of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs). This recommendation is central to the organization's new scientific position paper, which address the nature of transgenic organisms and their possible impacts on ecosystems.

While the ESA position paper recognizes the possible benefits GEOs may offer, it addresses several areas of concern.

The organization notes that future applications of genetic engineering extend far beyond traditional breeding, to encompass transgenic viruses, bacteria, algae, fungi, grasses, trees, insects, fish, shellfish and many other species.

"Several environmental risks associated with gene flow, the evolution of resistance, and certain non-target effects could be irreversible," said Allison Snow, lead author of the position paper and a professor at Ohio State University. "Additional research is needed to evaluate circumstances under which this could happen."

One worry involves the unintended escape of transgenic salmon into wild populations. Current findings show contradictory results of transgenic salmon's faster development and eating habits. The engineered fish might out compete the natural populations, or their traits "could increase their susceptibility to predation and stressful environments," according to the paper.

"Understanding how genetic engineering will affect organisms living and dispersing outdoors is a major challenge," said ESA President William Schlesinger. "This position paper provides insight into the ecological questions that should be considered before genetically engineered organisms are released, as well as important recommendations for monitoring and evaluating GEOs once they are in the field."

The major recommendations in the paper include:

Rigorous, interdisciplinary scientific studies are needed to evaluate environmental benefits and risks posed by GEOs;

Designing GEOs to reduce environmental risks by incorporating specific genetic features, such as traits that limit unwanted gene flow between GE organisms and non-GE organisms;

Large scale or commercial release of GEOs should be prevented if scientific knowledge about possible risks is inadequate or suggests the potential for serious negative effects on ecosystems;

Well designed monitoring will be crucial to identify, manage, and mitigate environmental risks when there are reasons to suspect possible problems;

Science based regulation should subject all transgenic organisms to a similar risk-assessment framework, recognize that many environmental risks are specific to the GEO and location, and incorporate a cautious approach to environmental risk analysis;

Ecologists, agricultural scientists, molecular biologists and others need broader training and integrated communication to better address these issues.

"Another concern is that GEOs will interbreed with native populations once released," Snow said. "It is important to understand how an influx of transgenes can affect local populations, such as weedy relatives of crop plants. Also, new types of engineered microbes, insects, fish and horticultural plants are likely to require more ecological study than most domesticated food crops."

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

A personal view

The liability issues from GM contamination are being seen as getting compensation for a farmer whose land is contaminated by GM crops. Firstly Euro legislation requires "deliberate" contamination which means a farmer getting compensation is almost impossible but the most important aspect appears, including in the FOE Bill to have been lost. How do you protect a farmer who has to admit that patented GM crops which he has not paid for are growing on his land from being sued? In Canada when a farmer attempted to sue Monsanto, Monsanto counter sued and the farmer had to pay roughly £100,000 in compensation to Monsanto.

It is the protection of farmers from being sued by Monsanto/Aventis that is the real issue and legislation cannot protect a farmer from that.

Also please remember Canute. He went to the sea and told it to stay back as a demonstration of the limits of executive /legislative power. We now have a Prime Minister who appears to not understand this 

Legislation cannot sign up the birds, the bees or the wind. Separation distances requiring the birds the bees and the wind to sign up to them with the very real prospect of any farmer who complains going bankrupt as he is sued -means complete failure to prevent GM crops contaminating the whole of the UK. 

In this case a small Trojan Horse is as dangerous as a big one. Stop the Trojan Horse, or any legislation, the smallest breech is as bad as the biggest, the smaller the breech only means a slightly longer time scale before total contamination.

Regards

LM

(15/3/04)