TAKE ACTION: STOP GM WINE!
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=87&page=1

(please copy and paste the whole link, if broken)
---

Genetic modification debate continues
10 November 2006
Biowatch responds to would-be field-triallists
Grape News, 10 November 2006
http://www.grape.co.za/News/061104biowatch.ht

The following is not Grape editorial matter, but material which Biowatch South Africa requested us to carry something we are happy to do.

Recently, in our continuing coverage of the Institute for Wine Biotechnology's Institute’s application for field trials with genetically modified grapevines, we pointed readers to the Institute's response to objections made against its proposals. Here, and in a linked document, Biowatch South Africa replies to those comments.

Introduction

There is an international ban on genetically modified wine and overwhelming rejection of all genetically modified food and drink by consumers in Europe - South Africa's key wine export market.

Nevertheless, the University of Stellenbosch's Institute for Wine Biotechnology is determined to carry out open-air experiments with genetically modified (GM) grapevines in Stellenbosch.

At the end of October, the Institute took out an advert in the Weekend Argus in which it insisted the proposed field trial poses no risk to the environment or the South African wine industry. However, the Institute was only able to say there was a "negligible" probability that the GM grapevines would contaminate the environment.

In its public notice about the open-air experiment, which the law requires it to place in at least three newspapers, the Institute said that the flowers on the GM grapevines would be bagged to "minimise pollen dispersal".

The GM grapevines will be Sultana and Chardonnay varieties grown in Stellenbosch. The Institute’s public notice does not say how many GM grapevines and non-GM grapevines are involved in the experiment.

In contrast, a field trial with GM grapevines started in France in September last year, appears to have far more stringent measures to prevent, not minimise, contamination.

According to reports about the field trial being run by the French government’s National Institute for Agricultural Research the following key issues emerge.

The 70 GM rootstocks which have been modified to resist fanleaf virus are completely surrounded by about 1 500 non-GM grapevines. The floral buds will be cut, so no grapes are produced.

Pinot Meunier grapevines a grape not grown in Alsace where the field trial is being carried out are being used. This eliminates the possibility of cross-pollination.

The soil in which the experiment is being done was specially brought in and the natural ground has been shielded from it.

The French Ministry of Agriculture made decisions about safety requirements with a steering committee comprising researchers, farmers neighbouring the trial site, consumer groups and anti-GM activists.

The University of Stellenbosch's Institute for Wine Biotechnology also said their open-air experiment was necessary to ensure that the industry remains at the cutting edge of technology.

But that assumes that GM technology is at the cutting edge, despite its failure to deliver plants that are able to resist disease. Field trials with GM grapevines conducted in Germany between 1999 and 2004 found that the GM vines were just as susceptible to fungal disease as conventional vines.

And recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that the very companies that have promoted GM are turning again to more conventional marker assisted selection.

Marker assisted selection involves locating desirable traits in wild or other varieties of a particular food crop and then cross-breeding those plants with existing commercial varieties to improve the crop. This also helps to add to genetic diversity and that can help to cushion the effects of climate extremes, such as, drought.

There have been reports that a Swiss grape grower, Valentin Blattner, has succeeded in producing a disease-resistant, cold-tolerant grape variety the "old-fashioned way" - by using pollen from one variety and crossing it with another.

The Institute would also have us believe that GM technology is beneficial to the environment, poses no risks to human health and that consumers who now reject it will be won over. There is evidence indicating the contrary.

Various surveys done in different countries suggest that the more consumers know about GM crops, the less accepting they are of these foods. Even one of the world’s leading GM seed producers, Syngenta has acknowledged that it will be hard to change consumer attitudes on this one. In an interview about marker assisted selection, Syngenta’s North American research director of vegetable seeds was reported as saying: "The public is lukewarm on GM products. Now we have technology that doesn’t have an image problem."

Research carried out on GM crops and pesticide use shows that, while the need to use pesticide or herbicide decreases in the first two to three years, it increases after this because other pests become dominant. Studies have also shown that GM crops have an adverse effect on biodiversity in the environment and that they may cause allergic reactions in humans.

Click here for the full document in which Biowatch's replies to the Institute are given.
http://www.grape.co.za/News/061104aBSAdocument.htm