Letter: Gen on gene crops

From John Etherington

The acceptance of genetically engineered crops may depend as much on
education as on further research
(Editorial, 15 August, p 3). And consumers, MPs
and researchers all need educating.

Consumers need to realise that quite ordinary crops contain nasty
toxins—the solanine alkaloids of potatoes, for example. For its part,
agribusiness would win more trust if we knew that the ecological implications
were addressed, with funds being diverted to good applied ecological studies.
Researchers should be aware of the need for such studies.

A case in point is oilseed rape, or canola in the US (Brassica napus),
in which herbicide resistance has been engineered. Here in west Wales, normal
oilseed rape has been grown for only a decade. Already, it is one of the
commonest roadside aliens and appears as a weed infestation in many newly
ploughed fields.

A close relative is charlock, or wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis),
which shares most of rape’s genetic make-up. Charlock was an extremely serious
arable weed until the advent of herbicides, and it has very long-lived seed
which persists in soil for more than a century.

If the engineered variety of oilseed rape is grown by farmers and crosses
with wild plants, a charlock or a rape variety could turn up as a
herbicide-resistant arable weed with immensely long-lived seeds
(This Week, 15 August, p 5).

The precautionary principle should apply here, as it should in the case of
crops that are given bacterial genes for antibiotic tolerance not because they
need them but as a side effect of the engineering.

I fear that media hype about food safety, and the consequent political panic,
may divert attention from more serious problems.

eth.pbont@virgin.net